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.
The Eldar Lynx at 420 points can take a Pulsar: D, AP2, large blast
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.
Not sure why the argument is 1500 point escalation games, most tourneys are at least 1750-1850 if not 2k these days
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.
Ah, I understand your argument now.
With riptide weapons, the opposing player at least has a chance of survival. D weapons ignore cover, every kind of saves and cause instant death. Riptide weapons don't do it to the degree that D weapons do. Yes, Riptides are OP and are one of the game breaking things I dislike about 40k. If it was me I'd nerf them as well as the other obviously OP (and boost the useless units) to gain something approaching balance. But 7th seems to be going the opposite way I'd like.
WrentheFaceless wrote: 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.
No, there aren't.
You're, again, only looking at single wound models. A single Riptide's shooting won't ever (unless I roll very very poorly) kill an entire unit of Carnifexes. A single D weapon? Not unlikely at all.
D is worse because it can not only eliminate single wound units but also nukes the crap out of multi wound units and vehicles, much more reliably than anything else in the game.
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.
I would normally agree with you. Normally. If this were a better designed game.
But 40k has a serious problem with saves in general, compared to fantasy. Ever heard of a screamer star? That alone is justification for a S: D weapon, never mind all the other ways that it's possible to abuse the invulnerable save system. The ability to have a weapon that ignored all saves became a downright necessity when you considered the ability to get 2++ re-rollable or nearest equivalent. Or similar issued with 2+ save models hanging around in cover. The point when models are able to get saves so obscene that the firepower required to remove them is orders of magnitude greater in cost than the models themselves, we have a problem.
S: D was the previous response. It allowed us the option to look a save gimping arsehole dead in the eyes and tell him to stop that gak right now. Now, S: D is a waste of time and space, if only one in 6 hits is going to do the thing we brought the S: D for in the first place.
If there is a problem a given level of firepower cannot remove, then scale up until it does go away. Basic sense, right? Only now save gimping models have no reliable counter and the balance wobbles ever further off tilt.
They're not even titan killers for their points. D3+1 hull points again most likely unless they roll a 6. Or a 1 (one HP probably). An average titan needs to be shot three times by a D weapon.
Compare that to the titan-killing power of a bunch of melta, lances, haywire, etc and D weapons are poor choices.
Sure, let's do this then. Let's compare best to best - AP1 melta vs Str D. We can safely ignore all cover/inv saves if these rumours are to be believed, as that is a static scalar. Now, let's look at the expectations:
Let's assume D weapons can't miss - this is not unreasonable.
E[D3+1] = (2+3+4)/3 = 3
E[D6+6] = (7+8+9+10+11+12)/6 = 9.5
Explodes do D3 HP, +1 for the pen, so D3+1 also.
E[BS4 melta HP vs AV14] = (2/3)((5/35)+(5/6)(21/36)+3(1/6)(21/36)) = 116/189 ~=0.614
A Str D weapon is roughly 5.8 times more effective than a melta. That means that a Warhound is roughly as good at 24 meltaguns. It does this from a huge range with almost unrestricted view. It's also substantially better against literally everything else as well. This is if they do allow cover as well - if they don't and the average save is 4+ then this goes up to 48 meltaguns. There is no way you can seriously look me in the eye and say that 24 meltaguns firing across the board is in any way bad. The entire argument is complete nonsense; this is a weapon which can kill hordes, MCs and Titans with ridiculous ease. To claim it's somehow underpowered because it no longer has the capacity to just delete units all of the time shows a great lack of common sense.
WrentheFaceless wrote: 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.
No, there aren't.
You're, again, only looking at single wound models. A single Riptide's shooting won't ever (unless I roll very very poorly) kill an entire unit of Carnifexes. A single D weapon? Not unlikely at all.
D is worse because it can not only eliminate single wound units but also nukes the crap out of multi wound units and vehicles, much more reliably than anything else in the game.
For the point cost of their platforms, I dont see how this is unreasonable, especially with the changes now that they dont ignore invuln saves on anything but a 6.
Eyjio wrote: Sure, let's do this then. Let's compare best to best - AP1 melta vs Str D. We can safely ignore all cover/inv saves if these rumours are to be believed, as that is a static scalar. Now, let's look at the expectations:
Let's assume D weapons can't miss - this is not unreasonable.
E[D3+1] = (2+3+4)/3 = 3
E[D6+6] = (7+8+9+10+11+12)/6 = 9.5
Explodes do D3 HP, +1 for the pen, so D3+1 also.
E[BS4 melta HP vs AV14] = (2/3)((5/35)+(5/6)(21/36)+3(1/6)(21/36)) = 116/189 ~=0.614
A Str D weapon is roughly 5.8 times more effective than a melta. That means that a Warhound is roughly as good at 24 meltaguns. It does this from a huge range with almost unrestricted view. It's also substantially better against literally everything else as well. This is if they do allow cover as well - if they don't and the average save is 4+ then this goes up to 48 meltaguns. There is no way you can seriously look me in the eye and say that 24 meltaguns firing across the board is in any way bad. The entire argument is complete nonsense; this is a weapon which can kill hordes, MCs and Titans with ridiculous ease. To claim it's somehow underpowered because it no longer has the capacity to just delete units all of the time shows a great lack of common sense.[/size]
Their ability to output wounds was never in question.
Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.
Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.
WrentheFaceless wrote: For the point cost of their platforms, I dont see how this is unreasonable, especially with the changes now that they dont ignore invuln saves on anything but a 6.
You're right - it's not unreasonable.
The current rumors are perfectly reasonable. Thanks for agreeing!
Not sure why the argument is 1500 point escalation games, most tourneys are at least 1750-1850 if not 2k these days
Does it matter? Does my point still stand? Is it relevant?
Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.
WrentheFaceless wrote: For the point cost of their platforms, I dont see how this is unreasonable, especially with the changes now that they dont ignore invuln saves on anything but a 6.
You're right - it's not unreasonable.
The current rumors are perfectly reasonable. Thanks for agreeing!
Yes I agree with Invulns being taken.
And I still ask for proof of cover being allowed as well.
Thats all I asked originally.
Another question though, how many points does 24 meltaguns cost?
Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.
Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?
No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.
Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.
Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?
No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.
I disagree, there are plenty of answers in a tournament standard 1850 point list for a superheavy with D.
Eyjio wrote: Sure, let's do this then. Let's compare best to best - AP1 melta vs Str D. We can safely ignore all cover/inv saves if these rumours are to be believed, as that is a static scalar. Now, let's look at the expectations:
Let's assume D weapons can't miss - this is not unreasonable.
E[D3+1] = (2+3+4)/3 = 3
E[D6+6] = (7+8+9+10+11+12)/6 = 9.5
Explodes do D3 HP, +1 for the pen, so D3+1 also.
E[BS4 melta HP vs AV14] = (2/3)((5/35)+(5/6)(21/36)+3(1/6)(21/36)) = 116/189 ~=0.614
A Str D weapon is roughly 5.8 times more effective than a melta. That means that a Warhound is roughly as good at 24 meltaguns. It does this from a huge range with almost unrestricted view. It's also substantially better against literally everything else as well. This is if they do allow cover as well - if they don't and the average save is 4+ then this goes up to 48 meltaguns. There is no way you can seriously look me in the eye and say that 24 meltaguns firing across the board is in any way bad. The entire argument is complete nonsense; this is a weapon which can kill hordes, MCs and Titans with ridiculous ease. To claim it's somehow underpowered because it no longer has the capacity to just delete units all of the time shows a great lack of common sense.[/size]
Their ability to output wounds was never in question.
Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.
Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.
I think the argument is being made that instead of using D weapons to kill screamerstars or whatever, the better solution would be to solve the brokenness of said screamerstars and not use D weapons as a crutch for poor game design.
Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.
Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.
Serious question - do you think it's right to introduce a gun where there is absolutely no possible defence against it, put it on platforms which can fire with impunity at anything and then make it into large blasts so it affects multiple units? Do you think that the solution to a punctured tire is to slash the edges? Come on.
bubber wrote: 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??
That's a good point, we've been expecting those to drop for awhile now and this would be the perfect time for them.
bubber wrote: 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??
No official word as yet, but I'd be amazed if they didn't. especially now that the existing resin models are online exclusives.
I just hope they don't go too crazy with the scale, though given GW's current bigger-is-better mentality I'd not be surprised if new GDs end up the size of Knights.
Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.
Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?
No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.
I disagree, there are plenty of answers in a tournament standard 1850 point list for a superheavy with D.
And there are plenty of extra layers of resilience you can add to that titan at 1850pts.
We can do this forever. The point is, D weapons have no place in standard 40k game because they're the worst example of balance currently. Changing the points value in an example from 1500 to 1850 doesn't invalidate my point.
MWHistorian wrote: I think the argument is being made that instead of using D weapons to kill screamerstars or whatever, the better solution would be to solve the brokenness of said screamerstars and not use D weapons as a crutch for poor game design.
I would love for that to happen, believe me. I'd love for a lot of surrently S: D weapons to get relegated to a D: D lite, much like what the new edition seems to be giving us.
But unless invun saves have changed (no rumors thus far), we've just ripped a crutch from the arms of a game with a broken leg. You have so solve the problem before you remove the temporary fix, not the other way around...
Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.
Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.
Serious question - do you think it's right to introduce a gun where there is absolutely no possible defence against it, put it on platforms which can fire with impunity at anything and then make it into large blasts so it affects multiple units?
So long as that model is aptly priced and not gimpy as feth in its defense, yes. I don't care how ballsy you think your guy is, a shell the size of your body exploding on your face is fatal, end of. Knights are cheese because invun saves, as we know, but that's a different matter.
Ever heard of a screamer star? That alone is justification for a S: D weapon
No, it isn't.
Why do you think replacing one broken piece of gak mechanic with another broken piece of gak mechanic is a good thing? If D-Weapons with the 7E ruleset (i.E., Invulns can be taken against it) were introduced into standard 40K before the Screamerstar, you could make this exact same argument but in reverse.
"Ever heard of D-Weapons? That alone is justification for Screamerstar."
Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.
Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?
No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.
I disagree, there are plenty of answers in a tournament standard 1850 point list for a superheavy with D.
And there are plenty of extra layers of resilience you can add to that titan at 1850pts.
We can do this forever. The point is, D weapons have no place in standard 40k game because they're the worst example of balance currently. Changing the points value in an example from 1500 to 1850 doesn't invalidate my point.
My disagreement invalidates your opinion. Well not really invalidates it but doesnt agree with.
But i would agree with the sentiment to fix rerollable bullcrap and have D removed in that instance. But if rerollable bullcrap stays, then so must D
MWHistorian wrote: I think the argument is being made that instead of using D weapons to kill screamerstars or whatever, the better solution would be to solve the brokenness of said screamerstars and not use D weapons as a crutch for poor game design.
I would love for that to happen, believe me. I'd love for a lot of surrently S: D weapons to get relegated to a D: D lite, much like what the new edition seems to be giving us.
But unless invun saves have changed (no rumors thus far), we've just ripped a crutch from the arms of a game with a broken leg. You have so solve the problem before you remove the temporary fix, not the other way around...
What problems? 2++ Screamers? They rely on psychic powers now. Powers that are now harder to rely on. You're saying we still need broken D weapons because it might not have been fixed enough? Really?
What problems? 2++ Screamers? They rely on psychic powers now. Powers that are now harder to rely on. You're saying we still need broken D weapons because it might not have been fixed enough? Really?
Didnt you just admit that D was fine if you could take invuln against it?
Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.
Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?
No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.
An Eldar Lynx has 11/11/11 armor, 6 hull points, and a 4+++ titan holofield save. It dies to medium-strength weaponry quite easily. Not sure how it's ridiculous in an 1850.
An Eldar Lynx has 11/11/11 armor, 6 hull points, and a 4+++ titan holofield save. It dies to medium-strength weaponry quite easily. Not sure how it's ridiculous in an 1850.
To be honest, I know very little of non-titan Eldar super heavies. Never really considered them for much.
It isn't ridiculous, I'll give you that. Still, doesn't make D weapons any less terrifying.
Ever heard of a screamer star? That alone is justification for a S: D weapon
No, it isn't.
Why do you think replacing one broken piece of gak mechanic with another broken piece of gak mechanic is a good thing? If D-Weapons with the 7E ruleset (i.E., Invulns can be taken against it) were introduced into standard 40K before the Screamerstar, you could make this exact same argument but in reverse.
"Ever heard of D-Weapons? That alone is justification for Screamerstar."
Stop.
It doesn't work the other way around. Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected, and screamer stars wouldn't affect that in the least. They'd still die. The pre-existence of S: D would have made less people want screamer stars at all, not have justified them.
Why don't you explain to me why you think it's reasonable for a model with a swanky shield to be able to survive a missile ten times the size of him to the face because his stat line has eternal warrior and a 3+ invun slapped on? Invun saves are a blight upon 40k, and whilst I begrudgingly accept they exist they still make no sense.
They make sense against small arms, even some larger arms. But eventually the guns get too big.
rigeld2 wrote: What problems? 2++ Screamers? They rely on psychic powers now. Powers that are now harder to rely on. You're saying we still need broken D weapons because it might not have been fixed enough? Really?
Screamers are the extreme example. Invulns and other saves in general are the easily abused problem.
What problems? 2++ Screamers? They rely on psychic powers now. Powers that are now harder to rely on. You're saying we still need broken D weapons because it might not have been fixed enough? Really?
Didnt you just admit that D was fine if you could take invuln against it?
... Yes? Which is what I said there?
And actually, it's fine if you can take cover saves against them too. Perhaps you're not following the argument?
Another question though, how many points does 24 meltaguns cost?
Cheapest BS4 unit I can think of which gets them is Fire Dragons. That's 528 points for 24 with no transport on T3 infantry models. Including any transport capable of moving all 22, even at min points exceeds the cost of any comparable Titan.
In summary:
-More expensive
-Worse against anything but vehicles
-Far, far easier to kill
-Crippling range VS the entire board
-No true line of sight advantage
-Much harder to buff all 24 unlike a single model titan
-Only available to one codex
So in the best possible case, with that Titan nerf AND in the best possible codex tailoring specifically... it's still way better to take Str D titans.
Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected
No, they aren't. There's nothing reasonable about a weapon that ignores every save in the game and insta-kills almost everything in the game, in standard 40K. Why do you think that's reasonable?
Whether you like saves nor not, by your own admission they exist, and not only do they exist, but they're an integral part of the games balance by design. Weapons that invalidate all of those saves therefore break the game. If you want to argue about whether saves should be a thing in 40K, be my guest. But you're no longer discussing game balance, you're wish-listing.
My disagreement invalidates your opinion. Well not really invalidates it but doesnt agree with.
That's nice. Do you have anything of substance of add, or are we done here?
And your hypothetical scenarios are substance now?
We're done.
No, my point has always been based on game design, and how D weapons invalidate everything (except flyers) it points at.
I used a theoretical 1500pts game to illustrate how its poor game design. You countered by saying that's a poor example because some tournaments operate at a different point level. I said, fine, make it 1850, and my point still stands.
My substance has never been based on anything other than how D weapons simply remove whatever it touches, and the only effective counter is other D weapons. So are you actually going to counter that, or pick at a tiny detail in an example that was used to quickly illustrate the absurdity that is theoretically possible within the game rules?
Another question though, how many points does 24 meltaguns cost?
Cheapest BS4 unit I can think of which gets them is Fire Dragons. That's 528 points for 24 with no transport on T3 infantry models. Including any transport capable of moving all 22, even at min points exceeds the cost of any comparable Titan.
In summary:
-More expensive
-Worse against anything but vehicles
-Far, far easier to kill
-Crippling range VS the entire board
-No true line of sight advantage
-Much harder to buff all 24 unlike a single model titan
-Only available to one codex
So in the best possible case, with that Titan nerf AND in the best possible codex tailoring specifically... it's still way better to take Str D titans.
Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected
No, they aren't. There's nothing reasonable about a weapon that ignores every save in the game and insta-kills almost everything in the game, in standard 40K. Why do you think that's reasonable?
Why is reasonable than a model can survive taking a deathstrike to the face with no qualms? How does that make any sense, logic, or reason? What is the point of allowing investment in expensive and limited scope weapons of such magnitude if they are no different in mechanics to a lasgun?
What the living hell is this. RANDOM. VICTORY. POINTS. Like...holy hell, what are those guys thinking? So you may greatly outplay an enemy and outmaneuver him and he can still prove superior by a mere luckier d3 roll? We're talking about a possible difference of 2 VP here.
Also: 3 challenges in one turn...what.
The ball GW dropped just passed through the earth's center.
What the living hell is this. RANDOM. VICTORY. POINTS. Like...holy hell, what are those guys thinking? So you may greatly outplay an enemy and outmaneuver him and he can still prove superior by a mere luckier d3 roll? We're talking about a possible difference of 2 VP here.
Also: 3 challenges in one turn...what.
The ball GW dropped just passed through the earth's center.
Quit your whining and FORGE THE NARRATIVE HARDER!!!.
No, my point has always been based on game design, and how D weapons invalidate everything (except flyers) it points at.
I used a theoretical 1500pts game to illustrate how its poor game design. You countered by saying that's a poor example because some tournaments operate at a different point level. I said, fine, make it 1850, and my point still stands.
My substance has never been based on anything other than how D weapons simply remove whatever it touches, and the only effective counter is other D weapons. So are you actually going to counter that, or pick at a tiny detail in an example that was used to quickly illustrate the absurdity that is theoretically possible within the game rules?
And taking the 7th ed confirmed invuln saves and rumor cover saves, does D still invalidate most units? 7th edition D still over the line?
Currently, yes D is strong, thats not what the argument was about. It was about D in 7th, and if cover and invuln saves would make them worth the points cost for the platforms they have to be on.
I'm fine with you not liking D as it currently is, itll be as it is for about another week or so.
So tell me, do you still feel the same about D in its 7th ed incarnation that you can possibly take cover, but certainly invuln against any D table roll that isnt a 6?
Why is reasonable than a model can survive taking a deathstrike to the face with no qualms?
Because the game is balanced around certain units being able to survive a deathstike, and they're priced accordingly for that invulnerable saves.
I see your strawman here, and I don't know why you're still trying to use Screamerstar's 2++ to justify the existence of D-Weapons. Screamerstar as a mechanic is broken and shouldn't be in the game- but that doesn't justify D-Weapons because what you don't seem to understand is that D-Weapons don't just murder "broken deathstars".
They murder everything in the game. Units with D-Weapons are in fact death stars unto themselves. So you're replacing an evil game mechanic with an evil game mechanic. What are you actually achieving then?
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.
So my 10 Ravagers, Full Beastpack, Baron, 2 Farseer and Autarch list is a go then at 1750?
So far, 7th doesn't look like "Forge your narrative!" but rather "Forge your own rules to make this work!". The amount of house-ruling this may need is too damn high!
WrentheFaceless wrote:
But i would agree with the sentiment to fix rerollable bullcrap and have D removed in that instance. But if rerollable bullcrap stays, then so must D
So you follow the theory of two wrongs make a right? Fixing both is the ideal but I'll take one over none any day.
I'm a power gamer now because I like using my neat looking model?
Nothing is stopping you from using your neat looking model under the rumored rules. Now, if you only GAME with them specifically because of their POWER, well...
Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected
No, they aren't. There's nothing reasonable about a weapon that ignores every save in the game and insta-kills almost everything in the game, in standard 40K. Why do you think that's reasonable?
Whether you like saves nor not, by your own admission they exist, and not only do they exist, but they're an integral part of the games balance by design. Weapons that invalidate all of those saves therefore break the game. If you want to argue about whether saves should be a thing in 40K, be my guest. But you're no longer discussing game balance, you're wish-listing.
I think me and Brachiaraidos are playing totally different games. In the games I play, a D weapon would be so over powered that there'd be little point in actually playing it out. Turn 1. He shoots his D cannon. (Kills me leader and whole command squad.)
My turn. Okay, I move up. Fire missiles. Miss.
His turn. I shoot my D cannon. Blows up my exorcist.
And so on and so on. Every turn he wipes a unit of mine off the board. If you think that's fun, power to you. But I don't and refuse to play with or against D weapons.
Zothos wrote: Our group simply ruled that a 2++ re rollable was not possible to achieve. Much like a 1+ armor save.
Solved all the issues we had. Easy.
Hopefully GW does the same.
D Weapon.s are a horrible idea. Always have been. Keep it to apocalypse where silliness belongs
It should just be a universal rule of the game's mechanics that no invulnerable save may ever go lower than a 3+ unless explicitly stated in the rule of save (.E. Gazzy's Waaaagh which explicitly states that he has a 2++).
MWHistorian wrote: I think me and Brachiaraidos are playing totally different games. In the games I play, a D weapon would be so over powered that there'd be little point in actually playing it out. Turn 1. He shoots his D cannon. (Kills me leader and whole command squad.) My turn. Okay, I move up. Fire missiles. Miss. His turn. I shoot my D cannon. Blows up my exorcist. And so on and so on. Every turn he wipes a unit of mine off the board. If you think that's fun, power to you. But I don't and refuse to play with or against D weapons.
I don't think he's even considering the effects of D-Weapons on normal gameplay at general points value games. All he sees is that it can kill deathstars.
Why is reasonable than a model can survive taking a deathstrike to the face with no qualms?
Because the game is balanced around certain units being able to survive a deathstike, and they're priced accordingly for that invulnerable saves.
Which is, in my humble opinion, a design flaw. Your mileage may vary.
What is the point of allowing investment in expensive and limited scope weapons of such magnitude if they are no different in mechanics to a lasgun?
Hyperbole weakens your argument. If a death strike actually hits its target it will wipe out 90% of the non-MC/Vehicle units in the game.
Stop dodging the question. Why do you think that something that insta-kills everything in the game is a good mechanic, in a game that's built around expensive units having high durability?
Because any game that allows a build that focuses on high durability needs an appropriate response. Anything, no matter what it is, should have a counter. And a hard counter, at that. That's how warfare works and that's what I feel the game should offer- and in many ways currently does in every way but invun saves.
If my opponent has invested all of his points into one unit, that should be a punishable and poor decision. Promoting tactical inflexibility in lieu of invun saves is nothing short of lazy, and, to pay homage to GW, forging a shoddy narrative.
Anything else in the game has its counter. A flier spamming army meets one with interceptor out the arse, it pays for its inflexibility. Human waves wither to templates. A gimped ward save unit currently has, or had, one answer. Which was the investment of a huge amount of points into one consolidated shot.
And that's a perfectly reasonable way to invest points, as far as I'm concerned. I lose a lot tactical adaptability by spending all those points onto one big ass gun to deal with a problem. Because if my big ass gun does not deal with the problem (hello 7th ed), there is now no way to deal with that problem with investing multiple times the points cost my opponent has. The prevalence of invun saves you cannot remove or circumvent is now a way to be able to field a unit you can say with nigh on 100% certainty will make a net profit in its battlefield life; even if it dies without killing anything, the firepower invested into killing it will have cost so much more than the unit that it operates as a profit for your army.
Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.
WrentheFaceless wrote:
But i would agree with the sentiment to fix rerollable bullcrap and have D removed in that instance. But if rerollable bullcrap stays, then so must D
So you follow the theory of two wrongs make a right? Fixing both is the ideal but I'll take one over none any day.
Rarely I do, but in a game where people want competition, everything should have a counter. But would prefer for the main problem to get fixed before a band-aid is slapped on it.
Something you cant kill is just as annoying as something you cant live against.
Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.
MWHistorian wrote: Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.
I brought it up just as example of a D weapon (when given a vortex head) that illustrates the absurdity of Invun and eternal warrior if D allows them. A model takes a missile he's a tenth of the size of and can shrug it off because he has a swanky shield. Sensible, right?
MWHistorian wrote: Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.
I brought it up just as example of a D weapon (when given a vortex head) that illustrates the absurdity of Invun and eternal warrior if D allows them. A model takes a missile he's a tenth of the size of and can shrug it off because he has a swanky shield. Sensible, right?
Most invul saves come from a force field of some kind. You've never seen Akira, have you.
MWHistorian wrote: Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.
I brought it up just as example of a D weapon (when given a vortex head) that illustrates the absurdity of Invun and eternal warrior if D allows them. A model takes a missile he's a tenth of the size of and can shrug it off because he has a swanky shield. Sensible, right?
A model can fly around like a bird because he has a swanky brain. Totes sensabibble.
bubber wrote: 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??
No official word as yet, but I'd be amazed if they didn't. especially now that the existing resin models are online exclusives.
I just hope they don't go too crazy with the scale, though given GW's current bigger-is-better mentality I'd not be surprised if new GDs end up the size of Knights.
Some of the resin models that had recently been out of stock have come back - Fateweaver was back in stock this morning on the U.S. site for one, but you can't really be sure if they made more models or just had some shipped from the U.K. (where I believe Space Chikin has been in stock the whole time). Coteaz was gone for a while and is now available too. I figured they would be gone until GDs got a plastic update if that was really going to happen, but this isn't much more than a wild guess...
MWHistorian wrote: Most invul saves come from a force field of some kind. You've never seen Akira, have you.
Sadly, I have. Didn't much enjoy it. But even with a force field- it has to be a force field that is projected from an object small enough to be carried by the individual in question.
Small arms? Sure. But the battery in that shield ain't gonna hold if a macro cannon hits you in the face. You just die.
MWHistorian wrote: I think me and Brachiaraidos are playing totally different games. In the games I play, a D weapon would be so over powered that there'd be little point in actually playing it out. Turn 1. He shoots his D cannon. (Kills me leader and whole command squad.)
My turn. Okay, I move up. Fire missiles. Miss.
His turn. I shoot my D cannon. Blows up my exorcist.
And so on and so on. Every turn he wipes a unit of mine off the board. If you think that's fun, power to you. But I don't and refuse to play with or against D weapons.
I don't think he's even considering the effects of D-Weapons on normal gameplay at general points value games. All he sees is that it can kill deathstars.
For what it's worth, my over arching opinion on 40k would see D weapons less common, to bring it into a wider context. I'm still an advocate of Fantasy style percentage allocations. Whilst it didn't make Fantasy free of broken things, it has gone a long way to avoiding the problem. A 10-20% allocation for Lords of War, and keeping D only in said category, would work fine by me.
I play an awful lot of different wargames. And yes, I'd cry foul if all my opponent brought in a WWII game was ISU-152's. Because one is fine- it's a battlefield presence, and it will wipe squads and ruin even the biggest vehicles. But it's still just one gun, in just one box. You suffer the knocks and find a way to resolve the problem. Having them everywhere, or in a tiny game, would obviously be too much. And so it holds true for S: D in 40k.
Neither invun or D are currently in a particularly good state. Nor is the FoC, as far as I'm concerned. But more than just a decision on artistic direction for the game, the gimping of D has brought with it a worsening of the problem of deathstars.
Sigvatr wrote: D weapons will, most likely, not allow cover saves. Anything else would be completely stupid.
The WD states invulnerables would be allowed except for 6s.
Also, according to Faeit's recent post: D weapons got toned down a bit. chart now goes....
...1 = nothing
2-5 = D3+1 wounds but you get to take Invul and Cover
...6 = 6 + D6 wounds no cover or Invul.
For what it's worth, my over arching opinion on 40k would see D weapons less common, to bring it into a wider context. I'm still an advocate of Fantasy style percentage allocations. Whilst it didn't make Fantasy free of broken things, it has gone a long way to avoiding the problem. A 10-20% allocation for Lords of War, and keeping D only in said category, would work fine by me.
Oddly enough, Forge World's Legions army FOC which includes a Lord of War only allows up to 25% of the army total to be spent on that Lord of War slot.
Sigvatr wrote: D weapons will, most likely, not allow cover saves. Anything else would be completely stupid.
The WD states invulnerables would be allowed except for 6s.
Also, according to Faeit's recent post: D weapons got toned down a bit. chart now goes....
...1 = nothing
2-5 = D3+1 wounds but you get to take Invul and Cover
...6 = 6 + D6 wounds no cover or Invul.
That's still mighty powah'ful if you ask me...
It's not... GTG in cover would give a 3+ save against D weapons. They'd kill like 2 tac marines if they hit a whole squad.
Brachiaraidos wrote: Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.
With D weapons ignoring everything, what's the hard counter to D weapons? Since everything must have a hard counter after all.
Would it be another D weapon? Do you not see how fething stupid that is?
Sigvatr wrote: D weapons will, most likely, not allow cover saves. Anything else would be completely stupid.
The WD states invulnerables would be allowed except for 6s.
Also, according to Faeit's recent post: D weapons got toned down a bit. chart now goes.... ...1 = nothing 2-5 = D3+1 wounds but you get to take Invul and Cover ...6 = 6 + D6 wounds no cover or Invul.
That's still mighty powah'ful if you ask me...
It's not... GTG in cover would give a 3+ save against D weapons. They'd kill like 2 tac marines if they hit a whole squad.
*If* that chart is true... are you counting the "D3+1" accounting? If a large blast hits a whole 5 man squad, and rolls 2-5 for all five models... that's D3+1(wounds) times five models. Anywere from 10 - 20 wounds.
Brachiaraidos wrote: Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.
With D weapons ignoring everything, what's the hard counter to D weapons? Since everything must have a hard counter after all.
Would it be another D weapon? Do you not see how fething stupid that is?
The counter to a D weapon is based on whatever the D weapon comes in.
But the general apt response would be cheap as gak infantry with a big gun in each, for vehicles. Force your opponent to take shots on threats to his D weapon that he won't be making his points back on. Actually maneuver.
*Sorry if this has been Covered, 193 pages is a lot to skim through....*
Is it confirmed that to successfully cast a Psychic Power, you have to roll a 4+ on a d6 per mastery level of the attempted power? For example, in order to cast a level 2 psychic power, I must roll two or more 4+ (avoiding perils on double 6's?) on the number of dice of my choosing?
Is there a limit to how many dice a certain level psyker can use to cast?
Brachiaraidos wrote: Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.
With D weapons ignoring everything, what's the hard counter to D weapons? Since everything must have a hard counter after all.
Would it be another D weapon? Do you not see how fething stupid that is?
Most D weapon platforms don't require D weapons to remove. If you can deal with a couple Predators in cover, you can deal with a Knight. If you can deal with a trio of Leman Russ tanks you can deal with a Shadowsword. Even the Eldar Phantom isn't all that hardy (massed autocannon fire will kill it), it's just got an absurd amount of mobility and firepower.
Brachiaraidos wrote: Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.
With D weapons ignoring everything, what's the hard counter to D weapons? Since everything must have a hard counter after all.
Would it be another D weapon? Do you not see how fething stupid that is?
The counter to a D weapon is based on whatever the D weapon comes in.
But the general apt response would be cheap as gak infantry with a big gun in each, for vehicles. Force your opponent to take shots on threats to his D weapon that he won't be making his points back on. Actually maneuver.
The simple fact that lists become "D weapon" or "anti-D weapon" is bad design. Because that's what it'll boil down to.
You do realize that only IG can really field "cheap as gak infantry with a big gun in each" right? So essentially you want people to play D weapons and IG?
The counter to a D weapon is based on whatever the D weapon comes in.
But the general apt response would be cheap as gak infantry with a big gun in each, for vehicles. Force your opponent to take shots on threats to his D weapon that he won't be making his points back on. Actually maneuver.
The simple fact that lists become "D weapon" or "anti-D weapon" is bad design. Because that's what it'll boil down to.
You do realize that only IG can really field "cheap as gak infantry with a big gun in each" right? So essentially you want people to play D weapons and IG?
Yeah, that's great game design.
It's an ideal response. But it's hardly the only. The response to a D weapon pointing at you is not to stand close together, in essence, and everything else is a matter of preference.
All the ranged S: D I can think of comes in vehicles or- in two cases- bunkers. Any bunker blows easily enough from a single penetrating hit. A baneblade is still going to explode from a timely lascannon volley. Infantry in general is cheap and carries enough firepower to remove a Knight, Baneblade, machirius, even a Titan.
If you want, you can trade D weapon blows. Else just bloody think about your combat and don't play to your opponents strength.
And that's because these vehicles don't come with invun saves making them cheese. Apart from the Knight. Which only has D melee anyway, AFAIK.
Most D weapon platforms don't require D weapons to remove. If you can deal with a couple Predators in cover, you can deal with a Knight. If you can deal with a trio of Leman Russ tanks you can deal with a Shadowsword. Even the Eldar Phantom isn't all that hardy (massed autocannon fire will kill it), it's just got an absurd amount of mobility and firepower.
Brachiaraidos wrote: Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.
With D weapons ignoring everything, what's the hard counter to D weapons? Since everything must have a hard counter after all.
Would it be another D weapon? Do you not see how fething stupid that is?
Most D weapon platforms don't require D weapons to remove. If you can deal with a couple Predators in cover, you can deal with a Knight. If you can deal with a trio of Leman Russ tanks you can deal with a Shadowsword. Even the Eldar Phantom isn't all that hardy (massed autocannon fire will kill it), it's just got an absurd amount of mobility and firepower.
Not true.
First, a Knight has a 4+ invul, not 5+ cover. Second, a couple Preds rushing into CC ASAP just doesn't happen. And while he's in CC guess what I can't do?
That said, I don't really have a problem with Knights.
3 Leman Russ tanks will not delete a unit a turn. Simply won't happen. The Shadowsword will - and it'll be the unit(s) that threaten it first.
Massed autocannon fire killing a Phantom? I'll use the Revenant rules because that's what I have access to (Escalation).
9 HP with a 4+ field save. I'll ignore cover for now because it might not always be able to get cover.
9 HP that an Autocannon needs a 5 to glance. So that's 27 hits. Half your hits are ignored completely so it's really 52 hits. Autocannon spam is only possible with IG so BS3 - so 104 Autocannon shots, 52 barrels.
And there's 2 units a turn disappearing from the IG side. Plus whatever the rest of the Eldar army is.
But yeah - sure. D weapon models are easy to deal with without D weapons.
edit: What you're saying is akin to me recommending that Lasguns are totes the way to go against Monstrous Creatures. Just spam the crap out of them - it works fine!
It's not even close to the most efficient way and bringing it up is an attempt to hand-wave away issues.
With conventional weapons, it'll usually take a couple of turns to kill something with a D weapon. If your list isn't optimised for anti super heavy combat, it'll take a few more. Meanwhile the D weapons are wiping out a unit each turn, chances are the units that are most likely to kill it. So the whole game comes down to trying to kill the D weapon and meanwhile the rest of D's army is still doing their thing.
I'm much more interested in the Tyranid love that's currently spreading from Faeit. Ready your salt for AP2 Vector Strikes and all armies (Tyranids!) Battlebrothering themselves:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Some of this is old news. Other parts not.
Vehicle chart has shifted one spot. Now tanks only explode on a 7+
Jink got punched in the neck. Now you have to choose wether or not to Jink after you are hit. If you choose to Jink you get your Jink save (which is now 4+) but you only snap shoot next turn. This is the rule in all cases. (Flyers,Bikes,skimmers, etc....)
All units except for Zooming flyers now score.
Interceptor + Skyfire no longer allows firing at normal BS at ground targets. You always snap fire at ground targets now if you have skyfire.
If you take a Battleforged list your troop units gain an ability where they cant be contested while holding and objective except by another unit with the same ability.
Psychic phase works as follows.....Roll a D6. Both players get this many dice. Then both players add up all their mastery levels and each player adds dice to his or her base pool one a 1 for 1 basis. (so If a 5 is rolled both players get 5. Player A has 4 Mastery levels so he ends up with 9 dice. Player B has 3 Mastery Levels so he has 8 dice.) Warp charges are now the powers difficulty. In order to cast a power you need a number of successes on D6s equal to its warp charges. A success is a 4+ on a D6. (If player A wanted to cast a 2 Warp Charge power he picks any number of dice and rolls them. 2 of them need to be 4+ for him to succeed.) If you fail in casting a power bad things happen to you. To Deny the Witch you choose howerver many dice you want a roll them. You need to score an equal or greater number of successes than the caster to cancel the power. A success on a Deny roll is a 6+. You get a bonus of +1 to each of the dice you roll for being a psyker, being higher mastery level or having Adimantium Will.
D weapons got toned down a bit. chart now goes....1 = nothing2-5 = D3+1 wounds but you get to take Invul and Cover 6 = 6 + D6 wounds no cover or Invul.
Battle Bothers can now get into each others transports.
You can now ally with Come the Apoc units. They get the same drawbacks as distrusted plus they cant be deployed within 12 inches of each other.
All armies are now Battle Brothers with their selves.
Vector strike is now AP 2 and you only score 1 hit per Vector Strike unless you are a Montrous creature then its still 1 plus a D3
Montrous creatures only take grounding checks if they are wounded not if they are just hit.
If you shoot a unit of mixed weapons you resolve each weapon type one at a time. Example...... If you shoot a Tac squad with 8 Bolters, a Melta and a Missile Launcher you roll to Hit and Wound with your bolters (or which ever of the 3 weapon types you choose to do first) then your opponent makes saves then you move on to the next weapon. Repeat until yuo fire the entire unit.Wounds are still taken from the front.
Vehicle Squadrons got better. You now keep resolving damage to the closest vehicle until it dies then move on to the next closest. No more having to spread all the Pens and Glances around then resolving.
Redsox84 wrote: *Sorry if this has been Covered, 193 pages is a lot to skim through....*
Is it confirmed that to successfully cast a Psychic Power, you have to roll a 4+ on a d6 per mastery level of the attempted power? For example, in order to cast a level 2 psychic power, I must roll two or more 4+ (avoiding perils on double 6's?) on the number of dice of my choosing?
Is there a limit to how many dice a certain level psyker can use to cast?
Nope, feel free to throw down ten dice with your lv 4 Eldrad.
Not true.
First, a Knight has a 4+ invul, not 5+ cover.
Lots of cover gives 4+sv's (such as Ruins and Aegis lines), and the Knight's save is directional, it only works in one arc, while you can get cover from multiple angles.
Second, a couple Preds rushing into CC ASAP just doesn't happen. And while he's in CC guess what I can't do?
If it's rushing into CC then you've likely got more tools to bring to bear, like meltaguns, a lot easier, and get around that directional save a lot easier. Either way, I think we agree there is no need for D weapons to engage a Knight.
3 Leman Russ tanks will not delete a unit a turn. Simply won't happen. The Shadowsword will - and it'll be the unit(s) that threaten it first.
A single S: D weapon is only going to delete a unit a turn if it's a tank or a small sized unit that's clumped up and your shot doesn't scatter. Either way, no need for D weapons to remove a Shadowsword. Other than the postulation that it'll be able to see, hit, and destroy everything that's going to be a threat to it before they can do anything back (which is silly assuming one pieplate a turn that needs LoS), you haven't shown that it's harder to kill than the Russ tanks. In fact, it's probably easier since you can cascade explodes results better and concentrate your firepower easier.
Massed autocannon fire killing a Phantom? I'll use the Revenant rules because that's what I have access to (Escalation).
Revenant, that's what I meant.
9 HP with a 4+ field save. I'll ignore cover for now because it might not always be able to get cover.
9 HP that an Autocannon needs a 5 to glance. So that's 27 hits. Half your hits are ignored completely so it's really 52 hits. Autocannon spam is only possible with IG so BS3 - so 104 Autocannon shots, 52 barrels.
And there's 2 units a turn disappearing from the IG side. Plus whatever the rest of the Eldar army is.
Yes, it's firepower is disgusting, but again, the thing itself doesn't require more firepower than say, an equivalent points investment in Holofield tanks. Lets say we're looking at a 150-165pt holofield tank, (lets assume wave serpents so we can largely ignore pens, unlikes on say if it were a Fire Prism or Falcon), AV12 3HP and a 4+ cover save in the open. At ~150pts each we can get 5 to a Revenant. That's 15 AV12 HP's with 4+ cover saves as long as they move. That'd require 180 BS3 autocannons, assuming no explodes results, and all separate targets that can't cascade Explodes results the way SH's do. I don't see people saying you need D weapons to take down 5 Holofield tanks.
edit: What you're saying is akin to me recommending that Lasguns are totes the way to go against Monstrous Creatures. Just spam the crap out of them - it works fine!
It's not even close to the most efficient way and bringing it up is an attempt to hand-wave away issues.
Not really, only if you assume that the D units will wipe out anything that can hurt them before they can engage, which is realistically only a possibility with the Revenant (which I'd agree is disgusting, but even compared to a Shadowsword it's painfully overpowered on a relative points basis)
So taking Tzeentch casters for example, I am assuming that they will peril on any double on say divination/telepathy/biomancy (and the other BRB tables) but only peril on dbl 6 on malefic and tzeentch tables?.
You can now ally with Come the Apoc units. They get the same drawbacks as distrusted plus they cant be deployed within 12 inches of each other.
If they attempt to justify some of these combos in the fluff the results will be equal parts hilarious, cringe inducing and appalling. Daemon summoning loyalists will be the least of it...
I'm much more interested in the Tyranid love that's currently spreading from Faeit. Ready your salt for AP2 Vector Strikes and all armies (Tyranids!) Battlebrothering themselves:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Some of this is old news. Other parts not.
1. All units except for Zooming flyers now score.
2. Interceptor + Skyfire no longer allows firing at normal BS at ground targets. You always snap fire at ground targets now if you have skyfire.
3. Psychic phase (...)A success on a Deny roll is a 6+. You get a bonus of +1 to each of the dice you roll for being a psyker, being higher mastery level or having Adimantium Will.
4. D weapons got toned down a bit. chart now goes....1 = nothing2-5 = D3+1 wounds but you get to take Invul and Cover 6 = 6 + D6 wounds no cover or Invul.
5. Battle Bothers can now get into each others transports.
6. You can now ally with Come the Apoc units. They get the same drawbacks as distrusted plus they cant be deployed within 12 inches of each other.
7. All armies are now Battle Brothers with their selves.
8. Vector strike is now AP 2 and you only score 1 hit per Vector Strike unless you are a Montrous creature then its still 1 plus a D3
1. Nice and makes sense. Would have liked even more if Swooping FMCs didn't score as well.
2. Fortifications' Quad-gun and Icarus Lascannon got worse! Good thing Velocity Tracker lets you choose when to use Skyfire or not
3. So the Deny bonuses aren't cumulative with themselves? 5+ tops, as it seems.
4. Allowing invul and cover will make D weapons much more to the liking of my fellas.
5. That's quite good. Too bad Devilfishes aren't a awesome transport... Outside scenarios: Karandras with Wracks and Haemunculus, Lelith with Striking Scorpions/Banshees, SoB's priests with Terminators in a Land Raider, SM shenanigans among themselves
6. Friend of mine plays Tyranids. He's keen to ally some Legion of the Damned to deal with stuff he has problems with. On my side, getting some nice FMCs/hordies to melee the enemy sounds promising.
7. Space Marines sharing the love of their rules. This is excellent, even more with (5.). No need for Supplements to get more slots!
8. Because FMCs need even more buffs. d3+1 AP2 autohits?!? Jesus.
You can now ally with Come the Apoc units. They get the same drawbacks as distrusted plus they cant be deployed within 12 inches of each other.
If they attempt to justify some of these combos in the fluff the results will be equal parts hilarious, cringe inducing and appalling. Daemon summoning loyalists will be the least of it...
BA and Necrons can finally hit the table together. They just have to hide their affection for one another during deployment.
Why is reasonable than a model can survive taking a deathstrike to the face with no qualms?
Because the game is balanced around certain units being able to survive a deathstike, and they're priced accordingly for that invulnerable saves.
Which is, in my humble opinion, a design flaw. Your mileage may vary.
What is the point of allowing investment in expensive and limited scope weapons of such magnitude if they are no different in mechanics to a lasgun?
Hyperbole weakens your argument. If a death strike actually hits its target it will wipe out 90% of the non-MC/Vehicle units in the game.
Stop dodging the question. Why do you think that something that insta-kills everything in the game is a good mechanic, in a game that's built around expensive units having high durability?
Because any game that allows a build that focuses on high durability needs an appropriate response. Anything, no matter what it is, should have a counter. And a hard counter, at that. That's how warfare works and that's what I feel the game should offer- and in many ways currently does in every way but invun saves.
If my opponent has invested all of his points into one unit, that should be a punishable and poor decision. Promoting tactical inflexibility in lieu of invun saves is nothing short of lazy, and, to pay homage to GW, forging a shoddy narrative.
Anything else in the game has its counter. A flier spamming army meets one with interceptor out the arse, it pays for its inflexibility. Human waves wither to templates. A gimped ward save unit currently has, or had, one answer. Which was the investment of a huge amount of points into one consolidated shot.
And that's a perfectly reasonable way to invest points, as far as I'm concerned. I lose a lot tactical adaptability by spending all those points onto one big ass gun to deal with a problem. Because if my big ass gun does not deal with the problem (hello 7th ed), there is now no way to deal with that problem with investing multiple times the points cost my opponent has. The prevalence of invun saves you cannot remove or circumvent is now a way to be able to field a unit you can say with nigh on 100% certainty will make a net profit in its battlefield life; even if it dies without killing anything, the firepower invested into killing it will have cost so much more than the unit that it operates as a profit for your army.
Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.
If the game needs a hard-counter to invulnerable saves, create a hard counter for invulnerable saves, not a hard counter to everything which is what sD weapons are. Not one of my armies has a deathstar of any sort, in fact the only invulnerable saves in them are ones which come default on HQs, and a counts-as unit that uses the fairly underwhelming Legion of the Damned unit rules, but a sD weapon will be just as devastating against those armies as against deathstar units that rely on invulnerable saves. You lose absolutely no "tactical flexibility" by taking a sD weapon, because a sD weapon can successfully engage any target bar flyers(which you have the rest of your army to deal with), and do so better than any other ranged alternative - Guardsmen? Dead. Marines? Dead. Assault Terminators? Dead. Aspect Warriors? Dead. Orks? Dead. MANz? Dead. Tanks? Dead. Non-D-carrying Superheavies? Dead. It doesn't matter if you come up against single-wound-low-save GEQ, elite heavily-armoured assault troops, groups of multiwound MCs, or an armoured company, ranged sD weapons as they stand will ruin their gak just as surely as it will a screamerstar.
Redsox84 wrote: *Sorry if this has been Covered, 193 pages is a lot to skim through....*
Is it confirmed that to successfully cast a Psychic Power, you have to roll a 4+ on a d6 per mastery level of the attempted power? For example, in order to cast a level 2 psychic power, I must roll two or more 4+ (avoiding perils on double 6's?) on the number of dice of my choosing?
Is there a limit to how many dice a certain level psyker can use to cast?
Nope, feel free to throw down ten dice with your lv 4 Eldrad.
Have fun not rolling two 6s in there though.
There is a limit, as rumours go by. The casting Psyker's ML+1. So Eldrad can use at most 5 dice.
MarkyMark wrote:So taking Tzeentch casters for example, I am assuming that they will peril on any double on say divination/telepathy/biomancy (and the other BRB tables) but only peril on dbl 6 on malefic and tzeentch tables?.
I didn't see any indication this would happen, nor even why it should.
I'd even say Tzeentch casters should be even less prone to Perils (triple 6), as being so connected to the, well, god of Warp-magicks. Alas, this won't be.
MarkyMark wrote: So taking Tzeentch casters for example, I am assuming that they will peril on any double on say divination/telepathy/biomancy (and the other BRB tables) but only peril on dbl 6 on malefic and tzeentch tables?.
Not quite.
Everyone perils on double 6s on all disciplines.
Everyone except daemons perils on all doubles in Daemonology.
Redsox84 wrote: *Sorry if this has been Covered, 193 pages is a lot to skim through....*
Is it confirmed that to successfully cast a Psychic Power, you have to roll a 4+ on a d6 per mastery level of the attempted power? For example, in order to cast a level 2 psychic power, I must roll two or more 4+ (avoiding perils on double 6's?) on the number of dice of my choosing?
Is there a limit to how many dice a certain level psyker can use to cast?
Nope, feel free to throw down ten dice with your lv 4 Eldrad.
Have fun not rolling two 6s in there though.
There is a limit. The casting Psyker's ML+1. So Eldrad can use at most 5 dice..
Vaktathi wrote: A single S: D weapon is only going to delete a unit a turn if it's a tank or a small sized unit that's clumped up and your shot doesn't scatter. Either way, no need for D weapons to remove a Shadowsword. Other than the postulation that it'll be able to see, hit, and destroy everything that's going to be a threat to it before they can do anything back (which is silly assuming one pieplate a turn that needs LoS), you haven't shown that it's harder to kill than the Russ tanks. In fact, it's probably easier since you can cascade explodes results better and concentrate your firepower easier.
You keep assuming Imperial armies with Lascannons or similar weapons. So those armies without those are just SOL? Because the best way for me to deal with 3 Russes (Or a shadowsword) is to punch them to death.
Yes, it's firepower is disgusting, but again, the thing itself doesn't require more firepower than say, an equivalent points investment in Holofield tanks. Lets say we're looking at a 150-165pt holofield tank, (lets assume wave serpents so we can largely ignore pens, unlikes on say if it were a Fire Prism or Falcon), AV12 3HP and a 4+ cover save in the open. At ~150pts each we can get 5 to a Revenant. That's 15 AV12 HP's with 4+ cover saves as long as they move. That'd require 180 BS3 autocannons, assuming no explodes results, and all separate targets that can't cascade Explodes results the way SH's do. I don't see people saying you need D weapons to take down 5 Holofield tanks.
Nope, because those 5 tanks together don't do the same damage a single Revenant does. I can ignore a couple of those tanks to no real detriment to my army.
Go ahead - try and ignore a Revenant.
Not really, only if you assume that the D units will wipe out anything that can hurt them before they can engage, which is realistically only a possibility with the Revenant (which I'd agree is disgusting, but even compared to a Shadowsword it's painfully overpowered on a relative points basis)
It's not just the D weapon deleting threats - it's the rest of the army deleting threats as well. One individual Shadowsword? Meh, I can handle it with near equivalent points. Shadowsword plus support with a decent commander? Unlikely.
MarkyMark wrote: So taking Tzeentch casters for example, I am assuming that they will peril on any double on say divination/telepathy/biomancy (and the other BRB tables) but only peril on dbl 6 on malefic and tzeentch tables?.
Not quite.
Everyone perils on double 6s on all disciplines.
Everyone except daemons perils on all doubles in Daemonology.
ah right, I did remember something about psykers with a affinity to that psyhic table have less chances of perils, just assumed it would extend to their own psyhic tables!.
It does seem to be making daemons that bit more powerful, what with the grounding tests, ability to summon new stuff, being able to spam psyhic levels etc. Not that we needed it but looking forward to it now!.
I edited my post; such limitation has been hinted in this thread before
Was just wondering, I've been following the thread pretty closely and this is the first I've heard of a limit on dice you can roll to pass a power test.
Yodhrin wrote: You lose absolutely no "tactical flexibility" by taking a sD weapon, because a sD weapon can successfully engage any target bar flyers
For the cost of one D-throwing Shadowsword, I could instead bring 100 conscripts, 40 guardsmen and 30 autocannons.
The shadowsword can die to two lascannon shots on a bad day, can't score, can't contest, and can only shoot one target a turn.
Yes. Yes you do lose flexibility.
A screamerstar can die to a couple of squad's worth of lasgun or bolter fire on a bad day, so if we use the logic that the worst and most statistically unlikely scenario that could kill a unit is a significant factor in determining how powerful the unit is, deathstars of all kinds are just as weak as superheavies and so don't require special superguns that wipe out everything else too.
I'd be interested to see the math on exactly what the likelyhood is that your 100 bs2 lasguns, 40 bs3 lasguns, and 30 bs3 autocannons could pick out any unit of mine on the board each and every turn including the first and delete it from existence without any possible response. You can't score, contest, or shoot back if you're dead.
Doesn't the WD mention 6 dice being thrown to get off a Warp Charge 3 power? There are no level 5's.... I'm guessing they used Ezekiel in that example?
Sihdhartha wrote: I don't know that Wave Serpents would be the unit you would want to use as a measuring stick..... Most people agree that they are broke as well
He was only talking about their survivability really, and that's not the stupidly powerful part.
It's the survivability plus the amazing guns that makes them stupidly powerful.
Sihdhartha wrote: I don't know that Wave Serpents would be the unit you would want to use as a measuring stick..... Most people agree that they are broke as well
He was only talking about their survivability really, and that's not the stupidly powerful part.
It's the survivability plus the amazing guns that makes them stupidly powerful.
Ahhh ok, yea, as a Tau player I can admit the Riptide is broke, some Eldar players need to realize the Wave Serpent is broke. (unrelated rant)
Everyone is focusing on how D weapons impact things with wounds... But what about how they impact vehicles? Any word on whether we're past the era of insta-explode on a 2+?
I'm reeeeally looking for a reason not to eBay all of my 40k stuff. But so far, I see more flailing stop-gap measures being bandaged over an already over-complicated, bloated, and tired rules set where the creators have made it abundantly clear they have no interest in attempting anything resembling game balance. Lets face it, this corporation will never offer up its rules to an open beta and actually take into account what the great passionate community feels would make it a truly exceptional game....or at least one that is tactically challenging and rewarding to play. I have been a fan, a player and a collector of all things 40k since 1989....and the state of the game today makes me sad. I will try to stay optimistic and see what 7th has to offer. But from what I am seeing, its more of the same...watering down the game with more random ways to completely negate good generalship.
Looking back at this post, it kinda looks like a troll...but really, I'm just saying how I feel about the situation. I want to be excited about a new edition of 40k...but I'm realizing now, I just might be over it.
You keep assuming Imperial armies with Lascannons or similar weapons. So those armies without those are just SOL? Because the best way for me to deal with 3 Russes (Or a shadowsword) is to punch them to death.
Where did I say that? Where did I mention lascannons at all?
That said, most armies have lascannons or equivalents (lances, railguns, etc), and melta weapons or other heavy AT guns. That said, if your best option for dealing with such a unit is punching it do death, having to engage only one target is probably a whole lot better than having to engage up to three.
Nope, because those 5 tanks together don't do the same damage a single Revenant does. I can ignore a couple of those tanks to no real detriment to my army.
We're talking about something entirely different. You said you needed D weapons to kill D weapon toting units, which is false. You're now taking that down an entirely different route if we're talking about it's firepower. Yes the Reventant throws out a disgusting amount of firepower (quadruple that of a Shadowsword). What will matter more than anything else is who goes first
It's not just the D weapon deleting threats - it's the rest of the army deleting threats as well. One individual Shadowsword? Meh, I can handle it with near equivalent points. Shadowsword plus support with a decent commander? Unlikely.
And you're moving the goalpost here.
No, I wouldn't expect a Shadowswords worth of points of anti-tank stuff to take on a Shadowsword *AND* support elements, that would be an uneven fight of course. That's a stupid comparison and I'm not sure why we're making it. Obviously we must assume that you'll have equivalent points of support units as well, and your own command abilities, in which case the Shadowsword should prove no more a problem than three Russ tanks would.
The Shadowsword will be scarier against tanks and superheavy infantry, the Russ tanks scarier against most infantry as well as squadrons of light vehicles in most cases, and be way less prone to whiffing entirely.
Fango wrote: I'm reeeeally looking for a reason not to eBay all of my 40k stuff. But so far, I see more flailing stop-gap measures being bandaged over an already over-complicated, bloated, and tired rules set where the creators have made it abundantly clear they have no interest in attempting anything resembling game balance. Lets face it, this corporation will never offer up its rules to an open beta and actually take into account what the great passionate community feels would make it a truly exceptional game....or at least one that is tactically challenging and rewarding to play. I have been a fan, a player and a collector of all things 40k since 1989....and the state of the game today makes me sad. I will try to stay optimistic and see what 7th has to offer. But from what I am seeing, its more of the same...watering down the game with more random ways to completely negate good generalship.
Looking back at this post, it kinda looks like a troll...but really, I'm just saying how I feel about the situation. I want to be excited about a new edition of 40k...but I'm realizing now, I just might be over it.
This is all rumours, pretty much (being the stuff we have seen in the WD screen shots and youtube vids). But until we get the book and see how everything interacts and how it all meshes together we wont know what the new edition is like at all, we wont even know it till at least a few weeks after and even then it will be different for a lot of people as they expect different things from their 40k hobby.
Fango wrote: I'm reeeeally looking for a reason not to eBay all of my 40k stuff. But so far, I see more flailing stop-gap measures being bandaged over an already over-complicated, bloated, and tired rules set where the creators have made it abundantly clear they have no interest in attempting anything resembling game balance. Lets face it, this corporation will never offer up its rules to an open beta and actually take into account what the great passionate community feels would make it a truly exceptional game....or at least one that is tactically challenging and rewarding to play. I have been a fan, a player and a collector of all things 40k since 1989....and the state of the game today makes me sad. I will try to stay optimistic and see what 7th has to offer. But from what I am seeing, its more of the same...watering down the game with more random ways to completely negate good generalship.
Looking back at this post, it kinda looks like a troll...but really, I'm just saying how I feel about the situation. I want to be excited about a new edition of 40k...but I'm realizing now, I just might be over it.
Sell your stuff on Ebay. You will be just making GW more money when in a year or so, you will get the itch and regret selling everything and then will have to re-buy everything that you want again.
Don't sell. Take a break. It happens a lot. I am glad I never sold any of my GW stuff when I took a break and then came back years later. Trust me, you will regret selling your GW stuff.
You keep assuming Imperial armies with Lascannons or similar weapons. So those armies without those are just SOL? Because the best way for me to deal with 3 Russes (Or a shadowsword) is to punch them to death.
Where did I say that? Where did I mention lascannons at all?
When you talked about cascading explodes results against AV14.
That said, most armies have lascannons or equivalents (lances, railguns, etc), and melta weapons or other heavy AT guns. That said, if your best option for dealing with such a unit is punching it do death, having to engage only one target is probably a whole lot better than having to engage up to three.
One is far easier to bubble wrap.
Nope, because those 5 tanks together don't do the same damage a single Revenant does. I can ignore a couple of those tanks to no real detriment to my army.
We're talking about something entirely different. You said you needed D weapons to kill D weapon toting units, which is false. You're now taking that down an entirely different route if we're talking about it's firepower. Yes the Reventant throws out a disgusting amount of firepower (quadruple that of a Shadowsword). What will matter more than anything else is who goes first
I never said you *needed* them. I said they're the most efficient method. Just like heavy weapons vs lasguns against monstrous creatures.
It's not just the D weapon deleting threats - it's the rest of the army deleting threats as well. One individual Shadowsword? Meh, I can handle it with near equivalent points. Shadowsword plus support with a decent commander? Unlikely.
And you're moving the goalpost here.
No, I wouldn't expect a Shadowswords worth of points of anti-tank stuff to take on a Shadowsword *AND* support elements, that would be an uneven fight of course. That's a stupid comparison and I'm not sure why we're making it. Obviously we must assume that you'll have equivalent points of support units as well, and your own command abilities, in which case the Shadowsword should prove no more a problem than three Russ tanks would.
Either I misspoke or you misread - I wasn't suggesting giving the Shadowsword "free" points.
You can't talk about a Superheavy alone. It's not a reasonable discussion. You have to address the support they'll inherently have as well.
I feel like that support, most of the time, balances out many of the "weaknesses" a superheavy has.
I'd like to throw in my 2c here as well. I don't think a single army in the game right is sweating for more anti-infantry. They're all gunning for efficient heavy guns for taking out MCs/vehicles/elite units. D weapon carriers being bad at taking them out is like saying "well riptides aren't so hot in close combat!"
TheRedDevil wrote: I'd like to throw in my 2c here as well. I don't think a single army in the game right is sweating for more anti-infantry. They're all gunning for efficient heavy guns for taking out MCs/vehicles/elite units. D weapon carriers being bad at taking them out is like saying "well riptides aren't so hot in close combat!"
Titan killers is the new Paradigm, That and the anti aircraft artillery.
Yodhrin wrote: You lose absolutely no "tactical flexibility" by taking a sD weapon, because a sD weapon can successfully engage any target bar flyers
For the cost of one D-throwing Shadowsword, I could instead bring 100 conscripts, 40 guardsmen and 30 autocannons.
The shadowsword can die to two lascannon shots on a bad day, can't score, can't contest, and can only shoot one target a turn.
Yes. Yes you do lose flexibility.
A screamerstar can die to a couple of squad's worth of lasgun or bolter fire on a bad day, so if we use the logic that the worst and most statistically unlikely scenario that could kill a unit is a significant factor in determining how powerful the unit is, deathstars of all kinds are just as weak as superheavies and so don't require special superguns that wipe out everything else too.
I'd be interested to see the math on exactly what the likelyhood is that your 100 bs2 lasguns, 40 bs3 lasguns, and 30 bs3 autocannons could pick out any unit of mine on the board each and every turn including the first and delete it from existence without any possible response. You can't score, contest, or shoot back if you're dead.
I wouldn't. His math is off by a few hundred points as it is. 100 conscripts, 40 guardsmen and 30 autocannons comes out to 1250 points. Also, unless I am missing something critical the shadowsword would need at least three las cannon punches to kill it on a very bad day.
I didnt read much (their WD writing style makes me annoyed for some reason, so I never read the things) but the bits I read just looked like odd propaganda haha.
Im surprised the orks lost though, I think I read somewhere in this thread that the Tyranids defeated a Tau and Marine alliance army swiftly. I thought they where gonna try make out the worst armies are actually pretty good or something.
MWHistorian wrote: I tried to read those WD pages but all I heard was "Blah blah, we're trying to justify lazy game design and money grabbing blah blah."
Okay, maybe that was a bit too negative.
Actually it's more like: "Blah, blah blah, Jervis Johnson has been working here forever, blah blah blah we changed some stuff but not everything blah blah blah some more info about the changes, the end."
Honestly I don't mind the loss of the FOC, I mind that the game is still going to be unbalanced due to the way things are points costed and that'll cause the real issues.
I am hearing though (through my FLGS from his rep) that there is something along the lines of the "Be a Grownup" Rule. Basically the spirit of the game from 6th codified to an actual rule about not being a dick to your opponent and playing lists you know they won't have fun against.
Kinda like GW is trying to make their own Page 5 I guess.
I found the funniest part of the WD article was where he said that Space Marine Captains and Chaplains were getting far more game time than Librarians so they needed to buff the psykers to correct the imbalance, I nearly fell off my chair, what game are they playing because its different to any I've tried.
Still I'm liking what I've read so far, lots of good changes and a few stupid rules that will be ignored by 90% of sensible gamers.
WisdomLS wrote: I found the funniest part of the WD article was where he said that Space Marine Captains and Chaplains were getting far more game time than Librarians so they needed to buff the psykers to correct the imbalance, I nearly fell off my chair, what game are they playing because its different to any I've tried.
Still I'm liking what I've read so far, lots of good changes and a few stupid rules that will be ignored by 90% of sensible gamers.
Yeah, the studio's meta is unlike anything we have going on outside of Nottingham it seems.
Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.
Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.
Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.
I like it, I like the changes that are being made.
Sir Arun wrote: hahahahaha come the apocalypse guys can ally now?
Why shouldn't they have been able to before?
Seriously. It was a silly restriction.
silly? I don't know what's silly about tyranids not being able to ally with ultramarines.
Go to page 112 of your current rulebook and read the "Forging the Narrative"/"Allies of Convenience" bits.
"Allies" does not necessarily mean that your two forces are buddy buddy. It could--in the case of "Come the Apocalypse" for example--simply be two armies with similar goals on the field at the same time.
I really hate all the "D3" victory points for those objectives if you complete the "harder" version of it.. Why does everything have to be a damn random roll? Cant it just be "or Score 2 points"??? I suppose by making it so the better player gets random amount of bonus points (which could equal the same as completing the lesser objective) it keeps bad players from being outpaced too much? Yay mediocrity instead of growing into a better player.
Honestly I don't mind the loss of the FOC, I mind that the game is still going to be unbalanced due to the way things are points costed and that'll cause the real issues.
I am hearing though (through my FLGS from his rep) that there is something along the lines of the "Be a Grownup" Rule. Basically the spirit of the game from 6th codified to an actual rule about not being a dick to your opponent and playing lists you know they won't have fun against.
Kinda like GW is trying to make their own Page 5 I guess.
But the problem comes from when someone's idea of fun is very different than their opponents.
A dude's all riptide and broadside list might be the ideal of fun for him. (as stated as an example in the WD) Or someone's Necron Mololith list.
But those wouldn't be fun for me.
Both ideas are legit so no one's really in the wrong, yet there's no way playing against each other would be fun.
Hollismason wrote: Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.
Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.
Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.
I like it, I like the changes that are being made.
I agree, I think the changes contain more good than bad. At least all the bad can easily be done away with with a quick sentence prior to the game.
After playing fantasy, im very excited for a phase dedicated to magic duels.
I havent had a GW release where it seemed this way. I feel like my hopes can go up a little this time.
Honestly I don't mind the loss of the FOC, I mind that the game is still going to be unbalanced due to the way things are points costed and that'll cause the real issues.
I am hearing though (through my FLGS from his rep) that there is something along the lines of the "Be a Grownup" Rule. Basically the spirit of the game from 6th codified to an actual rule about not being a dick to your opponent and playing lists you know they won't have fun against.
Kinda like GW is trying to make their own Page 5 I guess.
That's all well and good, but those of us who are capable of grasping the concept don't need it codified. In a completely neutral, neither praising nor condemning, manner, I offer Makumba on this very board. He doesn't get that. He sees it as a game where victory is the objective, so why would you ever take anything but the brokenest, most points efficient or most OP units in order to do so?
Alternatively, the guy I played at our largely casual club a few weeks back, who brings net lists (or net lists with a few small changes, so he can deny they're net lists.) I (hopefully) lightheartedly teased him about his cheese as the game went on, and tried to subtly suggest he consider his opponent's enjoyment when playing pickup games and save his full on WAAC competitive cheese lists for events and games where his opponent knew what they were letting themselves in for. I felt I'd made my point when, after the game, referring to my Iron Armed GUO, which was my sole survivor, he said "so that's what it feels like to try and kill a Wraithknight!"
The following week, rather than bringing a Jetbike Autarch, a bunch of Dire Avengers in Waveserpents and a pair of Wraithknights that he brought against me, he brought a Spiritseer, a bunch of Wraithguard in Waveserpents. Aaaand, a pair of Wraithknights. That was against our most junior player as well IIRC.
My point is, the rules need to provide a framework regardless, as "don't be a dick" as a rule is either irrelevant or insufficient.
I think it is pretty cool. It pushes you to diversify your lists. If you have no mobile elements you might miss out on getting forward objectives. If you are have no assault units you have a wasted card.
But at the same time you have three cards and can discard 1 per turn. So you can decide which ones you are most likely to complete that turn and then allocate resources towards that.
Adds a whole new level of tactical play abilities. I am excited!!
Leth wrote: I think it is pretty cool. It pushes you to diversify your lists. If you have no mobile elements you might miss out on getting forward objectives. If you are have no assault units you have a wasted card.
But at the same time you have three cards and can discard 1 per turn. So you can decide which ones you are most likely to complete that turn and then allocate resources towards that.
Adds a whole new level of tactical play abilities. I am excited!!
Yeah, me too.
Being purely selfish and discarding the issues that don't directly affect me in the environment I play in, everything I've heard I'm largely positive about, potential Unbound abuses aside.
Yeah it really is I think a super dynamic situation and even prevents the late term grabs.
Sure Eldar with Wave Serpents can blast forward and claim a objective, but it flat out stops people flying all over the board and contesting stuff if you have troops on those objectives.
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
Scorpio616 wrote: It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win.......
List building is as much a tactical decision as playing the game itself. Hell I spend almost more time working on lists than actually playing.
I used to be mad about a lot of netlists I faced...until I realized I was A. playing badly, and B. bringing lists that I thought were cool instead of tactically sound. Do I bring net lists? Nope, but I try to play well to mitigate that power difference and even if I dont win I give it my all and it is always more satisfying to have a well fought loss than an unsatisfying win.
At the last tournament I went to the game was over in the first 2 turns, and they were tabled or gave up by turn 4. It was completely unsatisfying(and that was without a netlist). So for the next tournament I am toning down my list further to try and make it a better game.
The change to vehicle damage is promising... Making it harder to one-shot vehicles is a good change.
However, unless they have changed how LOS works, they have managed to make regular shooting even more annoying with the change to rolling each different weapon individually...
Scorpio616 wrote: It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.
Scorpio616 wrote: It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win.......
List building is as much a tactical decision as playing the game itself. Hell I spend almost more time working on lists than actually playing.
I think they should be able to take what they want good or bad and still have a chance of winning. That is the way my Meta plays it.
I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.
TedNugent wrote: I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.
Leth wrote: So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win........
More that choosing to use a given unit shouldn't be a bad tactical choice, within certain limits.
In the context of the quote above is what I was talking about. The individual said a person should not be forced to take units that are more strategically sound(in the context of win conditions). I agree units should be more balanced but that is irrespective of making smart decisions for the win objectives.
In regards to the weapons, I always rolled them one at a time anyway, it was easier then constantly having to remember which weapons were which dice as well as when my opponent will not keep it consistent which dice are which and it becomes very confusing.
In regards to allies. Yes the rules are generally needed to do it. I wanted to do things like take allies before to make the lists I wanted to make, now I can take them and for me I use allies to try and make my themed lists more powerful. It allows me to be more competitive AND take the models I want. Now I understand this might not be other peoples experiences and I respect that, but I like what allies bring in options.
Scorpio616 wrote: It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win.......
List building is as much a tactical decision as playing the game itself. Hell I spend almost more time working on lists than actually playing.
I think they should be able to take what they want good or bad and still have a chance of winning. That is the way my Meta plays it.
They always have a chance of winning, its just not a very good one. A good player can make subpar units work, I decided that I wanted to use some subpar units so I decided to learn how to play the game and become better at that aspect. I dont expect to take a bad army and play badly and then get mad when I cant win.
In the last tournament where I tabled everyone outside of the guy running all foot berzerkers with no anti vehicle in his list, everyone I played against may have had an uphill battle but they had all the tools they needed to beat me. I should not have been able to beat them as easily as I did.
Hollismason wrote: Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.
Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.
Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.
I like it, I like the changes that are being made.
Well if every psyker that takes a their powers from one discipline gets the primaris and they refered that a model could have 2 in which they normally have one; lets hope for level 1 psykers, there are some level 1 primaris powers they can actually cast lol
TedNugent wrote: I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.
True. And this makes sense thematically. The whole purpose of an unbound army is that you can literally do WHATEVER YOU WANT. Sure, have Abaddon leading a group of loyalist marine centurions on the 27th black crusade. Why, then, would you impose troop restrictions on such an army and thereby defeat the whole point of assembling it? It's like playing apocalypse without the super heavies or gargantuan creatures. You just bring whatever you want, literally. Of course, they are all trumped by troops from a battle-forged army, which see your scoring status and laugh as they secure the objective regardless. Allegedly.
As much as some people rag on GW for game balance and crappy rules, it is worth noting that they have expanded the game to a point where you can literally just buy the models you like, and they will make an army. This will almost certainly create some ridiculous army compositions that (I believe) will cause most major tournaments to simply outlaw unbound armies entirely (or more interestingly, have a tournament where battle-forged armies will be outlawed. Then again, that could just be a battle-forged army with a token "rule-breaker" to make it unbound, but I think it would be a cool tournament premise nonetheless). But at the heart of it all, GW has appealed to the casual gamer (or girl) who just wants to have fun. And as long as a tournament WAAC player doesn't match up against someone just fielding cool models (or at least doesn't use the tournament list for that match), I think there's a lot of room to have fun.
Puscifer wrote: Just read the bit on the new vehicle table...
Am I correct in thinking, Dark Eldar got a bit of a boost?
All vehicles got a bit of a boost, but now you only die on a 6 instead of a 5/6
For venoms they dont really care about the jink changes with the built in flickerfield.
I like it. Vehicles are more survivable but not so much that everything swings back the other way to all vehicles all the time. Actually investing in abilities that keep your vehicles alive might be worth it now(like techpriests or venerable.)
Hollismason wrote: Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.
Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.
Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.
I like it, I like the changes that are being made.
Hollismason wrote: Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.
Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.
Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.
I like it, I like the changes that are being made.
I agree, I think the changes contain more good than bad. At least all the bad can easily be done away with with a quick sentence prior to the game.
After playing fantasy, im very excited for a phase dedicated to magic duels.
I havent had a GW release where it seemed this way. I feel like my hopes can go up a little this time.
LOL kinda like some of us were (and are) doing with Escalation/Imperial Knights/Stronghold Assaults?
Hollismason wrote: Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.
Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.
Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.
I like it, I like the changes that are being made.
True. And this makes sense thematically. The whole purpose of an unbound army is that you can literally do WHATEVER YOU WANT. Sure, have Abaddon leading a group of loyalist marine centurions on the 27th black crusade. Why, then, would you impose troop restrictions on such an army and thereby defeat the whole point of assembling it? It's like playing apocalypse without the super heavies or gargantuan creatures. You just bring whatever you want, literally. Of course, they are all trumped by troops from a battle-forged army, which see your scoring status and laugh as they secure the objective regardless. Allegedly.
Do you not understand the issues with Unbound. Per the initial WD quote, the purpose of Unbound is not "thematic armies," the purpose of Unbound is to spam as many overpowered units as you can buy at overinflated GW prices.
The effect of Unbound is going to be people spamming tanks (to make anti-infantry effectively wasted points), spamming flyers, spamming FMCs, basically spamming anything that will give your opponent a hard time. You can't justify this logic in terms of theme, you have to justify it in terms of game mechanics and couch it in the reality of 40k that some units are just simply better than others. The FOC was the only thing that kept certain units in people's lists. Without the FOC that requirement vanishes and therefore you will see overwhelmingly more of the better units in Unbound lists.
Fortunately troops are still viable in BF lists but it is disappointing that there's not really any reason to take them in Unbound. No one in their right mind would use Tactical Marines in an Unbound army.
As much as some people rag on GW for game balance and crappy rules, it is worth noting that they have expanded the game to a point where you can literally just buy the models you like, and they will make an army.
Really? So what if I like swooping hawks? Or foot nobs? Or stinging scorpions? Or Slugga boyz? Or meganobs? Or kustom mega blasters? Or weirdboys? Or Pariahs? Or Death Company? Or Wytches? Or Mandrakes? Because this rule won't make those units viable.
Unbound wouldn't be a problem if each unit was balanced outside of the context of the rulebook. But they're not. And therefore bad units will continue to not get taken, and good units people will just take more of them.
WisdomLS wrote: I found the funniest part of the WD article was where he said that Space Marine Captains and Chaplains were getting far more game time than Librarians so they needed to buff the psykers to correct the imbalance, I nearly fell off my chair, what game are they playing because its different to any I've tried.
I don't think they were saying that psykers aren't considered effective, just that they aren't as interesting as characters who can dominate challenges. The new psychic phase isn't intended to make them more powerful (quite the opposite from what I've seen) but to make them more distinctive. Things like witchfire powers being used in the psychic phase rather than the shooting phase distinguishes them as being quite different to guns, rather than being just another weapon.
Right there in black and white. You resolve each weapon type separately. That's new and does away with the whole 'one autocannon extends wound allocation range of a flamer out to 48" '
TedNugent wrote: I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.
True. And this makes sense thematically. The whole purpose of an unbound army is that you can literally do WHATEVER YOU WANT. Sure, have Abaddon leading a group of loyalist marine centurions on the 27th black crusade. Why, then, would you impose troop restrictions on such an army and thereby defeat the whole point of assembling it? It's like playing apocalypse without the super heavies or gargantuan creatures. You just bring whatever you want, literally. Of course, they are all trumped by troops from a battle-forged army, which see your scoring status and laugh as they secure the objective regardless. Allegedly.
Do you not understand the issues with Unbound. Per the initial WD quote, the purpose of Unbound is not "thematic armies," the purpose of Unbound is to spam as many overpowered units as you can buy at overinflated GW prices.
The effect of Unbound is going to be people spamming tanks (to make anti-infantry effectively wasted points), spamming flyers, spamming FMCs, basically spamming anything that will give your opponent a hard time. You can't justify this logic in terms of theme, you have to justify it in terms of game mechanics and couch it in the reality of 40k that some units are just simply better than others. The FOC was the only thing that kept certain units in people's lists. Without the FOC that requirement vanishes and therefore you will see overwhelmingly more of the better units in Unbound lists.
Fortunately troops are still viable in BF lists but it is disappointing that there's not really any reason to take them in Unbound. No one in their right mind would use Tactical Marines in an Unbound army.
You're absolutely right that this will cause some power gamers to go buy 12 of the most OP unit they can find and win games with it, and many more people will do something similar but to less of an extreme. It's classic "GW intends for this to happen but opens Pandora's box and allows that to happen simultaneously". Again, I think it's all a matter of coming to an understanding with your opponent. If they're that power gamer, you'll know after a single game (or after shaking their hand and seeing their army). Just like we have for some time been able to field a Lord of War in "regular 40k", this has not been an issue. Why? Because everyone knows who the power gamer is in their FLGS and how to deal with them. Now we have yet another loophole that GW has created to sell more models (which, again, could be used to make more fluffy/fun lists that can now be legal - I know my Khorne Daemons have been ITCHING to take the field with my Nids for ages now!). We can choose to play with that loophole or just generally ignore it for most games, the latter of which is what I see happening in the overwhelming majority of situations.
Puscifer wrote: Just read the bit on the new vehicle table...
Am I correct in thinking, Dark Eldar got a bit of a boost?
All vehicles got a bit of a boost, but now you only die on a 6 instead of a 5/6
For venoms they dont really care about the jink changes with the built in flickerfield.
I like it. Vehicles are more survivable but not so much that everything swings back the other way to all vehicles all the time. Actually investing in abilities that keep your vehicles alive might be worth it now(like techpriests or venerable.)
Holy Nutballs...
Iron Hands IWND Vehicles with the new rules and a Tech Marine here or there.
Does IWND confer to the Ven. Dread?
Also... GK Ven Dread and a Tech Marine have seriously gotten mega tough.
Right there in black and white. You resolve each weapon type separately. That's new and does away with the whole 'one autocannon extends wound allocation range of a flamer out to 48" '
Oh that's right I had heard that rumor. Really just a great example of GW saying, "OK we understand that you guys were within the rules to do this under the previous iteration of the rules, but it was stupid. Stop that and continue playing like you did anyway"
Drakmord wrote: The mission cards are a really cool idea, but hopefully they add some more interesting ones down the road.
I'd ask for them to not be so random, but...
I like them too, as a quick-and-easy way to add a little something different in matches against usual opponents with whom I've already played 100 by-the-book tourney-style games.
Scorpio616 wrote: It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.
And for the element of the player base who are obsessed with things being "official", who are always conveniently forgotten by people trying to cast Allies rules as being necessary only for powergamers. I like the fact that I can show up with any of my armies, rather than having a decent chunk of my models being useless for general club play in case I run into a "but the rulebook sez..." pedant, in the same way I like being able to include "40K Approved"-stamped FW units in my lists, knowing that if anyone at the club takes a huff it'll be them that deals with the fallout and not me, as it used to be when FW was less broadly accepted.
If you only play with other people who're of the "because it's cool" crowd, wonderful, some of us aren't that lucky most of the time, and large sections of 40K's playerbase simply will not accept things that aren't codified in an official GW publication, and most of them aren't cheesemongering beardlords.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Well if every psyker that takes a their powers from one discipline gets the primaris and they refered that a model could have 2 in which they normally have one; lets hope for level 1 psykers, there are some level 1 primaris powers they can actually cast lol
With the new 'successes' style psychic phase rules, a Level 1 Psyker could potentially cast a 7 Charge power. (D6+1 dice).
However, I am still wondering how my Slaaneshi Sorceror will fare. If he's Level 1, he has to roll on Slaanesh powers and then gets the Primaris for free. But I'm only allowed half my powers from that discipline. So do I need to split them somehow?
And compare it to the Level 2 Sorceror. He has to roll one Slaanesh power, and then one other. So he CAN'T get the bonus Primaris for either.
This is making me sad, though the idea of fielding all my Sorceror models in an Unbound list and summoning from my Daemons is kind of tempting...
Scorpio616 wrote: It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.
And for the element of the player base who are obsessed with things being "official", who are always conveniently forgotten by people trying to cast Allies rules as being necessary only for powergamers. I like the fact that I can show up with any of my armies, rather than having a decent chunk of my models being useless for general club play in case I run into a "but the rulebook sez..." pedant, in the same way I like being able to include "40K Approved"-stamped FW units in my lists, knowing that if anyone at the club takes a huff it'll be them that deals with the fallout and not me, as it used to be when FW was less broadly accepted.
If you only play with other people who're of the "because it's cool" crowd, wonderful, some of us aren't that lucky most of the time, and large sections of 40K's playerbase simply will not accept things that aren't codified in an official GW publication, and most of them aren't cheesemongering beardlords.
News flash dude, I can refuse to play you if you bring a Tactical Squad in an Ultramarines army if I like.
The point is, most reasonable people won't refuse a reasonable request. Sure, if you ambush them you're increasing the odds of getting turned down, but if you came to the table with a mixed force, ally rules be damned, if it wasn't a competition (or even if it was, but had TO approval) and you weren't blatantly trying to power game some cheese, I, and the overwhelmingly majority will likely say "cool, let's go for it"
Rubber stamping allies has damaged the game more than helped it, exactly because it gave the WAAC crowd licence to abuse it, and that has irritated and annoyed far more people, in theory or in practice, than it has helped.
The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.
What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.
Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.
Scorpio616 wrote: It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?
The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.
And for the element of the player base who are obsessed with things being "official", who are always conveniently forgotten by people trying to cast Allies rules as being necessary only for powergamers. I like the fact that I can show up with any of my armies, rather than having a decent chunk of my models being useless for general club play in case I run into a "but the rulebook sez..." pedant, in the same way I like being able to include "40K Approved"-stamped FW units in my lists, knowing that if anyone at the club takes a huff it'll be them that deals with the fallout and not me, as it used to be when FW was less broadly accepted.
If you only play with other people who're of the "because it's cool" crowd, wonderful, some of us aren't that lucky most of the time, and large sections of 40K's playerbase simply will not accept things that aren't codified in an official GW publication, and most of them aren't cheesemongering beardlords.
News flash dude, I can refuse to play you if you bring a Tactical Squad in an Ultramarines army if I like.
The point is, most reasonable people won't refuse a reasonable request. Sure, if you ambush them you're increasing the odds of getting turned down, but if you came to the table with a mixed force, ally rules be damned, if it wasn't a competition (or even if it was, but had TO approval) and you weren't blatantly trying to power game some cheese, I, and the overwhelmingly majority will likely say "cool, let's go for it"
Rubber stamping allies has damaged the game more than helped it, exactly because it gave the WAAC crowd licence to abuse it, and that has irritated and annoyed far more people, in theory or in practice, than it has helped.
Bollocks. For a start, I don't know where you play your games, but nowhere I've ever gamed, save with a picked group of friends who share the same attitude, had anywhere even remotely close to am overwhelming majority who were willing to step outside the "official" rules in anything except the most minor ways. Hell most didn't even begin to approach a plurality. Going to your average club pre-Allies and trying to find a game using a fandex or an army that wasn't selected according to the FoC from within a single codex, you'd be lucky if you got any takers more than once a month, if at all.
As for Allies damaging more than helping; evidence? We've all seen the horror-combos the WAAC types came up with, and I've seen nothing to suggest they are uniquely damaging to 40K. The game long since passed the point where what degree of cheese you utilise actually makes a difference on the tabletop; if you decide to make a list designed to take advantage of every loophole, every undercosted unit or overly-effective ability, there's nothing a more relaxed, fluffy list is going to be able to do about it, whether you're using one codex or four - on the table screamerstars and Taudar are functionally no more broken than wound allocation shenanigans from last edition or MSU-spam parking lots from the one before that, they'll all table a flufflist and they'll all make the game thoroughly dull and unenjoyable for the non-WAAC opponent. It only makes a difference when you're comparing older monodex broken lists against new multidex broken lists.
I play at a club BTW, but evidently not one populated by uptight douches!
As for the evidence, I've submitted my Freedom Of Information request to the Global 40K Commission, when they get back to me with the relevant stats, I'll post them up here.
azreal13 wrote: News flash dude, I can refuse to play you if you bring a Tactical Squad in an Ultramarines army if I like.
The point is, most reasonable people won't refuse a reasonable request. Sure, if you ambush them you're increasing the odds of getting turned down, but if you came to the table with a mixed force, ally rules be damned, if it wasn't a competition (or even if it was, but had TO approval) and you weren't blatantly trying to power game some cheese, I, and the overwhelmingly majority will likely say "cool, let's go for it"
Rubber stamping allies has damaged the game more than helped it, exactly because it gave the WAAC crowd licence to abuse it, and that has irritated and annoyed far more people, in theory or in practice, than it has helped.
Anecdotal of course but I agree with the previous posters premise that "forging a narrative" was very difficult against people when that narrative involved taking allies in an army when the rules did not allow it. Not to mention the 1000 questions that come up when you want to cast a psycic power, join a unit with an IC, allow other units in your transports, figured out what was able to score and what was not, etc... It was near on impossible to play games this way before 6th. And if you got lucky rolls and beat your opponent badly? well good luck getting another game with the same list it would be instantly frowned upon.
However.. I also understand the WAAC crowd and the abuse/annoyance, most cheese lists were based around abusing that I believe. I would argue that allies themselves did not lead to the abuse but what allying allowed armies to do did. I wonder if the minimization of the Battle Brothers and the change to the allies chart will mitigate the WAAC whilst allowing the fluff though...
List building is as much a tactical decision as playing the game itself. Hell I spend almost more time working on lists than actually playing.
I used to be mad about a lot of netlists I faced...until I realized I was A. playing badly, and B. bringing lists that I thought were cool instead of tactically sound. Do I bring net lists? Nope, but I try to play well to mitigate that power difference and even if I dont win I give it my all and it is always more satisfying to have a well fought loss than an unsatisfying win.
At the last tournament I went to the game was over in the first 2 turns, and they were tabled or gave up by turn 4. It was completely unsatisfying(and that was without a netlist). So for the next tournament I am toning down my list further to try and make it a better game.
I agree wholeheartedly that having a good competition between myself and my foe makes for a fun game.
there is little to no tactics involved with playing a net list like a parking lot of IG. Line up tanks. Roll DIce. WIn game. Spam OP unit. Roll dice. Win game. Find some loop hole in the rules. Abuse loop hole. Win game.
Not for me.
Lots of tournament players use the defense that you have to play a net lists if you want to be competitive. It is true to a significant degree that your list will have a large impact on weather you win or loose, but tactics are not just math hammering out the best unit and only spamming those. I have made it to the top table many times and i NEVER take a cheese list. It diminishes the sensation (for me, not everyone) of winning on the merit of my own ability.
Lansirill wrote: The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.
What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.
7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.
It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.
Lansirill wrote: The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.
What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.
7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.
It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.
It does, but it also stops someone from bringing a squad of Wraithguard with D-scythes and 1 D-cannon to improve the killing range of the D-scythes
I play at a club BTW, but evidently not one populated by uptight douches!
Well lets see, there was the three years where I was attempting to use the original AdMech fandex, at that point I went to a local club three times a month, and I believe I managed to get less than 10 games with that army, I usually had to dump a chunk of the units and play counts-as Imperial Guard instead. I got a whole four games with my Radical Daemonhunter and Chaos Marines army, that was over the course of a year, and at a different club. Back in uni I tried to persuade many opponents that it would be fun to actually use different rules for each of the subgroupings in my Marines Crusade army, I don't think I got a single taker, they always just ended up being used as a standard C:SM army. My last attempt was at my current club before Allies came in, I attempted to gain traction with an all-cavalry Guard force, a Rough Rider company on xenomounts, that one managed five games, but four of those were against the same bloke, a good mate who no longer lives around here. There were also the many, many "fun" years where anything I bought from Forge World was essentially just extra weight in my gaming bags, since only a handful of people would let you use them.
I don't see these people as "douches", they might be pedantic from my perspective, even lacking in imagination if I was feeling uncharitable, but there's no malice in what they do. I just find the suggestion that such attitudes are so rare as to be irrelevant laughable.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.
So simple. It required almost no thought.
Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1, while they IWND the wounds back, or to give an example of a unit someone would actually take, broods of carnifexes, centurions, fleshhounds, or chaos spawn. Taking from the front sort of makes sense (the flamer isn't going to roast the guys at the back), but I can understand the annoyance that it is for horde melee armies.
The new wound allocation method just seems to be reining in the multi flamer units from obliterating infantry hordes.
Sihdhartha wrote: It does, but it also stops someone from bringing a squad of Wraithguard with D-scythes and 1 D-cannon to improve the killing range of the D-scythes
So does the way weapon range worked in the 6th ed rulebook before they erratad it - you just measure to the closest model in the enemy unit, and if he is in range, you're in range of the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xera32 wrote: Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1, while they IWND the wounds back, or to give an example of a unit someone would actually take, broods of carnifexes, centurions, fleshhounds, or chaos spawn. Taking from the front sort of makes sense (the flamer isn't going to roast the guys at the back), but I can understand the annoyance that it is for horde melee armies.
The new wound allocation method just seems to be reining in the multi flamer units from obliterating infantry hordes.
All that was needed to remove 5th edition's wound shenanigans was a rule requiring you to apply subsequent wounds to already-wounded models first, with an optional exclusion for ICs joined to the unit.
Sihdhartha wrote: It does, but it also stops someone from bringing a squad of Wraithguard with D-scythes and 1 D-cannon to improve the killing range of the D-scythes
So does the way weapon range worked in the 6th ed rulebook before they erratad it - you just measure to the closest model in the enemy unit, and if he is in range, you're in range of the unit.
I'm not saying it was the least clunky way to resolve this, but this sort of shenanigans is the only thing I can think of at the moment that this rule change would be in place to resolve.
xera32 wrote: Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1
Except that isn't how it worked. You removed whole models rather than leaving multiple wounded models in a unit. It was really simple.
So if a unit of 10 creatures, each creature with 3 wounds, took 7 wounds (after saves), you'd remove one model and have one model left on 1 wound. If, during the next round, the same unit took another 13 unsaved wounds, the first wound would remove the model that had 1 wound left, and the remaining 12 wounds would remove 4 more models.
“But it only works if it is satisfying for both players” Yeah like you care, GW. Are 2++ satisfying for both players? Are goddamn flying vehicles and monstrous creature satisfying for both players when even after one full edition, some army still do not have access to any AA weapon, let alone a flyer of their own?
Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?
Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?
You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.
Lansirill wrote: The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.
What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.
7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.
It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.
+1 here. I can't understand why GW is making wound allocation more complicated every iteration of the game. Now instead of grabbing a bunch of color coded dice and roll for all my IG squad I'll have to go and make one for the flamer dude, plus the sarge that will have to come first lest he ends out of range with his pistol, then the lasguns and finally the hwt... great way to speed play (and that's without taking into account armor save shenannigans)
Thank you ClockworkZion for uploading those pages from the White Dwarf. Very informative and enlightening.
I have to say that though the tactical cards may not be a bad idea, they do seem to be a bit...ponderous? Added to that the new psychic phase I just see this game becoming positively glacial in its execution. Compounded with all the other mandatory additions/options 40K seems to be stuck firmly in the mud.
Hollismason wrote: I'm surprised more people have't been flipping out over Lords of War being in a normal list!
Because LoW were already in normal lists. The fact that certain players didn't like this and stubbornly insisted that their "no LoW" house rule was the standard game doesn't change the fact that Escalation put them into the standard game. All 7th edition seems to be doing with LoW is keeping the existing rules, but putting them into the core rulebook so you don't have to buy the Escalation book to have them.
Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?
You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.
Was going to say Sisters, but you said it. I thought Orks had flyers. Bombers and a jet, or am I mistaking something? I even have the kit but not put it together yet. So they have a flyer as well.
The good thing about cards is you can make game variants that omit or add to the deck, or GW Can make alternate decks for variant missions.
And whilel it hasn't been confirmed yet I bet that altars of war get a mention in the 7e BRB, giving further ways to change how we play the game on a regular basis.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What armies don't have acces to a flyer?
Orks? They have jets.
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?
You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.
Was going to say Sisters, but you said it. I thought Orks had flyers. Bombers and a jet, or am I mistaking something? I even have the kit but not put it together yet. So they have a flyer as well.
Orks jets have Supa Shootas. S6 is pretty pathetic for dealing with other flyers, who tend to have 11+ armor. So they have them, they're just not very good at dealing with other flyers.
We have no AA guns, but considering we're BS2 snapshots don't really hurt us as much. Problem is that once your lootas are gone (which if your opponent isn't a drooling vegetable should be the first thing to die), orks generally don't have enough high strength shots to do anything about flyers.
I think the new shooting rules make sense. I don't think they'll actually slow my games down as i always made separate rolls for the different classes of weapons anyway. I hate trying to remember which colored die was for which weapon when my opponent rolled so I always just trusted them anyway.
Also, I'm really liking that Pens only happen on a 7+. My DE wyches and warriors will breath a little easier knowing that they'll live a bit longer when their ride inevitably turns into scrap metal.
The Diff Terrain change to just being -2 also helps out a lot. There are many ways a unit moves and now having it a flat -2 simplifies things.
On the whole I think we'll end up with some mechanics that take longer and some that go faster.
So am I to understand a krak missile may no longer take out a rhino from behind? That doesn't seem right.
Though I can see Unbound being fun for a select few, it's obvious money grab overtones are hard to ignore. Players won't just have to buy more models, but will have to pony up for their rules as well. Clever, in a sneaky underhanded way! I just think it will take away more than it can possibly add to the game.
Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?
amanita wrote: So am I to understand a krak missile may no longer take out a rhino from behind? That doesn't seem right.
It can still be Wrecked, can't it?
Don't know if explodes only moved to "7" or if wrecked is at 6. In any case, an anti-tank rocket fired at the back of a lightly armored vehicle now only either has a 1/6 chance of destroying it if it both hits and penetrates or possibly none on one shot depending on if wrecked is still at 6.
warboss wrote: In any case, an anti-tank rocket fired at the back of a lightly armored vehicle now only either has a 1/16 chance of destroying it or possibly none on one shot depending on if wrecked is still at 6.
Yep, welcome to 40k, where tanks are simultaneously horribly fragile for gameplay purposes and absurdly durable from a fluff perspective. There's really no way to justify how stupid these rules are.
warboss wrote: In any case, an anti-tank rocket fired at the back of a lightly armored vehicle now only either has a 1/16 chance of destroying it or possibly none on one shot depending on if wrecked is still at 6.
Yep, welcome to 40k, where tanks are simultaneously horribly fragile for gameplay purposes and absurdly durable from a fluff perspective. There's really no way to justify how stupid these rules are.
The Chewbacca Defense? Look Inq Torquemanda is bestest friend with bloodthirsters now! Don't pay attention to the confusing new rules.
Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.
The "pessimism" lies in the realistic viewpoint of a game degrading from a structured play style. A structured play style promotes a healthy community that has no observed fissures that Warhammer 40k does. I've seen some stuff wrong in other games, but it's never been on the level of this game; the only difference between casual and hardcore is time spent versus army composition.
Nor are we dealing with a company that actually promotes community health, either.
Even further in the wait category. But it'll probably sell out and be the "bestest rules ever!" 5e with fixed wound allocation and double hull points anyone?
BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.
That has never ever been the case. Even GW has made statements as such. They "reinvent" the game each edition.
I've gamed since Rogue Trader, and I know 1st was a role playing version (that was out for 6 years, and never got any errata, or faqs, just sayin'), 2nd was the emergence of the game as a war game as we know it (3 books, uber characters, cards, etc...) that lasted 5 years. Then 3rd (for 6 years), 4th (for 4 years), 5th (for 4 years), and 6th (for 2 years)...
Sure, each book carried over some things from it's predecessor, yes, but in essence the newer rule book is/was in fact a NEW game.
If ANY game company wanted to fix and fine tune their rules, we'd have seen Warhammer 40k Version 1.2, then 1.3, then 1.4, etc... But GW won't do that. They stated they are moving the game into bigger and bigger games. Soon Titans will be allowed...
Just don't disillusion yourself in thinking 7th is the "fixed" or "fine tuned" version of 6th...
TheKbob wrote: Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.
None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.
It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.
Wow. I saw a glimmer of hope, until the design studio said they saw Chappy getting more time than Libby... what the freaking feth?!?!! How on earth do these idiots keep their jobs?!? Seriously, we need a coup and put Gilstrap, Brandt, Tuttle, and Reecius in charge of design and play testing. The podcast crew would do a billion times better than these sycophant, lore butchering, no FAQ support morons.
There's some pearls on the swine still, I just hope a community agreement can be made on a sane tournament 40k rules system that the American 40k scene can use in club play with a spirit of solidarity and conformity.
spartanlegion wrote: BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.
You have misunderstood. It's quite well known that GW use a new edition to shake things up. What people are saying is that each new edition should be intended to finetune the previous instead of just changing stuff for the sake of change.
BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.
That has never ever been the case. Even GW has made statements as such. They "reinvent" the game each edition.
I've gamed since Rogue Trader, and I know 1st was a role playing version (that was out for 6 years, and never got any errata, or faqs, just sayin'), 2nd was the emergence of the game as a war game as we know it (3 books, uber characters, cards, etc...) that lasted 5 years. Then 3rd (for 6 years), 4th (for 4 years), 5th (for 4 years), and 6th (for 2 years)...
Sure, each book carried over some things from it's predecessor, yes, but in essence the newer rule book is/was in fact a NEW game.
If ANY game company wanted to fix and fine tune their rules, we'd have seen Warhammer 40k Version 1.2, then 1.3, then 1.4, etc... But GW won't do that. They stated they are moving the game into bigger and bigger games. Soon Titans will be allowed...
Just don't disillusion yourself in thinking 7th is the "fixed" or "fine tuned" version of 6th...
TheKbob wrote: Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.
None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.
It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.
They're commenting on what is known. No, the rule book hasn't been released, but many of the rules are known, like the addition to a new phase. A new phase will add to the time it takes to play, if you can't see that then you're blind. You don't need the rulebook to figure that out. Also, people are commenting on how this release, so far, is following a perceived pattern of GW business and gaming practices. We don't need the full rulebook to see the obvious moneygrabbing "use your whole collection" type game this is becoming.
You could easily be accused of being a blinded white knight, but I won't do that because I don't know you. So stop accusing people of arrogance.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What armies don't have acces to a flyer?
Orks? They have jets.
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?
You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.
Was going to say Sisters, but you said it. I thought Orks had flyers. Bombers and a jet, or am I mistaking something? I even have the kit but not put it together yet. So they have a flyer as well.
Orks jets have Supa Shootas. S6 is pretty pathetic for dealing with other flyers, who tend to have 11+ armor. So they have them, they're just not very good at dealing with other flyers.
Considering you can fire 18 twin linked BS3 shots on a waaagh.... it's actually pretty damn good and hardly pathetic. You could also learn how to flank against rear armour. It's not that hard to do with a flyer coming in from reserve.
spartanlegion wrote: BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.
You have misunderstood. It's quite well known that GW use a new edition to shake things up. What people are saying is that each new edition should be intended to finetune the previous instead of just changing stuff for the sake of change.
I agree, but there have been a few posters that sounded like they didn't understand that...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.
So simple. It required almost no thought.
Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1, while they IWND the wounds back, or to give an example of a unit someone would actually take, broods of carnifexes, centurions, fleshhounds, or chaos spawn. Taking from the front sort of makes sense (the flamer isn't going to roast the guys at the back), but I can understand the annoyance that it is for horde melee armies.
The new wound allocation method just seems to be reining in the multi flamer units from obliterating infantry hordes.
Agreed, musical wounds was the worst thing about 5th and I'm so glad it's gone. The only compromise I'd be OK with would be owner choosing the model, but then all wounds apply to that model until it is removed.
TheKbob wrote: Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.
None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.
It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.
Can you offer up something to be hopeful about instead of calling people's opinion "whining"? Is that at all possible?
insaniak wrote: The change to vehicle damage is promising... Making it harder to one-shot vehicles is a good change.
However, unless they have changed how LOS works, they have managed to make regular shooting even more annoying with the change to rolling each different weapon individually...
The one-shot was my bane, since I like Razorbacks I'd run 6 of them sometimes, I would lose them quick, then the remaing little 6 man squads would be hoofing it, usually losing too many squad members to hold anything. So for me that sounds great!
BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.
That has never ever been the case. Even GW has made statements as such. They "reinvent" the game each edition.
I've gamed since Rogue Trader, and I know 1st was a role playing version (that was out for 6 years, and never got any errata, or faqs, just sayin'), 2nd was the emergence of the game as a war game as we know it (3 books, uber characters, cards, etc...) that lasted 5 years. Then 3rd (for 6 years), 4th (for 4 years), 5th (for 4 years), and 6th (for 2 years)...
Sure, each book carried over some things from it's predecessor, yes, but in essence the newer rule book is/was in fact a NEW game.
If ANY game company wanted to fix and fine tune their rules, we'd have seen Warhammer 40k Version 1.2, then 1.3, then 1.4, etc... But GW won't do that. They stated they are moving the game into bigger and bigger games. Soon Titans will be allowed...
Just don't disillusion yourself in thinking 7th is the "fixed" or "fine tuned" version of 6th...
TheKbob wrote: Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.
None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.
It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.
They're commenting on what is known.
The comments are definitive conclusions, though. And as I said, it follows in line with this guy, always cynical doom and gloom nonsense.
No, the rule book hasn't been released, but many of the rules are known,
and more rules are not known than are known.
like the addition to a new phase. A new phase will add to the time it takes to play, if you can't see that then you're blind.
That is an arrogant assumption. The arrogance is hard coded into your language by calling other blind (yet the rules have not been released and you have not played the new rules at all, you're calling other blind? Way to go .
Having psychic powers spread over multiple phases causes headaches that may very well cost you more time in a game than having them consolidated into a phase. Let's not forget when players forget the correct phase that a power must be used, and ask the other player to backtrack, and the ensuing discussions that occur.... that takes a lot of time as well.
You don't need the rulebook to figure that out.
According to what logic?
Also, people are commenting on how this release, so far, is following a perceived pattern of GW business and gaming practices. We don't need the full rulebook to see the obvious moneygrabbing "use your whole collection" type game this is becoming.
You could easily be accused of being a blinded white knight, but I won't do that because I don't know you. So stop accusing people of arrogance.
It's a form a tunnel vision, written without thinking of alternate possibilities and variables. It's arrogant enough to call it arrogant
TheKbob wrote: Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.
None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.
It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.
As others have already stated, I'm not whining nor assuming. Rather I'm drawing educated hypothesis based off information we now know and the previous gameplay trends of Warhammer 40k.
I'm sorry if I'm a "broken record" but I suggest you not turn your scorn from someone reciting facts, rather to the entity reproducing them time and time again.
Give me a reason to post a sportive response for 7th edition and I'll gladly jump for joy. Nothing that's been presented has me happy. What would? A massive release of FAQs, new Facebook pages, a community forum, community managers, and an announcement of a new edition in the months to come with open player testing to ensure a solid release worth the monetary investment.
Because if you're going to ask triple the cost of your competition, you should at least have feature parity. But then again, this is just me "whining."
Time for a quick reminder that personal attacks contribute nothing worthwhile to the discussion. Dakka's rule #1 is to be polite. Let's try to keep this behemoth on the rails, hmm? Address the rules discussion, not the character of the poster.
Please note my first post plains says wording such as "suggests". Yes, the Game Could have a seventh phase where we play beer pong to decide who goes first on the next turn. But for the sake of not addressing the absurd, we use the practical wisdom given to us. This wisdom suggests this isn't a 5e to 6e level of change, it is a tweak of 6e into... We don't know.
But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer.
And as for emotionally charged, yes I am unhappy at new changes, my primary army being garbage, and the company asking more money for an unknown update.
My emotions do not change the facts of Games Workshops business decisions and how they reflect poorly in comparison to their competition. And I used the term Occam's Razor, implying the simplest solution is usually he most correct. The new edition is probably for financial reasons. Could it be coincidence? Yes. We cannot prove either theory correct or incorrect, but this then suggests to err on the side of caution given the previous mentioned facts and trends.
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.
They're commenting on what is known. No, the rule book hasn't been released, but many of the rules are known, like the addition to a new phase. A new phase will add to the time it takes to play, if you can't see that then you're blind. You don't need the rulebook to figure that out. Also, people are commenting on how this release, so far, is following a perceived pattern of GW business and gaming practices. We don't need the full rulebook to see the obvious moneygrabbing "use your whole collection" type game this is becoming.
You could easily be accused of being a blinded white knight, but I won't do that because I don't know you. So stop accusing people of arrogance.
No he couldnt easily be accused as a blinded white knight because some of his posts have been positive about the changes and some of them have been negative. He could be accused of being balanced.
As far as you thinking it will slow the game down? that is your opinion... it is hardly a fact.
TheKbob wrote: Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.
None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.
It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.
They're commenting on what is known.
The comments are definitive conclusions, though. And as I said, it follows in line with this guy, always cynical doom and gloom nonsense.
No, the rule book hasn't been released, but many of the rules are known,
and more rules are not known than are known.
like the addition to a new phase. A new phase will add to the time it takes to play, if you can't see that then you're blind.
That is an arrogant assumption. The arrogance is hard coded into your language by calling other blind (yet the rules have not been released and you have not played the new rules at all, you're calling other blind? Way to go .
Having psychic powers spread over multiple phases causes headaches that may very well cost you more time in a game than having them consolidated into a phase. Let's not forget when players forget the correct phase that a power must be used, and ask the other player to backtrack, and the ensuing discussions that occur.... that takes a lot of time as well.
You don't need the rulebook to figure that out.
According to what logic?
Also, people are commenting on how this release, so far, is following a perceived pattern of GW business and gaming practices. We don't need the full rulebook to see the obvious moneygrabbing "use your whole collection" type game this is becoming.
You could easily be accused of being a blinded white knight, but I won't do that because I don't know you. So stop accusing people of arrogance.
It's a form a tunnel vision, written without thinking of alternate possibilities and variables. It's arrogant enough to call it arrogant
So, basically your argument comes down to "Nuh uh!"
My argument is that the poster has the responsibility to provide a burden of proof to back up his conclusions. Just because he thinks a psychic phase will slow down the game, doesn't mean that it will.
The other thing, we have failed to address the specifics. Ask yourself, does having the psychic powers spread out in multiple phases provide an efficiency of sorts that proves superior to having it in a phase?
As far as I have read, this issue has not been touched upon , yet it has been concluded which is odd.
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..
Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?
Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
The game has gotten longer to play. You can see this in tournament play with extended round lengths. I know, anecdotally, that outside of my death star forces, games are normally 2.5 hours. My Draigowing can be played to completion in usually an hour to hour and a half. This is using primarily 30 models, with most being back field squatters or 15-30pt acolyte units.
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..
Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?
Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
The game has gotten longer to play. You can see this in tournament play with extended round lengths. I know, anecdotally, that outside of my death star forces, games are normally 2.5 hours. My Draigowing can be played to completion in usually an hour to hour and a half. This is using primarily 30 models, with most being back field squatters or 15-30pt acolyte units.
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
I saw far more games running out of time at 6th edition events than I did during 5th.
TheKbob wrote: Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..
Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?
Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
This is hardly a main slowing down factor. As the True LOS and cover rules changes were. I think you're blowing things heavily out of proportion.
We can only tell when the rules come out and enough games are played to average it out via impression
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
The game has gotten longer to play. You can see this in tournament play with extended round lengths. I know, anecdotally, that outside of my death star forces, games are normally 2.5 hours. My Draigowing can be played to completion in usually an hour to hour and a half. This is using primarily 30 models, with most being back field squatters or 15-30pt acolyte units.
Which tournaments extended there round lengths?
Also my second point what is really different in wound allocations that will mean the game will take longer? and if so how much longer? are we talking 2 minutes per turn? 5 minutes? is this something people are going to even notice if it exists? are there practices that people can implement to help the game speed up like rolling different colored dice together? etc...
I'll be gracious and bow out. I don't have time to research every major GT structure or my local RTTs over the past two years. But the general consensus is the same, the game has gotten longer to play. I've been in the loop with plenty of TOs and attended enough tournaments to know this is a discussed issues. If you want write it off as anecdotal, then move on,
bodazoka wrote: Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.
Sure, you can. Just like a lot of players ignored the change to LOS that resulted in saves having to be rolled one at a time... Which is fine, right up until you run into a player who wants to play by the actual rules.
TheKbob wrote: Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.
I always rolled my dice by type one at a time anyway. Honestly with people trying to have 3-4 different weapons firing at the same time and remembering which dice. My method of going weapon by weapon usually was faster.
Also I find that if people know the rules and know what they are doing games end naturally. I usully finish in under 2 hours unless the other guy is playing really slow or doesn't know the rules. Usually it is people who don't know the rules well and we constantly have to check the rule book that takes the most time. Or people who don't know what they are going to do and take 5 minutes to move one unit.
There are plenty of short cuts you can take. Our local horde ork player always got to at least turn 5 because he knew how to move his army quickly.
bodazoka wrote: Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.
Sure, you can. Just like a lot of players ignored the change to LOS that resulted in saves having to be rolled one at a time... Which is fine, right up until you run into a player who wants to play by the actual rules.
How many players out of a 1000 would make me do that? if/when that happens in a tournament (where time matters more) I would seriously doubt the TO (who I would call over) will support that guy's obvious attempt at slow playing me.
Although currently years in gaming and yet to meet him/her.
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..
Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?
Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
This is hardly a main slowing down factor. As the True LOS and cover rules changes were. I think you're blowing things heavily out of proportion.
We can only tell when the rules come out and enough games are played to average it out via impression
Am I?
I'm the one stating it will make the game longer. Based on Jervis' words, that appears fact. Unless White Dwarf expresses their frequent use of "glossing over."
You're the one antagonizing me. We shall know when the rules come out. Be my guest and prove me wrong.
TheKbob wrote: Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.
So no change then?
Go retread the article. Complete change.
You wont play 40K like that. No one will.
So no change.
Besides.. it's a white dwarf article. I am almost 100% positive that the rolling of multiple colored dice to speed the game up was mentioned by GW either in a white dwarf or the rule book itself, hell it may even be in the 7th ed!
TheKbob wrote: Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.
So no change then?
Go retread the article. Complete change.
You wont play 40K like that. No one will.
So no change.
Besides.. it's a white dwarf article. I am almost 100% positive that the rolling of multiple colored dice to speed the game up was mentioned by GW either in a white dwarf or the rule book itself.
And again, the article says otherwise. If tts wrong, then they are lying about the very product they intend to sell you. Fabulous!
You just playing this method would be "slow play" thus if you followed the rules as written, shoots would take longer which supports my original claim that games would take longer in total. So I'm wrong, but double wrong if GW is also wrong?
So I'm always wrong and you're always right, got it,
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..
Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?
Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,
So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.
This is hardly a main slowing down factor. As the True LOS and cover rules changes were. I think you're blowing things heavily out of proportion.
We can only tell when the rules come out and enough games are played to average it out via impression
Am I?
I'm the one stating it will make the game longer. Based on Jervis' words, that appears fact. Unless White Dwarf expresses their frequent use of "glossing over."
You're the one antagonizing me. We shall know when the rules come out. Be my guest and prove me wrong.
I'm not antagonising you, I simply don't believe you have the tools, information or even the sufficient evidence necessary to make the claims you are claiming.
The burden of proof is on you, being the maker of claims. So provide the quote and explain yourself fully?
I can't really explain how your assertion works, now can I?
Using a tournament to state that games don't last longer is a self defeating argument. Tourneys are timed events. The only way to judge if times were running linger would be to have statistics on the average number of turns completed by the players per round. I have never seen this metric anywhere.
Since tournaments are timed events and are extremely competitive, the players involved usually bring very efficient armies with somewhat lower model counts to account for limited time.
This is a terrible way to judge the average time to complete a game.
bodazoka wrote: How many players out of a 1000 would make me do that? if/when that happens in a tournament (where time matters more) I would seriously doubt the TO (who I would call over) will support that guy's obvious attempt at slow playing me.
My experience was about half and half with players expecting LOS to be played 'correctly'... It has nothign to do with slow playing. It potentially makes a difference to the outcome.
TheKbob wrote: Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.
Yeah the mission cards will add a few minutes while you figure out how to get as many VPs as you can that turn. I don't even want to think about if you don't have the cards and have to roll for them. That will take too long for me. So I agree there but that is only if you're playing the missions that use them. If you're running short on time stick to the standard 6 missions.
The magic phase is really only adding a few d6 to the duration of the game each turn. Roll a D6 add mastery levels won't take but a second unless you forget your psykers levels every turn. Denying in 6th edition everything gets to roll a d6 to try and deny. 7th you get d6 attempts to try and deny, heck this part might even be faster if you throw all your dice at a single power (forewarning). Casting powers got a few d6 longer if you perils, granted.
The shooting phase I don't think will be too bad either. Yes if you have a flamer or blast weapon shooting it might add an appreciable amount of time to each squad's shooting based on player skill and how well you know know each other (EX: Not watching him roll the saves while you're measuring distance and rolling to hit for other weapons).
I think the space magic phase and new shooting will add a lot of tactical choice. Do I use my very short ranged demo charge first or hope massed hits from my 3 flamers will kill these Space Marines? Do I throw all my dispel dice at the forwarning or do I try and stop his perfect timing too? It will take longer I agree but I think it adds to overall gameplay as well. I will have to wait and see as my opinion is based on WDW and maybe the way I'm imagining it isn't right and it will take much longer than I think.
Random thought...I'm going to have to number my objectives now. I can just picture it now.. "which frakking objective is objective 3?"
EX: Not watching him roll the saves while you're measuring distance and rolling to hit for other weapons).
This one is an interesting one to me because when I leave the table I always say "Hey man roll/move whatever and let me know when I get back". My thing is if I feel like you are the kind of person who would cheat I wouldn't be playing you in the first place. Even in a tournament, if you cheat that is on you and you have to live with that.
Also with premeasuring its pretty hard to cheat on movement since I will have measured the major worries/ranges.
Also for most things that take extra time I just say screw it and let them pick.
For things like random allocation I just let them pick which models, for multiple barrage I just roll them all and go from there, in most situations I let people run in the movement phase(unless it might actually affect the outcome)
Is this the exact way you are supposed to play? Nope, but it saves time. Neither is this a problem with the rules, as long as the end result is close enough I don't really care. Then again I am also the guy who makes sure people know what a unit can do or when they are making a mistake during a game, just to make sure it was as intended.
For example: In the last tournament the AM guy cast ignore cover on the unit shooting at my bikes. I asked him why because he had nothing that broke my armor and there was no way for me to get a better save. So I just let him choose something else. This was at the top table of the tournament.
TheKbob wrote: And again, the article says otherwise. If tts wrong, then they are lying about the very product they intend to sell you. Fabulous!
You just playing this method would be "slow play" thus if you followed the rules as written, shoots would take longer which supports my original claim that games would take longer in total. So I'm wrong, but double wrong if GW is also wrong?
So I'm always wrong and you're always right, got it,
Just because that is how they mention the hits are to be rolled does not mean they do not adivcate (nor is it illegal) to roll the dice all together. It does not mean that this is what the rule book insists you MUST do.
If people roll there dice as written in the white dwarf article you would be correct, however.. no one will (outside of the 1 in 1000 player) and you know that. Your argument that this method will make the game take longer is correct, what Im arguing is that effectively the way to roll the dice will remain the same (as there is nothing stating that you are not allowed to roll them all together) hence there is no change.
bodazoka wrote: How many players out of a 1000 would make me do that? if/when that happens in a tournament (where time matters more) I would seriously doubt the TO (who I would call over) will support that guy's obvious attempt at slow playing me.
My experience was about half and half with players expecting LOS to be played 'correctly'... It has nothign to do with slow playing. It potentially makes a difference to the outcome.
I meant the rolling of the dice, I am sorry I never specifically responded to the LOS thing.
bodazoka wrote: I meant the rolling of the dice, I am sorry I never specifically responded to the LOS thing.
To be clear, by 'LOS' I was talking about 'Look Out Sir' not line of sight. Hence the slow playing reference. Playing Look Out Sir correctly is much, much slower than the abbreviated way that people were playing before (and in some cases after) the FAQ changed it.
Frankly all this back and forth seems silly to me and I'd much rather discuss what we do and don't like about what we know than having arguments over if we find the other person's point of view valid or not.
So that said I'm skipping all this back and forth stuff and instead going to do a full run down of everything we know so far (from the videos and WDs) and what I think of all of it:
Unbound Armies: Interesting idea, hampered by the problems of the game balance (or lack there of). Taking FOC is not a bad idea, by itself. The real issue is that we have things that run too high in points and this rarely, if ever see lists (ex. Terminators) or are just automatic takes into a list (ex. Wraithknights). I assume more people who want to use this for fun ideas or cool thematic armies will likely get lumped into the crowd of "WAAC jerkasses" by most people just because of the way the game isn't balanced. That said....
Battle-Forged Armies: I do like that GW at least has made some attempt (though to what effect we don't know exactly) to balance the new against the old by giving the limited lists some kind of buff for playing with restraints on. I just hope this goes beyond the "super scoring" and re-rolling Warlord traits because the first can still be beaten by tabling and the latter doesn't matter if you use most named characters.
Psychic Phase: Frankly I like this. It gives psykers a nice spotlight while not letting them run too rampant. With how powers work (4+ per Warp Charge required for the power) and Perils works (rolling Double 6s) it really brings a nice risk/reward mechanic system to the game. One that I hope is paired with powers that really make you want to use the new phase. The free Primaris is a nice buff to level one psykers and rewards specialists, but really the dispel mechanic will be the major make or break for most people on this I think.
Daemonology: No, I didn't forget it, I just wanted to cover this one on its own. Frankly the idea is fine in my book. I even like the idea of Dark Angels being radical enough in how they'd hunt the Fallen to resort to summoning Daemons to do their will as it fits my head canon of how far the chapter will go in their hunt. The full restrictions and methodology used for this would be the real make or break for me if it wasn't for the whole "all doubles perils" (unless your Daemons) thing that really cuts a lot of the crud out of it. Also who really wants to summon something in their army that can trigger the whole "stand around and do nothing" part of distrusted allies if they're within 6" (which they likely will be after being summoned). I just don't see this being the new "big thing" to be abused in 7th, but I can always be wrong.
Maelstrom of War Missions/Tactical Objective Mission Cards: Love the concept, love the idea, love the fact that you don't even need to buy the cards to use them. This is frankly one of the BEST things I've seen in this release so far. It's a dynamic way to change how the game is played from turn to turn and I feel does a lot to break up the ol' "grab objectives at the last minute" method of playing the game we've been doing for two editions now. This one gets a thumbs up just for shaking that monkey off our backs. Of course, if you like the monkey (his name is Bobo), you can still play the old missions or one of the MANY alternate ones in the Altar of War or Supplement books. So nothing was invalidated, just expanded on. I like it!
Price/Three Book Combo: Frankly I'm not excited about the price. Yes, I know the rulebooks have been getting progressively thicker over the years but I don't like the price creep that has come with them. And while I'm happy this was NOT $100 USD as guessed I still wish it'd stayed $75 or gotten cheaper. That aside, making the books a three pack is genius. It gives players a smaller rulesbook to carry around and reference, and that makes most of us pretty happy. They just need to hurry up and release it by itself for less than $40 before summer is over to earn real brownie points.
Oh and the special edition is just way too damned much.
FMCs: A single grounding test if they sustain wounds is a nice buff for them because before it was all to easy to drop them (and for a while, dribble them like a basketball). It might annoy armies that relied on grounding FMCs to make things work but if anything related to the rumors regarding snapfire are true I don't see it being too big of a deal if they're slightly harder to drop.
Challenges: I like the overflow aspect. It's a good buff towards armies that want to use challenges effectly, or are required to (CSM). I just hope other things were tweaked to make up for the fact that using a cheap character to "speed bump" a nastier one was changed.
D-Weapons: I'm glad to see that we're seeing it balance back out again so models with invulnerable saves get protection against the attacks more often. Especially when those Invulnerable Saves are usually factored into their points costs. I'm sure Daemon players are more likely to bring their armies to Apoc games now too.
Lords of War on the FOC: We knew it was coming, here's to hoping there is something like a percentage cap like the Heresy books did.
6" Verticle Unit Coherency: I never had issues with the 3" version, but I can't complain about this. Seems fine to me. Makes scratchbuilt terrain less of a pain too I'd suspect.
Split Fire: No Leadership tests? That solves the Astra Militarum quandry right there at least. I'm sure Space Wolves are happy too.
Wound Allocation Rules: I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean it basically is just like the AP method like 6th edition, only more precise I suppose with how you'll need to approach shooting an enemy unit. I assume most of us will just roll things like we already do, and just resolve them in groups based on weapons instead of AP values just to speed things up.
7+ Explodes: Doesn't fix how easy it is to glance things to death, but at least it no longer means losing your Land Raider on a 4+ to a Melta. I hope Hull Points got buffed or vehicles got armour saves or something to make up for all this.
-2" Charge Distance into Difficult Terrain: MUCH better than before and easier to plan around. Though it does mean you could charge 0" if you roll snake-eyes which is kind of funny.
Everything Scores (for the most part): I have no idea how to feel about this, but with super scoring in the game it does make Troops a LOT more useful than before when it comes to properly holding objectives. I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.
bodazoka wrote: I meant the rolling of the dice, I am sorry I never specifically responded to the LOS thing.
To be clear, by 'LOS' I was talking about 'Look Out Sir' not line of sight. Hence the slow playing reference. Playing Look Out Sir correctly is much, much slower than the abbreviated way that people were playing before (and in some cases after) the FAQ changed it.
Honestly if the saves are all the same I just tell them to roll all the saves and then just attempt to LOS any wounds that get through to the person.
Also zion, very good rundown and I agree with most of your points.
However for me personally I found that even though it is 10 bucks more, it is going to save me a lot because I was going to get the hardcover, and then get the boxset for the soft small one with models I don't really want. Now I just need to buy the one. The extra 10 bucks is worth it to not have to carry everything around.
Now do I wish it was solo? sure but it is better than the old status quo so I am happy about that.
Also I think 7+ explodes adds a lot to vehicles survivability. Unless it is Ap1/2 or open topped you are going to survive the turn unless they dedicate fire to killing you. This means that investments in things that keep vehicles alive are now more worth it. IWND on iron hands? Way better when the vehicle might live. Venerable? Might be worth it, techmarine and servitor squads to heal vehicles might be worth it. It adds a significant amount of survivability but doesn't make them BS like they were in 5th. I think it is very significant.
undertow wrote: Agreed, musical wounds was the worst thing about 5th and I'm so glad it's gone. The only compromise I'd be OK with would be owner choosing the model, but then all wounds apply to that model until it is removed.
Yeah, I'm not talking about musical wounds at all. I've discribed exactly how it worked.
You can state that categorically and unilaterally? As insaniak said, it’s all well and good to play it your way until you run into someone who plays the rules as they are written.
bodazoka wrote: I meant the rolling of the dice, I am sorry I never specifically responded to the LOS thing.
To be clear, by 'LOS' I was talking about 'Look Out Sir' not line of sight. Hence the slow playing reference. Playing Look Out Sir correctly is much, much slower than the abbreviated way that people were playing before (and in some cases after) the FAQ changed it.
Ahh right! sorry I thought you meant line of sight. Yes the LOS thing did make it longer I always placed my 2+ save in the front as Im sure everyone else did. It did seem to frustrate allot of people when he bounces off so many wounds. And I would totally make you play it the correct way!
ClockworkZion wrote: Frankly all this back and forth seems silly to me and I'd much rather discuss what we do and don't like about what we know than having arguments over if we find the other person's point of view valid or not.
So that said I'm skipping all this back and forth stuff and instead going to do a full run down of everything we know so far (from the videos and WDs) and what I think of all of it:
Unbound Armies: Interesting idea, hampered by the problems of the game balance (or lack there of). Taking FOC is not a bad idea, by itself. The real issue is that we have things that run too high in points and this rarely, if ever see lists (ex. Terminators) or are just automatic takes into a list (ex. Wraithknights). I assume more people who want to use this for fun ideas or cool thematic armies will likely get lumped into the crowd of "WAAC jerkasses" by most people just because of the way the game isn't balanced. That said....
Battle-Forged Armies: I do like that GW at least has made some attempt (though to what effect we don't know exactly) to balance the new against the old by giving the limited lists some kind of buff for playing with restraints on. I just hope this goes beyond the "super scoring" and re-rolling Warlord traits because the first can still be beaten by tabling and the latter doesn't matter if you use most named characters.
Psychic Phase: Frankly I like this. It gives psykers a nice spotlight while not letting them run too rampant. With how powers work (4+ per Warp Charge required for the power) and Perils works (rolling Double 6s) it really brings a nice risk/reward mechanic system to the game. One that I hope is paired with powers that really make you want to use the new phase. The free Primaris is a nice buff to level one psykers and rewards specialists, but really the dispel mechanic will be the major make or break for most people on this I think.
Daemonology: No, I didn't forget it, I just wanted to cover this one on its own. Frankly the idea is fine in my book. I even like the idea of Dark Angels being radical enough in how they'd hunt the Fallen to resort to summoning Daemons to do their will as it fits my head canon of how far the chapter will go in their hunt. The full restrictions and methodology used for this would be the real make or break for me if it wasn't for the whole "all doubles perils" (unless your Daemons) thing that really cuts a lot of the crud out of it. Also who really wants to summon something in their army that can trigger the whole "stand around and do nothing" part of distrusted allies if they're within 6" (which they likely will be after being summoned). I just don't see this being the new "big thing" to be abused in 7th, but I can always be wrong.
Maelstrom of War Missions/Tactical Objective Mission Cards: Love the concept, love the idea, love the fact that you don't even need to buy the cards to use them. This is frankly one of the BEST things I've seen in this release so far. It's a dynamic way to change how the game is played from turn to turn and I feel does a lot to break up the ol' "grab objectives at the last minute" method of playing the game we've been doing for two editions now. This one gets a thumbs up just for shaking that monkey off our backs. Of course, if you like the monkey (his name is Bobo), you can still play the old missions or one of the MANY alternate ones in the Altar of War or Supplement books. So nothing was invalidated, just expanded on. I like it!
Price/Three Book Combo: Frankly I'm not excited about the price. Yes, I know the rulebooks have been getting progressively thicker over the years but I don't like the price creep that has come with them. And while I'm happy this was NOT $100 USD as guessed I still wish it'd stayed $75 or gotten cheaper. That aside, making the books a three pack is genius. It gives players a smaller rulesbook to carry around and reference, and that makes most of us pretty happy. They just need to hurry up and release it by itself for less than $40 before summer is over to earn real brownie points.
Oh and the special edition is just way too damned much.
FMCs: A single grounding test if they sustain wounds is a nice buff for them because before it was all to easy to drop them (and for a while, dribble them like a basketball). It might annoy armies that relied on grounding FMCs to make things work but if anything related to the rumors regarding snapfire are true I don't see it being too big of a deal if they're slightly harder to drop.
Challenges: I like the overflow aspect. It's a good buff towards armies that want to use challenges effectly, or are required to (CSM). I just hope other things were tweaked to make up for the fact that using a cheap character to "speed bump" a nastier one was changed.
D-Weapons: I'm glad to see that we're seeing it balance back out again so models with invulnerable saves get protection against the attacks more often. Especially when those Invulnerable Saves are usually factored into their points costs. I'm sure Daemon players are more likely to bring their armies to Apoc games now too.
Lords of War on the FOC: We knew it was coming, here's to hoping there is something like a percentage cap like the Heresy books did.
6" Verticle Unit Coherency: I never had issues with the 3" version, but I can't complain about this. Seems fine to me. Makes scratchbuilt terrain less of a pain too I'd suspect.
Split Fire: No Leadership tests? That solves the Astra Militarum quandry right there at least. I'm sure Space Wolves are happy too.
Wound Allocation Rules: I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean it basically is just like the AP method like 6th edition, only more precise I suppose with how you'll need to approach shooting an enemy unit. I assume most of us will just roll things like we already do, and just resolve them in groups based on weapons instead of AP values just to speed things up.
7+ Explodes: Doesn't fix how easy it is to glance things to death, but at least it no longer means losing your Land Raider on a 4+ to a Melta. I hope Hull Points got buffed or vehicles got armour saves or something to make up for all this.
-2" Charge Distance into Difficult Terrain: MUCH better than before and easier to plan around. Though it does mean you could charge 0" if you roll snake-eyes which is kind of funny.
Everything Scores (for the most part): I have no idea how to feel about this, but with super scoring in the game it does make Troops a LOT more useful than before when it comes to properly holding objectives. I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.
Unbound is interesting.
For me, as an ork player, it means I can take a 39 point grot unit and not blow a whole troops choice on it.
It also means I can finally lay the horde advantage down to actually mean something (eg., putting down more than 200 troops models on the table, HAHA!)
or have a boatload of cheap mutliple target units so the enemy army could never fire at everything. It will be awesome to nullify other armies overpowered toys with sheer mass
Currently Orks cannot make a convincing horde list with only 6 troops choices when the game gets between 1500-1999 points, or even with multiple detachments
That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.
Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic
Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.
MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?
The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.
Leth wrote: That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.
Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic
Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.
MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?
The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.
I think most people are worried about pickup games, not tournaments.
ClockworkZion wrote: I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.
IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.
And I have to admit, this is the one change so far that I love. My IG armored company can finally stop taking infantry just to score objectives. And since I don't need any of that unbound nonsense that means I get super-scoring LRBTs as troops, Hellhounds and Salamanders as fast scoring units, and artillery/vanquishers/etc as "home" objective campers.
ClockworkZion wrote: I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.
IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.
And I have to admit, this is the one change so far that I love. My IG armored company can finally stop taking infantry just to score objectives. And since I don't need any of that unbound nonsense that means I get super-scoring LRBTs as troops, Hellhounds and Salamanders as fast scoring units, and artillery/vanquishers/etc as "home" objective campers.
That is the first post of yours I've ever read where you said you liked something. I kind of want to mark it on the calendar.
Ribbing aside the video makes sense then. I was limiting my write up to screen caps and WD pages as it's harder to make a mistake about what is said when it's in print.
Leth wrote: That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.
Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic
Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.
MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?
The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.
I think most people are worried about pickup games, not tournaments.
Leth wrote: That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.
Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic
Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.
MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?
The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.
I think most people are worried about pickup games, not tournaments.
Care to elaborate?
I don't do tournaments and don't care about them. The rules are usually controlled and you usually see the same three lists anyways.
What I'm worried about is the pickup games where now we have even more types of games and armies to negotiate through. Do we do unbound or bound? I might not have an unbound army and that might be all he has? Or he thinks his unbound army is totally fair and I think its spammed cheese. There will always be TFG and they're obvious. It's the "in between" situations that add more complexity to what we have to do before we play. This increases the chances of game refusals and also increased and even more exaggerated mis-matched gamed. All these new rules really don't matter if you play in a tight group of people you know well and you all have a similar idea of what you want, but now the random pickup game has become a lot harder to get working to a degree that both people will find suitable.
ClockworkZion wrote: I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.
IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.
Given that the current BRB missions still exist, and two of them specify that fast attack or heavy support units are scoring, it can be assumed that there will be some limitations on scoring units.
We could possibly see say the current missions unchanged, with only troops scoring and the current secondary missions.
Unbound is simply not following the FOC, so doesn't affect scoring status of units.
Maybe the 6 Maelstrom of War missions are the ones that are "all units but zooming/swooping models are scoring", and potentially the 36 tactical objectives replace the normal secondary objectives.
All this talk of unbound army lists makes me want to make a counts-as Bentusi army that ignores the FOC. "We will not be bound! Cookie for the reference.
As far as unbound armies go, it seems from reading the white dwarf (may 17th issue) that the concept of unbound seems to be primarily geared towards new players, can't remember the exact quote. I personally think that such a stink has been raised about them thus far that not many people will run unbound armies except for fluff reasons.
What I am excited about are the changes to allies. Firstly, the reduction in battle brothers. Secondly, from what we've seen it looks like you may be limited to one allied detachment, so the era of inquisitorial dets+allies may be over. That's just my gut feeling from reading it, but it's also my biggest hope for 7th edition. I'm looking forward to trying out the rest of the rules as well, except for the tactical objectives. I just don't think 40K is a dynamic/fast enough game to support any meaningful objectives other than "shoot this guy". But we will see.
As far as wound Allocation goes, I was happy how 6th did it in the BRB. It was fast and efficient.
You take 17 Wound Roll 17 Saves and remove them from the front, when you reach a Character you make your “Look Out Sir” Roll and then if/once it falls, you move on until you run out of your Wound Pool. It was quick and worked well.
Then they FAQed it to that slow and clumsy method.
After a few games we started to ignore the FAQ.
White Dwarf is out tomorrow in Games Workshop stores, independent stockists and right here on the Games Workshop website. The big news this week is that Warhammer 40,000 is being reborn with a brand new edition. This issue of White Dwarf is the definitive guide to all the exciting changes, so make sure you pick up a copy to find out what’s new in the 41st Millennium.
Alongside a trio of articles about the new features of Warhammer 40,000 there’s a stage-by-stage painting guide for Wood Elf Dryads, a chat to the writers behind the new Warhammer 40,000, a look at all the latest releases and our weekly outpouring of office musings and painting projects.
White Dwarf is also available as as ePub and MOBI digital downloads from the Black Library website and through Apple iBooks.
ClockworkZion wrote: I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.
IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.
Given that the current BRB missions still exist, and two of them specify that fast attack or heavy support units are scoring, it can be assumed that there will be some limitations on scoring units.
We could possibly see say the current missions unchanged, with only troops scoring and the current secondary missions.
Unbound is simply not following the FOC, so doesn't affect scoring status of units.
Maybe the 6 Maelstrom of War missions are the ones that are "all units but zooming/swooping models are scoring", and potentially the 36 tactical objectives replace the normal secondary objectives.
All this talk of unbound army lists makes me want to make a counts-as Bentusi army that ignores the FOC. "We will not be bound! Cookie for the reference.
Well my guess would be that in the Big guns and the other mission heavy and fast attack would gain the Objective Secured usr in those missions. So everything is scoring just somethings are more scoring then others.
Leth wrote: Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part.
Can't you just take a unit of marker drones with a commander to achieve the same effect? Not quite as difficult to kill as a commander with a riptide, but still pretty durable if you have a few shield drones and/or put shadowsun in the unit for a cover-save bonus.
In my mind the thing that stops riptide spam is that the more of them you take, the worse the odds that one of them will fail it's nova reactor roll each turn. If the enemy concentrate their anti-armour fire against the one without a 3+ shield, they can probably take it down reasonably quickly.
So far, all 7th edition is is a few tweaks (some good, some leading to other problems) and a few new rules strictly meant to "sell more models" and not really adding much to the game.
7th is STILL going to collapse under the same junk that 6th edition has. Nothing that has really been needed to be fixed has been fixed.
The "core rules" are what need to be reworked from the ground up. It is high time, with the size of the game, that GW did away with IGOUGO. Same with saving throws - this can easily be converted into a Defense score or mechanic of similar ilk. Vehicles and flyers need to be worked from a similar mechanic in the game. Movement scores should be back in the profiles to eliminate the myriad of special rules that came about because of the elimination of it. I could go on, but the point is NOTHING that really needs to be fixed is being fixed. They are just adding more junk on top of an already bulky system.
Maybe I am missing something, but someone please tell me how anything known about 7th edition is going to cut down on the massive special rules and kinked on systems that are in place today? I haven't seen one thing that is going to do this, so the problems that exist today are STILL going to exist on May 24th only worse, because once again they have just layered more stuff on top of already broken stuff.
So I missed some stuff and I can't find the page with the original wound allocation stuff people are talking about - I assume it's separate wound pools for different weapons? I would think this would be so you have to actually think about the range of your weapon then in a multi ranged shooting attack from a unit.
I like this, it long process, but it's far more strategic and in favor of horde armies. It should be about positioning in game, rather than weapon selections on your army list.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like IGOUGO, and the different saving throws, as it opens up just the saving mechanic to many different variables that you just don't get in other games.
Did anyone else notice that they now seem to have two different game mechanics called 'Battle Focus'? One is a special rule for Eldar and the other is the bonus primaris power that psykers get for taking all their powers from one discipline.
Perfect Organism wrote: Did anyone else notice that they now seem to have two different game mechanics called 'Battle Focus'? One is a special rule for Eldar and the other is the bonus primaris power that psykers get for taking all their powers from one discipline.
Maybe they'll errata the Eldar rule out of the game
bodazoka wrote: I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.
Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?
I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1
I saw far more games running out of time at 6th edition events than I did during 5th.
Would allocation, especially with mixed weapons and multiple blasts is a huge problem in 6th due to the "always take from the front" thingy. Another problem is the ability to always measure distances. I can understand players doing so in a tournament, sometimes, an inch can be decisive, but it really prolongs games.
While unbound sounds very liberating, it also reminds me very strongly of the nonsense that spoiled 1st edition. That was how we ended up with the minimum 25% troop point limits in 2nd, which eventually grew into the FOC. The quote: "those that do no not get to learn history, are doomed to repeat it" springs to mind.
ClockworkZion wrote: I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.
IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.
And I have to admit, this is the one change so far that I love. My IG armored company can finally stop taking infantry just to score objectives. And since I don't need any of that unbound nonsense that means I get super-scoring LRBTs as troops, Hellhounds and Salamanders as fast scoring units, and artillery/vanquishers/etc as "home" objective campers.
This also makes me extremely happy. I can actually take an Armoured Company that is actually all armour and still score. Even better the troop russes should also have objective secured. I never liked the fact you had to take squishy guardsmen.
This is very cool because the weapons of the rank-and-file troopers of your opponent cannot do anything to your army. At all. Ever. Just completely useless. And some special weapons like flamethrowers too. That will make for a quite fun game for him.
The edition sounds slightly better in light of the new information, but excuse me if I find it laughable when I see some people applauding changes such as the new Maelstrom of War / whatever missions, where you score points for holding an objective at the end of every turn. This very specific idea was suggested a long, long time ago, even right here at Dakka, at the Tournament Discussions forum, where people were trying to figure out if the problem with 6th edition is the game or the missions & terrain. People suggested that objectives should be scoring points at the end of every turn, but not all gamers could agree that it was in any way a good idea, and I believe it was canned for the most part.
So what else is changing? A psychic phase? Whoop-dy-doo. Either it's pretty much the same as what we have now, except in the form of a different phase, or it changes the landscape of the game to magic hammer, just like Warhammer Fantasy. A cynic could even see the introduction of a Psychic Phase as a direct result of Warhammer Fantasy dying altogether as a game, and GW wanting to bring the few remaining Warhammer Fantasy gamers into 40K by adding a magic phase into it. After all, the magic phase & magic items lists have some die hard fans in the Fantasy genre.
What else? Unbound & Battle-forged? We all know that's utter trash. If you can't in 5 seconds think of some unbound lists that are outright game breaking, you're new to tournament 40K. Similarly, Lords of War being parts of the standard FoC, together with their "nerfed" D weapons, are still game breaking, because 1850p or 2000p lists will be all about rock paper scissors. An army can literally consist of one model, or a few, rendering most of a balanced army's weapons completely useless for the duration of the entire game. So in short, everything in this "Unbound/Battle-forged/Lords of War/Datasheets/Dataslates/Formations/Allies/Fortifications/Forgeworld units" section is still unbelievably imbalanced, and the only way to cope with any of it, is to house rule it in a tournament rules package, meaning that 7th edition fixes absolutely nothing.
I still agree with a previous poster this feels like an "Ultimate edition", meaning the last one anyone even tried to give a Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n about.
I like all the changes I've read about so far. Demonology seems fine to me fluff wise, because they are only demons if you model them as such. Who says my Xenos inquisitor isn't actually using his mind to teleport a squad of squat allies to the battle from orbit (lesser demon stats)? Or my Space Marine librian isn't conjuring a terrifying vision of a legendary chapter hero (herald)? Or my Primaris Psyker merely telepathically sends coordinates for a large battle robot to drop from an orbiting landing craft (greater demon)?
That was against our most junior player as well 
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.
