So with 6th edition books and the Dark Vengeance sets being pulled from the store shelves. It would seem that 7th edition is coming sooner rather than later.
So my question is, what do you expect to change? What do you think needs work? What do you hope will change?
For me, the Allies rules need some fixing and maybe even the Force Org Chart overhaul is due. I would also like to see assault rules strengthen and vehicles becoming more durable.
Makumba wrote: I hope that if 7th ed realy happens soon , the AM codex won't suffer from last in the old edition syndrom .
you mean like necrons suffered coming into 6th edition?
id be hoping that the first codex out isnt as lame as CSM.
BB to be nerfed to death
it should include the new stuff, escelation and fortifications, because the couple that were in there were woefully inadequate.
folding the FAQ and errata in.
spelling mistakes fixed.
i could keep going on haha
doubt it, one rule i wouldnt mind seeing re introduced would be the old "hunker down" style rule.
it was instead of moving and shooting, you could hunker down, basically go to ground, and then overwatch, this could quite handily replace the current overwatch, as "cinematically" your preparing to be assaulted. it might confer overwatch at a FULL bs, but thats ok, because you didnt shoot during your own turn
I expect a sidegrade that changes a few things but not as many as normal whilst largely leaving the game to be a mess whilst incorporating Apoc vehicles and the sorts in.
Personally I'd love to see the game attain balance between shooting and assaulting, but I doubt it.
The only thing I would really like to see is Escalation and Stronghold assaults main rules being incorporated into the basic rulebook, no more would people be able to say its a supplement. Of course considering my FLGS they'll still probably say no but at least they will have to admit its a house rule.
I hope they roll escalation and stronghold assault into the book making Lord of War 100% legal in any game I choose. I will finally be able to give those netlists/tournament armies/triptide lists a taste of what its like to be stomped on in as little as 1250 points.
I'm going to assume it'll be a horrible flaming trainwreck covered in fecal matter. That way if it's anything better than that I'll be pleased, and if it's a horrible flaming trainwreck covered in fecal matter I'm already mentally ready to deal with it.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm going to assume it'll be a horrible flaming trainwreck covered in fecal matter. That way if it's anything better than that I'll be pleased, and if it's a horrible flaming trainwreck covered in fecal matter I'm already mentally ready to deal with it.
SHUPPET wrote: Assault from Reserves and I'm happy. No restrictions on first turn assaults either.
This would basically mean your assault units could never be seen prior to the assault. May as well be running around playing CoD with a permanent invisibility hack on.
SHUPPET wrote: Assault from Reserves and I'm happy. No restrictions on first turn assaults either.
This would basically mean your assault units could never be seen prior to the assault. May as well be running around playing CoD with a permanent invisibility hack on.
I think it will be 6.5 kind of like what D&D did with 3.5, it will bundle the expansions into the main rule book and fix some of the little problems but I would not expect any changes to the main rules such as assault. The new starter kit sounds coll and it will be cheaper well that is what I was told won't know until it hit the shelves
Kain wrote: I expect nothing more than a bundling of all the "expansions" into the main rulebook.
I don't even see this. Why would GW give the books for free, unless they are charging $200+ for the rule book?
I see more of the like, 6th edition staying the same, maybe with the FAQs in it, but with a statement one page or paragraph, saying something to the effect of of Stronghold Assault, Escalation, and data slates are "legal" for normal 40K games. Of course nothing will be mentioned about Forge World though, so the debate will still continue for that.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm going to assume it'll be a horrible flaming trainwreck covered in fecal matter. That way if it's anything better than that I'll be pleased, and if it's a horrible flaming trainwreck covered in fecal matter I'm already mentally ready to deal with it.
Kindda' this tbh..
It's my approach to pretty much everything. If I set my expectations low enough I'm rarely in a situation where things are worse than I imagined. It makes it a lot easier to enjoy things too since I'm not swept up in any hype for said things.
I don't expect BB being nerfed at all. Half the armies can BB with each other - nerfing it would be shooting itself in the foot. I expecet Allies in general being nerfed, but not each degree in their core.
I expect an overhaul in the rules, trying to balance melee with shooting.
I'd love to see a change (to the FOC maybe) that could help reverse the trend of deathstars/spams. From the tone of the forums it seems like that would make many people happy.
I expect all the W40k forumites to cry out in rage and disappointment when it's unveiled to be just a roll-up of the expansions into the main rulebook, with no other notable changes.
I'm expecting more of a v6.5 rather than v7, but here's what I'm expecting:
- Changes to the Allied matrix
- Vehicles become more durable
- I'm expecting that Escalation/Stronghold will be condensed into the rulebook but I can see this having some criticism from those who've forked out £60+ for both the books.
- If they make Lords of War 100% legal, a dramatic toning-down of Destroyer weapons.
- More variety in scenarios rather than just "variations in deployment and how many objectives you have to capture"
Id rather they didnt add escalation lords of war are apoc for a reason: to remove masses of units off the table to quicken a long and drawn out game. Dont get me wrong im an IG player but the first time i roll into my FLGS with two Baneblades as part of my list, ill be avoided like the plague. I would like it if vehicles were a bit more durable. Next ed should take its time im ok with 6th my armies dont instant die and its easy to make lists on the fly for any situation. The only thing i hate are melta-spammers just a mass of idiots coming at me with meltas. So ridiculous. Maybe an update to assault and make overwatch hit on a 5+ not snapshots i would think that flyer rules could use some work. I find it ridiculos that a land raider could ever shoot down a zooming valkyrie.
All in all litle things nothing wrong with current ed to release a new one so soon. And i remind everyone not everyone likes stronghold/escalation thats why they are supplements if anyone wants to play it they will but pushing it on people that was is just wrong. Learn to play without ridiculous walls and superheavies.
Makumba wrote: I hope that if 7th ed realy happens soon , the AM codex won't suffer from last in the old edition syndrom .
you mean like necrons suffered coming into 6th edition?
id be hoping that the first codex out isnt as lame as CSM.
BB to be nerfed to death
it should include the new stuff, escelation and fortifications, because the couple that were in there were woefully inadequate.
folding the FAQ and errata in.
spelling mistakes fixed.
i could keep going on haha
Necrons suffered coming into 6th edition? Have you played 40k in the past two years?
Makumba wrote: I hope that if 7th ed realy happens soon , the AM codex won't suffer from last in the old edition syndrom .
you mean like necrons suffered coming into 6th edition?
id be hoping that the first codex out isnt as lame as CSM.
BB to be nerfed to death
it should include the new stuff, escelation and fortifications, because the couple that were in there were woefully inadequate.
folding the FAQ and errata in.
spelling mistakes fixed.
i could keep going on haha
Necrons suffered coming into 6th edition? Have you played 40k in the past two years?
Makumba wrote: I hope that if 7th ed realy happens soon , the AM codex won't suffer from last in the old edition syndrom .
you mean like necrons suffered coming into 6th edition?
id be hoping that the first codex out isnt as lame as CSM.
BB to be nerfed to death
it should include the new stuff, escelation and fortifications, because the couple that were in there were woefully inadequate.
folding the FAQ and errata in.
spelling mistakes fixed.
i could keep going on haha
Necrons suffered coming into 6th edition? Have you played 40k in the past two years?
sorry sarcasm was not in there haha that was EXACTLY my point..
edit: ninjad.
but yeah i feel for the first codex.
something i did just htink of though,
what if Matt Ward writes a large portion of 7th ed rules, and thats why we havent seen much of him because he is all into this new book?
Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Prescience pulled out of the primaris (possible Warp Charge 2 = more unlikely but feasible)
Snap Shots are BS-3
Different rules for challenges
A very different vehicle Damage table to mimic the escalation damage tables.
Run in the movement Phase
USR overhauls. (Making different ones transferable and nontransferable)
prescience at 1 isnt too bad really.. its not the core problem there..
BS 3 snap shots? so orks get better when snap shooting? nope sir orks already gain from snap shooting, anything can fire at flyers, and they can move and fire heavy weapons with little real loss..
other things id like i spose would be AV removed, and vehicles going to a tougness value with ignores poisen bla bla,
i already do the runs in the movement phase, though i spose making it official wouldbe ok, i mean it just flat out makes the game faster,
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
BS 3 snap shots? so orks get better when snap shooting? nope sir orks already gain from snap shooting, anything can fire at flyers, and they can move and fire heavy weapons with little real loss..
It's subtle in my comment, but BS minus 3.
So BS4 things still hit things on 6s...but my Autarch can still hit a flier on a 4+.
prescience at 1 isnt too bad really.. its not the core problem there..
BS 3 snap shots? so orks get better when snap shooting? nope sir orks already gain from snap shooting, anything can fire at flyers, and they can move and fire heavy weapons with little real loss..
other things id like i spose would be AV removed, and vehicles going to a tougness value with ignores poisen bla bla,
i already do the runs in the movement phase, though i spose making it official wouldbe ok, i mean it just flat out makes the game faster,
I think he means -3BS. so a marine would snap at BS 1 , but someone with higher BS would snap better. On the other hand armies like tau or IG would be almost un able to snap fire at all , because most of their stuff would drop to bs 0 , everything ork would be unable to snap too
BS 3 snap shots? so orks get better when snap shooting? nope sir orks already gain from snap shooting, anything can fire at flyers, and they can move and fire heavy weapons with little real loss..
It's subtle in my comment, but BS minus 3.
So BS4 things still hit things on 6s...but my Autarch can still hit a flier on a 4+.
sorry i can see that now i thought you meant it as BS-3 not BS -3 ... my bad
i think maybe -2.. as it makes MEQ as bad as orks at shooting snap shots.. the catch with a 10 level system for stats i spose.
edit : because you cant be BS 0. on the down its to a min of 1 and max of 10 with the stat values
The Orks were the last book of 4e and did quite well in 5e. I'm sure anyone who remembers the terror of musical wounds nob bikers can recall those days with a fierce shudder.
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
I don't like the idea because I'm essentially being...encouraged... to pay another $70 to stay current with 40k. That compounded with the fact that it has only been two years since 6th edition came out.
Yes, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are considered to be core to the main rules (as opposed to other expansions like Cities of Death), but a lot of people don't necessarily like the idea of superheavies being always allowed in games and don't buy these books (because again, you're spending like $140 just in core rules).
If it is 6.5, then the playing fee for this edition effectively becomes $140 unless of course you're just joining up when 6.5 would come out.
I just think the whole thing screams of GW trying to snatch any money they can from me at this point, so I'm a bit annoyed (maybe mad was too strong a word).
is it a 0 or a - ? though in BRB page 3 explains what a 0 means... it means you cannot shoot, are auto hit in CC, and cant take leadership test, (explanation mine)
and cannot be modified beyond those, its in the BRB...page 2 has how modifiying stats goes
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
I don't like the idea because I'm essentially being...encouraged... to pay another $70 to stay current with 40k. That compounded with the fact that it has only been two years since 6th edition came out.
Yes, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are considered to be core to the main rules (as opposed to other expansions like Cities of Death), but a lot of people don't necessarily like the idea of superheavies being always allowed in games and don't buy these books (because again, you're spending like $140 just in core rules).
If it is 6.5, then the playing fee for this edition effectively becomes $140 unless of course you're just joining up when 6.5 would come out.
I just think the whole thing screams of GW trying to snatch any money they can from me at this point, so I'm a bit annoyed (maybe mad was too strong a word).
But, if it proves to be a consolidation, you do not need those books. If the core rules remain, and the only change is the addition of supplemental material, why get the new book?
Sorry, but this whole thing just reminds me why I get exasperated with the online wargaming community. There is never any voice of calm, and it -guarantees- more histrionics and upset talk. This thread shows that there is absolutely no happy situation:
If it proves to be nothing more than a rules consolidation, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" even though it is an unnecessary purchase.
If it proves to be a rules tweak, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" as well as the limited scope of rules changes.
If it proves to be a rules overhaul, I think you know where this is going.
Am I the crazy in not letting this get to me until I actually have information other than the hot air of the internet to go by?
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
I don't like the idea because I'm essentially being...encouraged... to pay another $70 to stay current with 40k. That compounded with the fact that it has only been two years since 6th edition came out.
Yes, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are considered to be core to the main rules (as opposed to other expansions like Cities of Death), but a lot of people don't necessarily like the idea of superheavies being always allowed in games and don't buy these books (because again, you're spending like $140 just in core rules).
If it is 6.5, then the playing fee for this edition effectively becomes $140 unless of course you're just joining up when 6.5 would come out.
I just think the whole thing screams of GW trying to snatch any money they can from me at this point, so I'm a bit annoyed (maybe mad was too strong a word).
But, if it proves to be a consolidation, you do not need those books. If the core rules remain, and the only change is the addition of supplemental material, why get the new book?
Sorry, but this whole thing just reminds me why I get exasperated with the online wargaming community. There is never any voice of calm, and it -guarantees- more histrionics and upset talk. This thread shows that there is absolutely no happy situation:
If it proves to be nothing more than a rules consolidation, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" even though it is an unnecessary purchase. If it proves to be a rules tweak, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" as well as the limited scope of rules changes. If it proves to be a rules overhaul, I think you know where this is going.
Am I the crazy in not letting this get to me until I actually have information other than the hot air of the internet to go by?
I think you're putting a lot of emotion to my posts that simply aren't there. I'm not fuming, biting at the bit over this upcoming release. But I do think it is completely fair that I find the idea of a new core rulebook at half the lifespan of the previous editions to be a disreputable thing.
Regarding the scenarios you gave:
If it's a rules consolidation, then I imagine people are going to be playing with the expansions because they are in the core rule book they just bought. So I will need to purchase 6.5 to stay current with what others are playing. Sure, maybe a lot of people will stick with 6th, or will ignore the new portions of 6.5 (but then why buy it?), but I don't really see that happening unfortunately.
If it is a rules tweak, then this seems the most indicative of GW's future plans: to release a Call-of-Duty-equse rulebook update every couple of years my making minor changes and expecting people to buy them (and hey, it works well for them).
If it is a rules overhaul, then this could potentially be a good thing. I would have wished they had put more effort into the 6th release since the books cost such a premium amount, but it would be the only option where they put genuine effort into the release, so there is a perceived value (at least from my perspective) there.
They could always have waited for the natural lifespan of the rulebook to have completed before making the update. If it is 6.5 then it does little to change the issues people have with 6, so why bother releasing it?
I think you're right in that GW has little positive options in this scenario. I think they sort of dug themselves into a whole with this release, and more long-term planning could have prevented complaints.
EDIT: and to clarify, the "Sky is Falling!" stuff obviously isn't helpful, I'm not defending that.
3) who gets which table side is determined AFTER both players have placed objectives on the table
4) no more battle brothers. Current allies of convenience rules become rules for 7th edition battle brothers, current desperate allies rules become rules for 7th edition allies of convenience, and 7th edition desperate allies has more negative modifiers,
5) "closest model is allocated wounds till it dies" mechanic is changed to "one wound allocated to each model, starting from closest to furthest" goodbye deathstars
6) in close combat, striking a 2+ save model with an AP3 weapon is no longer as useless as striking it with a stick. The armor save gets modified by -1
7) interceptor is not needed for weapons with skyfire to fire at non-fkyer/skimmer units with their normal BS
This way we can finally play a meta without deathstars having a guy tanking wounds, without allies shenanigans, without banshees sucking, and without flyers dominating
is it a 0 or a - ? though in BRB page 3 explains what a 0 means... it means you cannot shoot, are auto hit in CC, and cant take leadership test, (explanation mine)
and cannot be modified beyond those, its in the BRB...page 2 has how modifiying stats goes
I'm expecting nothing more than a roll in of some of the supplement rules like Escalation and Stronghold. I'm also kind of expecting a minimal amount of rolled in FAQ/Errata that had once existed.
Shame really.
My hopes aren't high, and there's not a lot that can salvage the direction of this game short of a pretty serious overhaul.
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
I don't like the idea because I'm essentially being...encouraged... to pay another $70 to stay current with 40k. That compounded with the fact that it has only been two years since 6th edition came out.
Yes, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are considered to be core to the main rules (as opposed to other expansions like Cities of Death), but a lot of people don't necessarily like the idea of superheavies being always allowed in games and don't buy these books (because again, you're spending like $140 just in core rules).
If it is 6.5, then the playing fee for this edition effectively becomes $140 unless of course you're just joining up when 6.5 would come out.
I just think the whole thing screams of GW trying to snatch any money they can from me at this point, so I'm a bit annoyed (maybe mad was too strong a word).
But, if it proves to be a consolidation, you do not need those books. If the core rules remain, and the only change is the addition of supplemental material, why get the new book?
Sorry, but this whole thing just reminds me why I get exasperated with the online wargaming community. There is never any voice of calm, and it -guarantees- more histrionics and upset talk. This thread shows that there is absolutely no happy situation:
If it proves to be nothing more than a rules consolidation, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" even though it is an unnecessary purchase.
If it proves to be a rules tweak, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" as well as the limited scope of rules changes.
If it proves to be a rules overhaul, I think you know where this is going.
Am I the crazy in not letting this get to me until I actually have information other than the hot air of the internet to go by?
I think you're putting a lot of emotion to my posts that simply aren't there. I'm not fuming, biting at the bit over this upcoming release. But I do think it is completely fair that I find the idea of a new core rulebook at half the lifespan of the previous editions to be a disreputable thing.
Regarding the scenarios you gave:
If it's a rules consolidation, then I imagine people are going to be playing with the expansions because they are in the core rule book they just bought. So I will need to purchase 6.5 to stay current with what others are playing. Sure, maybe a lot of people will stick with 6th, or will ignore the new portions of 6.5 (but then why buy it?), but I don't really see that happening unfortunately.
If it is a rules tweak, then this seems the most indicative of GW's future plans: to release a Call-of-Duty-equse rulebook update every couple of years my making minor changes and expecting people to buy them (and hey, it works well for them).
If it is a rules overhaul, then this could potentially be a good thing. I would have wished they had put more effort into the 6th release since the books cost such a premium amount, but it would be the only option where they put genuine effort into the release, so there is a perceived value (at least from my perspective) there.
They could always have waited for the natural lifespan of the rulebook to have completed before making the update. If it is 6.5 then it does little to change the issues people have with 6, so why bother releasing it?
I think you're right in that GW has little positive options in this scenario. I think they sort of dug themselves into a whole with this release, and more long-term planning could have prevented complaints.
EDIT: and to clarify, the "Sky is Falling!" stuff obviously isn't helpful, I'm not defending that.
I apologize. I didn't mean to single you out in that, I meant it more as a whole. I mean, just look at this thread, or the hilarious "stop GW" thread in Dakka Discussion right now. This is all just so much over what is currently a vague something that is more rumor than substance.
curran12 wrote: Apologies for being out of the loop, as I usually am, but is there any confirmation that it is actually a new edition? I was under the impression that it was more going to be a conglomeration of supplements into one book, or is that woefully out of date information?
It is very likely that this is the case.
And if that is the case, I will be upset since I don't play the expansions and do not enjoy the idea of having superheavies shoehorned into the main game. Plus the idea of again having to pay upwards of $75 only two years after the release of 6th, etc. etc. etc.
Why? Nothing would have changed, as the expansions are all legal in normal games as is. Seems like getting mad at nothing to me.
But I'm glad to hear that what I thought was still true, and that most of this is all just so much hot air and bluster.
I don't like the idea because I'm essentially being...encouraged... to pay another $70 to stay current with 40k. That compounded with the fact that it has only been two years since 6th edition came out.
Yes, Stronghold Assault and Escalation are considered to be core to the main rules (as opposed to other expansions like Cities of Death), but a lot of people don't necessarily like the idea of superheavies being always allowed in games and don't buy these books (because again, you're spending like $140 just in core rules).
If it is 6.5, then the playing fee for this edition effectively becomes $140 unless of course you're just joining up when 6.5 would come out.
I just think the whole thing screams of GW trying to snatch any money they can from me at this point, so I'm a bit annoyed (maybe mad was too strong a word).
But, if it proves to be a consolidation, you do not need those books. If the core rules remain, and the only change is the addition of supplemental material, why get the new book?
Sorry, but this whole thing just reminds me why I get exasperated with the online wargaming community. There is never any voice of calm, and it -guarantees- more histrionics and upset talk. This thread shows that there is absolutely no happy situation:
If it proves to be nothing more than a rules consolidation, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" even though it is an unnecessary purchase.
If it proves to be a rules tweak, people are upset for "raaa cash grab" as well as the limited scope of rules changes.
If it proves to be a rules overhaul, I think you know where this is going.
Am I the crazy in not letting this get to me until I actually have information other than the hot air of the internet to go by?
I think you're putting a lot of emotion to my posts that simply aren't there. I'm not fuming, biting at the bit over this upcoming release. But I do think it is completely fair that I find the idea of a new core rulebook at half the lifespan of the previous editions to be a disreputable thing.
Regarding the scenarios you gave:
If it's a rules consolidation, then I imagine people are going to be playing with the expansions because they are in the core rule book they just bought. So I will need to purchase 6.5 to stay current with what others are playing. Sure, maybe a lot of people will stick with 6th, or will ignore the new portions of 6.5 (but then why buy it?), but I don't really see that happening unfortunately.
If it is a rules tweak, then this seems the most indicative of GW's future plans: to release a Call-of-Duty-equse rulebook update every couple of years my making minor changes and expecting people to buy them (and hey, it works well for them).
If it is a rules overhaul, then this could potentially be a good thing. I would have wished they had put more effort into the 6th release since the books cost such a premium amount, but it would be the only option where they put genuine effort into the release, so there is a perceived value (at least from my perspective) there.
They could always have waited for the natural lifespan of the rulebook to have completed before making the update. If it is 6.5 then it does little to change the issues people have with 6, so why bother releasing it?
I think you're right in that GW has little positive options in this scenario. I think they sort of dug themselves into a whole with this release, and more long-term planning could have prevented complaints.
EDIT: and to clarify, the "Sky is Falling!" stuff obviously isn't helpful, I'm not defending that.
I apologize. I didn't mean to single you out in that, I meant it more as a whole. I mean, just look at this thread, or the hilarious "stop GW" thread in Dakka Discussion right now. This is all just so much over what is currently a vague something that is more rumor than substance.
No worries, I was just trying to explain my own opinion on the matter.
And I agree entirely on the "Stop GW" thread (and others like it). The poster in there thinks any dissenting opinions are Pro-Sri Lankan telemarketers or something!
is it a 0 or a - ? though in BRB page 3 explains what a 0 means... it means you cannot shoot, are auto hit in CC, and cant take leadership test, (explanation mine)
and cannot be modified beyond those, its in the BRB...page 2 has how modifiying stats goes
It's a 0, Spore Mines have a (-)
yeah i checked the book and got the page references it means the same thing, a dead stat that cant be used for anything.
questionably can a 0 be increased? i dont think it can though
Much like the last few editions, I expect we'll get some random changes, the most obvious stuff will get hammered. We'll get a whole bunch of random changes nobody asked for resulting in unwarranted nerfs and buffs to various things for no real reason that will leave people scratching their heads. We'll get some really wonky solutions to some minor problems.
Overall it'll probably be a whole lot of "the same, but different".
EDIT: I'm just really really hoping they get rid of Hull Points or drop the vehicle damage chart and give vehicles saves already.
I would like Weapon Skill to actually matter. Right now it is the least important stat. The range of two-hit rolls should expand up to 2+ and 6+ and the advantage of a higher WS should be linear. A Space Marine should have difficulty hitting a genestealer and it should be nearly impossible for a firewarror.
sing your life wrote: I sure it will be the 6th edition expansions put into the new book, but hopefully they will fix said expansions.
Well, Stronghold is an excellent expansion. Fixed a lot of the problems in the 6th Ed book and is reasonably priced. Also added some ways of dealing with crazy stuff without being too crazy itself. (Besides Void Shield Generators having well intentioned but poorly written rules)
we will see.. i just hope CC will get a little buff so it makes the game more exciting than it is now. I hate to play against 'hide in the corner,ignore all cover and shoot em up' armies atm.
something like give fleet back the move, run, charge option.
I expect a few important/solid changes that would immeasurably help the game, only to be destroyed by something else being insistantly bundled into the game that isn't necessary nor narrative(eg...vehicle/wound fixes and flyers in 6th).
sing your life wrote: I sure it will be the 6th edition expansions put into the new book, but hopefully they will fix said expansions.
Well, Stronghold is an excellent expansion. Fixed a lot of the problems in the 6th Ed book and is reasonably priced. Also added some ways of dealing with crazy stuff without being too crazy itself. (Besides Void Shield Generators having well intentioned but poorly written rules)
Escalation is full of huge OP models.
OT: I like hull points, but it isn't as good as the old vehicle damage chart.
AdeptSister wrote: I would like Weapon Skill to actually matter. Right now it is the least important stat. The range of two-hit rolls should expand up to 2+ and 6+ and the advantage of a higher WS should be linear. A Space Marine should have difficulty hitting a genestealer and it should be nearly impossible for a firewarror.
As someone who plays Tau and is currently building a Dark Eldar Wych Cult with Lelith, I agree.
There is always a chance that GW are making new rules for the game because the feedback they've been getting is they have written bad/unclear rules and are alienating their fans.
More likely though they're re-writing the rules because they messed up with assault so badly they can't sell assault units and armies (I.e. Nids) so easily and need to retro fit the rules so that these armies go back up a bit so they can sell more models.
Much as I'd like it to be the former I think its motivated by the latter.
I think it'll be assault tweaks and some minor changes in order to level off the assault to shooting disparity. The reason is obvious, they're going to release blood angels, orks and grey knights at some point. If they don't blood angels (space marines) might not sell for the first time in history.
Although I have a possible alternative theory. Before 6th dropped there was a 'leaked' rulebook with a completely different rules. Maybe that is the 7th rules and was pushed back using 6th as a bed to play test more.
Who knows.
1 thing is for sure it will be for the purposes of making something better so they can sell more and I would put money on it being assault in large.
sing your life wrote: I sure it will be the 6th edition expansions put into the new book, but hopefully they will fix said expansions.
Well, Stronghold is an excellent expansion. Fixed a lot of the problems in the 6th Ed book and is reasonably priced. Also added some ways of dealing with crazy stuff without being too crazy itself. (Besides Void Shield Generators having well intentioned but poorly written rules)
I'm going to mirror the general sentiment that there won't be a WHOLE lot of change other than rolling stuff in.
I won't say no changes other than that, though. The general trend for rules upgrades is always to add two or three big differences that don't work very well, and to clean up the big changes that they introduced last time that didn't work very well to make them reasonably playable.
Also, because we're talking about core rules, big changes can come from small mechanics. For example, the change to wound allocation made a massive difference to huge swaths of armies, and that was one change to one rule.
I could easily see the same thing happening where they make one small change to how transports work and suddenly the whole mech world gets put on its head, for example.
What those little changes will be, though, are hard to protect. You know, because they're little.
7th edition is coming, and all today in many places, current rulebooks for 6th edition are being taken off the shelves and sent back to GW. Yes, thats right.... you heard correctly. A lot is going on today.
Please remember that this is a rumor. A pre-order date of May 24th would put the release at May 31st. Whether its a release on the 24th or release on the 31st, things are getting exciting around here.
Here is a clarification and update from the anonymous source below.
I think the pre order date for the new rule book is the 24th. So sale on the week after. Most shops should have a poster with a commissar on it in there shops. And the date 24th war is coming or something in those lines.
via Faeit 212
so will Orks release before 7th or after?
I'm guessing after, since May is frolicking Woof Elf month
I swear to god if they change the formatting/layout again from the Ork codex onward, I'm going to flip a table.
I'm still pissed that they didnt bother updating the other armies (Orks, BA, SW, GK, Necrons, DE and technically SoB - at the current cycle, all of these would have given us at least 1 more year of 6th with the odd WHFB update and/or supplement thrown in before 7th ed) before hardly being able to contain themselves and releasing 7th. Like.....than you sooooo much, GW.
Nerf Destroyer weapons, or make them limited to Close Combat or Apocalypse. For less than 1000 points, no army should be able to wipe any 2 units off the board, every turn, with impunity.
If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
Most people I know would too. I have a strong feeling that we may end up adopting it locally regardless just because it's a much more interesting and fair set up (since you have to actually roll to wound or penetrate armour meaning that you can inflict less wounds or fail to pen instead of getting to do so automatically).
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
Most people I know would too. I have a strong feeling that we may end up adopting it locally regardless just because it's a much more interesting and fair set up (since you have to actually roll to wound or penetrate armour meaning that you can inflict less wounds or fail to pen instead of getting to do so automatically).
I hate it because of how insanely durable my Raveners, Shrikes, Carnifexes, and Paladins would get...I see much abuse in that idea.
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
So what this means is that 2++ rerollable deathstars will still be able to win any tournament because D weapons don't ignore invul saves. To top it off screamerstar can just assault the titan and go to town with it. I think they need to take on they can take invul saves at a -2 penalty with a maximum of 6+. this way you can still have your invulnerable save but the D weapons puts much more pressure on the unit causing the invul save to be worse then printed. This would make 2++ rerollable into a 4++ with no rerolls due to the canceling nature of D weapons causing them to reroll success and them being alowed to reroll failure (if thats how it works anyways)
vyslav wrote: If 7th formalizes the inclusion of lords of war - I wouldn't be surprised for them to include the revised Str D weapon rules that forgeworld put out in their latest heresy book.
*Destroyer weapons count as being Strength 10 and have the Instant Death, Sunder and Ignores Cover special rules. In addition, successful invulnerable saves taken against hits from Destroyer Weapons must be re-rolled.
*Each unsaved wound from a destroyer weapon inflicts d3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit from a destroyer weapon causes d3+1 hull points / rolls once on the appropriate vehicle damage chart..
if the wounds were to be taken on a model by model basis, instead of wound soaking from the front, i can wekk go with that
Most people I know would too. I have a strong feeling that we may end up adopting it locally regardless just because it's a much more interesting and fair set up (since you have to actually roll to wound or penetrate armour meaning that you can inflict less wounds or fail to pen instead of getting to do so automatically).
I hate it because of how insanely durable my Raveners, Shrikes, Carnifexes, and Paladins would get...I see much abuse in that idea.
A Reaver's S : D weapons are still going to inflict instant death on all of those and gank your heirophant with multiple wounds per shots while shrugging off it's biocannons in return.
ductvader wrote: I hate it because of how insanely durable my Raveners, Shrikes, Carnifexes, and Paladins would get...I see much abuse in that idea.
A Reaver's S : D weapons are still going to inflict instant death on all of those and gank your heirophant with multiple wounds per shots while shrugging off it's biocannons in return.
Ooph, good thing I've never played against either of them/don't ever see myself playing against those.
And why the whole comment about heirophants? (Got a personal vendetta against them?)
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Whether they call it "7th Edition", "6.5 Edition" or "6th Edition Combined!" makes no difference. There will be no major shake-ups. This will combine 6th Ed, some FAQs, and some trimmed-down entries from Escalation, Stronghold, etc. into one "convenient" package.
It might contain a new version of the Allies Matrix, taking into account those armies that have been rolled into a new Codex, and possibly including "variant builds" of Codex armies (like Genestealer Cults or Traitor Guard for IG/AM), but will otherwise not significantly alter what is there now.
There may be some slight modifications to assault. Nothing that will seriously crimp the shooty playstyle of most of the game's armies.
I would not expect to see any significant steps taken to rebalance armies against TauDar, or anything else for that matter.
The words "Imperial Guard" will be Find & Replaced with "Astra Militarum".
The words "Stormtroopers" will be Find & Replaced with "Militarum Tempestus".
The words "Sisters of Battle" will be Find & Replaced with "Adepta Sororitas".
The words "Space Marines" will be Find & Replaced with "Adeptus Astartes".
If you're wishlisting/hoping for massive changes in the game... well... read the opening sentence.
- Overwatch on BS minus 1 but can only be fired by units that havnt fired and didnt run in their previous turn.
- Assaulting from reserves and every Transport (maybe with a small disadvantage like ini -2 or Charge distance -2 or removing the charge bonus)
- no rerollable saves... NEVER!
- allocate wounds starting with the nearest model to the last. If there are similar models, saves can be rolled all together and the models with the lowest HP takes the wounds. If there are more than one with "lowest wounds" or simply just 1 hp, the owning Player decides which one akes the wound and so on...
Well, I'm not too keen on a new release. The 6th ed is actually fine. We play local tourneys on a bimonthly basis and the rules have proven to be quite solid.
However, the release of escalation, dataslates, and supplements make the game quite devious. Therefore, we do not allow superheavies atm.
- Overwatch on BS minus 1 but can only be fired by units that havnt fired and didnt run in their previous turn.
Another reasonable penalty. <edit>Maybe change to cannot run or shoot next turn.
- Assaulting from reserves and every Transport (maybe with a small disadvantage like ini -2 or Charge distance -2 or removing the charge bonus)
I had hoped for the remove charge bonus unless assault ramp or open topped
- no rerollable saves... NEVER!
THIS I WILL GIVE AN EXALT
- allocate wounds starting with the nearest model to the last. If there are similar models, saves can be rolled all together and the models with the lowest HP takes the wounds. If there are more than one with "lowest wounds" or simply just 1 hp, the owning Player decides which one akes the wound and so on...
Ummm, could be hard but understand not wanting the wounds spread around.
As long as they don't release it as a digital edition only, I'm happy (unless they screw up big time, of course). Seriously GW, I kinda like you at times, but I don't like you enough to buy a tablet/expensive phone/e-reader to play 40K. If you release it as a digital edition only, I won't feel guilty to 'acquire' my rulebook in the same way I got my SoB codex...
And suddenly Eldar and Dark Eldar become assault GHODS!!
Or they would if Tyranids didn't also have great initiative for most of their punchiest units.
You aren't alone. I'm imagining CSM Slaanesh lists, Slaanesh daemons, and Bloodthirsters. Behold 9 or even 10 inches plus d6! I have almost the range of rapid fire and sometimes more!
And suddenly Eldar and Dark Eldar become assault GHODS!!
Or they would if Tyranids didn't also have great initiative for most of their punchiest units.
You aren't alone. I'm imagining CSM Slaanesh lists, Slaanesh daemons, and Bloodthirsters. Behold 9 or even 10 inches plus d6! I have almost the range of rapid fire and sometimes more!
On the plus side it means that Noise Marines with additional CCW have a purpose.
I'd be surprised though. It'd be the biggest way to screw over Orks and really wouldn't be helpful to IG or even the few CC Necrons that exist. I guess you could be sure Nurgle would almost never be hitting first or making the charge
Maybe if they make the penalties for a disordered charge slightly worse, but allow disordered charges from situations that currently do not permit charges (ie transport exit, after a run)
captain bloody fists wrote: me personally I would like the option of either shooting or assaulting from deep strike. and well assault from transport would be nice as well...
I can understand why they stay so cautious with deep strike assaults. Some armies could really abuse that to no end. A re-buffed BA army could become a terror, certain nids might (although they lost their ds so not as big), and daemons could become all around a menace with every single model being DSable. Honestly I would like to see ds assaults being permitted but I'll also admit that as of now sweeping advance really can make that somewhat unfair. In terms of assaulting vehicles not as much considering DS meltas can pop a vehicle safely whilst CC has more risks but I can see why individuals would be upset by dsing death. Although I'd also like to point out that it should be arguably a bit more killy considering how you wouldn't be able to move before the charge, charge is random, and to get close enough for all armies except drop pods this can lead to the unit dying or being deployed on a terrible place by the enemy (or having to wait an extra turn)
Only gripe being that is generally a buff to shooting again. I get why though (then again the notion of having guardsman tie up an enemy then nuking the enemy is hilarious)
Yup. Too bad guard doesn't have send in the next wave anymore, because that would pretty much be the only way I'd play guard. The mass, bloody, noble sacrifice of wave after wave of conscripts holding down the enemy to make it easier for artillery to zero on them.
Ailaros wrote: Yup. Too bad guard doesn't have send in the next wave anymore, because that would pretty much be the only way I'd play guard. The mass, bloody, noble sacrifice of wave after wave of conscripts holding down the enemy to make it easier for artillery to zero on them.
Same here. I almost have a bad feeling they might return it as dlc.
Ailaros wrote: Yup. Too bad guard doesn't have send in the next wave anymore, because that would pretty much be the only way I'd play guard. The mass, bloody, noble sacrifice of wave after wave of conscripts holding down the enemy to make it easier for artillery to zero on them.
Since they gave us without number back for the Tyranids (but only if you buy our dataslates for 15 dollars a pop!) I think you'll be seeing your old rule back as a dataslate.
Ailaros wrote: Yup. Too bad guard doesn't have send in the next wave anymore, because that would pretty much be the only way I'd play guard. The mass, bloody, noble sacrifice of wave after wave of conscripts holding down the enemy to make it easier for artillery to zero on them.
Since they gave us without number back for the Tyranids (but only if you buy our dataslates for 15 dollars a pop!) I think you'll be seeing your old rule back as a dataslate.
GW bringing you DLC since 2013. If they don't have it they'll rip it out of a more expensive book just to double dip!
Cover saves are by unit again. If 50% or more of the unit is in cover then they all get it. If not then they don't.
Casualties are removed from the unit by the unit's controlling player.
No more characters, no more challenges and no more Look Out, Sir!. In compensation Chaos Champions can roll on the boon table whenever they win combat.
Instant Death has been slightly nerfed. Instead of outright killing someone it instead causes D3 wounds.
Warlord Traits are now selected by the players.
Charge distance is now 6+D6.
Ignores Cover has been modified. The rule is now called "Nowhere to Hide". Models can only take cover saves of 6+ against attacks with this special rule.
Cover saves have been buffed somewhat. Cover saves can only ever be reduced to a 6+. Template weaponry forces a reroll of successful cover save.
Heldrakes only have a 180 degrees field of view.
Night Fighting is now mission specific once more. Mysterious terrain is entirely optional.
All Pskyers, unless constrained to using Codex Charts, have access to all of the tables.
Battle Brothers has been removed. The best Alliance possible is now "Alliance of Convenience".
Invulnerable saves may not be better than a 3+.
Fortifications are now placed after terrain.
Smoke Launchers may be used every turn now.
D Strength weaponry, when used outside of apocalypse, is now S10 AP1. Cover saves must be rerolled against these weapons and are only 6+. Invulnerable saves are reduced to a 6+.
As much as I'd like the return to by-unit rules, I'm afraid they're probably going to be here to stay. I doubt GW is going to let the new way "regress" to by-unit, mostly because of just how many things all switched to by-model. It seems somewhat unlikely that they're just going to switch them all back again.
Though, I suppose, no less likely than the chance they would have switched them to their current form in the first place...
I just don't understand them. Games Workshop wants us to play mini-Apoc games yet they are making rules that work on a by-model basis. Why? So that we can oogle their models?
I don't believe that a 2+ invulnerable save has a place in a wargame. It's too much durability for one model to have. I guess it wouldn't be bad if the 2+ was temporary but having it as base is just stupid.
I don't see how having cover save be a minimum of a 6+ makes cheap models and MEQ worse. It just means that, if an AP 3 "Ignores cover" weapon hits them, they have a 1/6 chance of living. I just want cover to be valuable again rather than being entirely optional in this day and age of mass Ignores Cover.
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't believe that a 2+ invulnerable save has a place in a wargame. It's too much durability for one model to have. I guess it wouldn't be bad if the 2+ was temporary but having it as base is just stupid.
I don't see how having cover save be a minimum of a 6+ makes cheap models and MEQ worse. It just means that, if an AP 3 "Ignores cover" weapon hits them, they have a 1/6 chance of living. I just want cover to be valuable again rather than being entirely optional in this day and age of mass Ignores Cover.
Shadowfields go away if they fail once and Gazghkull only gets his for one turn.
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't believe that a 2+ invulnerable save has a place in a wargame. It's too much durability for one model to have. I guess it wouldn't be bad if the 2+ was temporary but having it as base is just stupid.
I don't see how having cover save be a minimum of a 6+ makes cheap models and MEQ worse. It just means that, if an AP 3 "Ignores cover" weapon hits them, they have a 1/6 chance of living. I just want cover to be valuable again rather than being entirely optional in this day and age of mass Ignores Cover.
Not cheap models worse, only MEQ.
MEQ can't stand up against the meta's other issue, tons of shots that don't care about what your armor is, it'd just mean that MEQ models are screwed on another front while cheaper models get to keep a bonus, not to mention making flamers even more useless to take.
TheCustomLime wrote: That's perfectly fine. What I am talking about is a unit that just plain has it all the time. That is just not a good element for a competitive game.
I think a few weapons that outright ignore invulnerable saves or force successful ones to be rerolled should be introduced back to the game.
Perhaps not D-weapons as they right now make gargantuan creatures virtually unplayable in apoc.
That and D-weapons basically erase everything else as well. I wouldn't quite say I like entirely removing invulns but re-rolling successful saves I'd be okay with.
TheCustomLime wrote: That's perfectly fine. What I am talking about is a unit that just plain has it all the time. That is just not a good element for a competitive game.
I think a few weapons that outright ignore invulnerable saves or force successful ones to be rerolled should be introduced back to the game.
Perhaps not D-weapons as they right now make gargantuan creatures virtually unplayable in apoc.
That I can also agree with. Cover and armor saves have weapons that can screw with them. Invuln should have it too. Though, what I am afraid of is that, should such weapons be introduced, they will be handed out like candy to everyone and their mother. Sort of like what ignores cover today.
@Zebio
How is a guaranteed cover save by being in cover screwing with MEQs? They'd get their normal cover saves if being shot at with weaponry that doesn't mess with cover. And if you get hit with a template weapon you'd only have a 1/36 chance of surviving. That's a lot better than 1/2 which doesn't make flamers useless.
I think I will retract that wish and say Ignores Cover is fine on the basis that 40k has enough die rolls as it is. It just needs to be given more sparingly.
My Expectations:
>They will address many issues, some that needed to and some don’t
>Though there will be some improvement, a large number of people will rage of the fact the issues where not addressed like they would have.
Make hth a bit more viable and tighten up some of the more ludicrous rules.
Would also like to see more varied missions than killpoint and C&C. Perhaps a throwback to 2nd ed where you had everything from killing the enemy psyker to assaulting a bunker complex.
for normal 40K only I care less about Apoc..
My wish list:
1. Either lose the allied matrix or lose the Battle Brother status. I'd prefere the first one
2. Fix the army composition example: 2 HQ max even in games of 2000 pts
3. Fix some of the wargear
4. Either create a dispell system or redo some of the more powerful psychic powers
5. Either force units to wait to fire overwatch during thier turn or get rid of it entirely. maybe they can shoot at full BS if they wait.
6. lose interceptor or similar to above make them choose to wait in thier turn, none of this I'm fireing in my turn then firing interceptor in your turn, then losing a turn of shooting.
7. Fix flying monsters vector stike to one attack on vechiles
8. Fix shooting at flyers in general maybe a 5+ to hit
- Change overwatch to BS -2 or 3 (min. 1)
- Failed Charges still move the distance rolled.
- If you overwatch, you cant shoot next turn (may still run).
- May Consolidate into Combat, but it wont be fought until the next (opponents) fight phase.
- Removal of Battle Brothers Allies (Its supposed to be 'GrimDark', not 'happy friends cakewalk to victory')
Jimsolo wrote: Well, so long as we're wishlisting our wants without regard to realism, I want to see a way to shoot into combat.
Seriously, I'll take anything. Any restrictions or caveats, just give me something.
I give you Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. Play goblins or the evil side I believe and now you can shoot into combat.
Remember what you wish for. You said you will take anything. So now you will need to play LotR.
Confirmed for LOTR.
However, there's a difference between horizontal gunfire and markedly arced fire like arrows, so for 40k you'd have to differentiate the type of fire, and for horizontal fire, you'd have to find a way to randmize who gets hit, but make sure the majority of hits are against the closest models...in most cases, your own unit.
i doubt it'll be anything more than compiling all the "expansion" rules into one book (thus, making the BRB cost around 100 i bet) and revamp the assaulting rules, since theyre so crap right now. Maybe a few wording fixes to remove some very easy rule-cheesing, namely involving terrain.
Outside that, not much really needs to change. Everything else would just be niceties that we all know they wont do - like straight up explain every vehicle's firing arcs with both default and additional weapon attachments. Far too many are unexplained wtf their arc is.
Sour Note wrote: I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.
You've missed the point of an invuln save. The problem isn't the invuln save, it is it's prevalence and severity in current meta.
I think, outside of obvious removal of battle bros, invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable (no + or -, no re-rolls) outside of maybe the daemon warp storm's +/- effect.
- Change overwatch to BS -2 or 3 (min. 1)
- Failed Charges still move the distance rolled.
- If you overwatch, you cant shoot next turn (may still run).
- May Consolidate into Combat, but it wont be fought until the next (opponents) fight phase.
- Removal of Battle Brothers Allies (Its supposed to be 'GrimDark', not 'happy friends cakewalk to victory')
I absolutely agree with this, I strongly feel this would solve a great deal of problems.I never quite understood why over watching allows you to shoot next turn and interceptor does not, both should be the same. I will raise you one however, I think if you over watch you should forgo all attacks in melee. The fact that my Tau can obliterate most squads and still nerf bat them in melee is silly. I do however think one of your suggestions needs to be rewritten. I think consolidations into other melee should allow the units in that melee to fire over watch if they are not already in combat, again forgoing their melee attacks to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also feel D weapons should do D3 wounds not cause instant death.
I have no issue with allies, but battle brothers is just plain silly.
Im just glad well be able to still play with old rule books. Rumor has it there will be a pdf out with the new rules for those who dont want to buy the new book, which should be valid for 2-3 years.
Sour Note wrote: I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.
You've missed the point of an invuln save. The problem isn't the invuln save, it is it's prevalence and severity in current meta.
I think, outside of obvious removal of battle bros, invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable (no + or -, no re-rolls) outside of maybe the daemon warp storm's +/- effect.
Whats the point of god mode characters in a strategy game? Thats like pay to play games and D weapons although cool, i feel are over powered and shouldnt be a part of >2k pts games. Even in the fluff those war engines arent mobilized for small skirmishes.
Yeah battle brothers is a little odd. But i disagree with getting rid of it. Because IG and SM can and have worked together like that against the enemies of the imperium. And eldar and DE can cone together against mutual threats. Yeah tyranids got the short end of the stick on the allies matrix but hey its a logical explanation. Maybe they could get a little more survivability?
I don't agree with trickling in more ways to ignore invulnerable saves. The entire point of an invuln is to be... a save that is invulnerable, I.E. it can't be dispelled.
Frankly, I don't even approve of things like the VIndcare's Invuln negating shot. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you should be able to do to an invulnerable save is force successful ones to be re-rolled (ala Swarmies' old ability).
On the other side of that scale though, invulnerable saves should be extremely rare and should almost never be lower than a 4+. The only army that should have wide-scale invulns is Daemons, and they're also the only ones who should get invulns below a 3+ (Fatey and LoC only, the manifestations of the God of Magic can get 3+ invulnerable saves), but no one should get a 2+ invulnerable, not even Daemons. Not even Gazzy (I'd give Gazzy a 3++).
Frankly, I don't even approve of things like the VIndcare's Invuln negating shot. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you should be able to do to an invulnerable save is force successful ones to be re-rolled (ala Swarmies' old ability).
Well, they interact with Inv-saves differently. Forcing re-rolls will hurt bad inv. saves (e.g. 6++ and 5++) relatively worse than good inv. saves (e.g. 3++). Ignoring them outright arguably hits the good 3++ types harder, who lose "more", than the poorer inv.-saves.
Two interactions with two very different results. Why shouldn't a game designer have access to both to create either effect, as he (or she) sees fit?
pax_imperialis wrote: Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.
Raptors, Talons, Mutilators, Oblits (although bad idea they could), and Terminators. Am I missing anybody?
pax_imperialis wrote: Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.
More importantly my Trygons, Jump infantry/MCs, Mawlocs, and Raveners will now violate gunlines with gusto. As will my genestealers.
Frankly, I don't even approve of things like the VIndcare's Invuln negating shot. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you should be able to do to an invulnerable save is force successful ones to be re-rolled (ala Swarmies' old ability).
Well, they interact with Inv-saves differently. Forcing re-rolls will hurt bad inv. saves (e.g. 6++ and 5++) relatively worse than good inv. saves (e.g. 3++). Ignoring them outright arguably hits the good 3++ types harder, who lose "more", than the poorer inv.-saves.
Two interactions with two very different results. Why shouldn't a game designer have access to both to create either effect, as he (or she) sees fit?
Because they'll be a paying a massive premium for that 3+ invulnerable save.
Just because something can be done, or implemented into the game, doesn't mean that it should.
- - - - - -
Regarding assault from deepstrike, reserves or what have you. ... idk. I was a big proponent of changing those rules at the dawn of 6E, when the sting of how badly assault got mangled in this edition was still strong. After thinking about it for a couple of years though, I'm now of the opinion that 1st turn assaulting shouldn't be a thing. I feel that one of the basic tenets of a wargame should be that as player you have an opportunity to react to anything your opponent does. If 40K was a you-go-I-go game where you moved, he moved, you shot, he shot, you assaulted/ran he assaulted/ran, first-turn assaulting would be okay because your opponent could try to at least shuffle his units around to try to mitigate your assault. But with 40K turns being how they are, if you had, say a Trygon with the ability to assault after deep-striking, you basically have the power to point to a unit on the enemies' side of the board and say "That unit is now dead." and there's really nothing the opponent can do. Bad game design, imo.
Of course, the scenario I outlined above isn't much different from what we have now with armies like Tau who can wipe 500 points of stuff off the board turn 1, but that signifies 6E shooting is too powerful.
If I were to change any rules for assault, it would be the removal of random charge distance and not being able to assault out of vehicles.
Sour Note wrote: Im just glad well be able to still play with old rule books. Rumor has it there will be a pdf out with the new rules for those who dont want to buy the new book, which should be valid for 2-3 years.
Sour Note wrote: I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.
You've missed the point of an invuln save. The problem isn't the invuln save, it is it's prevalence and severity in current meta.
I think, outside of obvious removal of battle bros, invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable (no + or -, no re-rolls) outside of maybe the daemon warp storm's +/- effect.
Whats the point of god mode characters in a strategy game? Thats like pay to play games and D weapons although cool, i feel are over powered and shouldnt be a part of >2k pts games. Even in the fluff those war engines arent mobilized for small skirmishes.
Yeah battle brothers is a little odd. But i disagree with getting rid of it. Because IG and SM can and have worked together like that against the enemies of the imperium. And eldar and DE can cone together against mutual threats. Yeah tyranids got the short end of the stick on the allies matrix but hey its a logical explanation. Maybe they could get a little more survivability?
This is just my opinions.
Get outa' here Blackjack! (If you don't get this apologies, your paint scheme is far too similar for its own good with something else)
I'll agree god mode characters are stupid but, in a game that point costs, I'd be fine if balanced. I wouldn't really want to see invuln ignoring attacks but re-rolls are right down my taste, then again, I prefer BlaxicanX's interpretation of invulns being something rare and largely restricted to a small few (and not having a way to get heralds to be re-rolling 2++ saves).
As per allies, honestly I'd rather see them go. I will still ally but that's more because my group is more casual with a preference for narrative games. BB would be fine, in my opinion, if you couldn't place units within one another. Kind of like how CSM and Daemons work. You can't mix them but they can buff each other. I'd like to see that in general. The only exception I can think of is maybe Inquisitors getting to walk into any unit that is BB and possibly a special rule for the fireblade guy to possibly lead a squad of guardsman. Still, I'd rather it be yanked out with a caveat of recommending it for some narrative games.
pax_imperialis wrote: Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.
More importantly my Trygons, Jump infantry/MCs, Mawlocs, and Raveners will now violate gunlines with gusto. As will my genestealers.
Imagine it Kain. Just imagine a game where daemons and nids make peace? The Imperial guard stand there peacefully and see a small horde of tyranids charging forth. They man their arms firing ammo into the horde. Suddenly, there are shreaks, screams, and putrid sounds as Trygons and Mawlocs rip out of the ground, Ravenors, genestealers, and MCs tear through even more. When they finally felt safe, the fabric of reality breaks as monsterous creatures charge every foe, bloodthirsters, bloodletters, and more crash into units and promptly tear them apart. (seriously everything can DS in CD. That'd be nasty)
Sour Note wrote: Im just glad well be able to still play with old rule books. Rumor has it there will be a pdf out with the new rules for those who dont want to buy the new book, which should be valid for 2-3 years.
Wait someone is going to Post the 7th ed rules right away? Or is someone releasing a decent, unbiased home brew set?
pax_imperialis wrote: Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.
Raptors, Talons, Mutilators, Oblits (although bad idea they could), and Terminators. Am I missing anybody?
yep that's about it. Would it be too much to ask for outflanking units to do the same? Huron's fun club storming in from the sides to rip and tear
pax_imperialis wrote: Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.
Raptors, Talons, Mutilators, Oblits (although bad idea they could), and Terminators. Am I missing anybody?
yep that's about it. Would it be too much to ask for outflanking units to do the same? Huron's fun club storming in from the sides to rip and tear
Swooping hawks coming out of nowhere and ganking vehicles like its nobody business?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or ganking Imperial Knights just for the LOL's
pax_imperialis wrote: Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.
More importantly my Trygons, Jump infantry/MCs, Mawlocs, and Raveners will now violate gunlines with gusto. As will my genestealers.
And if this is true, the GW and the "development team" would look like Geniuses.
Sour Note wrote: Im just glad well be able to still play with old rule books. Rumor has it there will be a pdf out with the new rules for those who dont want to buy the new book, which should be valid for 2-3 years.
Sour Note wrote: I would like to see a way to get around those invul saves.
You've missed the point of an invuln save. The problem isn't the invuln save, it is it's prevalence and severity in current meta.
I think, outside of obvious removal of battle bros, invulnerable saves should be unmodifiable (no + or -, no re-rolls) outside of maybe the daemon warp storm's +/- effect.
Whats the point of god mode characters in a strategy game? Thats like pay to play games and D weapons although cool, i feel are over powered and shouldnt be a part of >2k pts games. Even in the fluff those war engines arent mobilized for small skirmishes.
Yeah battle brothers is a little odd. But i disagree with getting rid of it. Because IG and SM can and have worked together like that against the enemies of the imperium. And eldar and DE can cone together against mutual threats. Yeah tyranids got the short end of the stick on the allies matrix but hey its a logical explanation. Maybe they could get a little more survivability?
This is just my opinions.
Get outa' here Blackjack! (If you don't get this apologies, your paint scheme is far too similar for its own good with something else)
I'll agree god mode characters are stupid but, in a game that point costs, I'd be fine if balanced. I wouldn't really want to see invuln ignoring attacks but re-rolls are right down my taste, then again, I prefer BlaxicanX's interpretation of invulns being something rare and largely restricted to a small few (and not having a way to get heralds to be re-rolling 2++ saves).
As per allies, honestly I'd rather see them go. I will still ally but that's more because my group is more casual with a preference for narrative games. BB would be fine, in my opinion, if you couldn't place units within one another. Kind of like how CSM and Daemons work. You can't mix them but they can buff each other. I'd like to see that in general. The only exception I can think of is maybe Inquisitors getting to walk into any unit that is BB and possibly a special rule for the fireblade guy to possibly lead a squad of guardsman. Still, I'd rather it be yanked out with a caveat of recommending it for some narrative games.
pax_imperialis wrote: Assault from deep strike would flat out fix csm for me. So many units in that book would have a point if they could assault straight away.
More importantly my Trygons, Jump infantry/MCs, Mawlocs, and Raveners will now violate gunlines with gusto. As will my genestealers.
Imagine it Kain. Just imagine a game where daemons and nids make peace? The Imperial guard stand there peacefully and see a small horde of tyranids charging forth. They man their arms firing ammo into the horde. Suddenly, there are shreaks, screams, and putrid sounds as Trygons and Mawlocs rip out of the ground, Ravenors, genestealers, and MCs tear through even more. When they finally felt safe, the fabric of reality breaks as monsterous creatures charge every foe, bloodthirsters, bloodletters, and more crash into units and promptly tear them apart. (seriously everything can DS in CD. That'd be nasty)
.
Yeah FoE project horizons my favorite fanfic. I can see your point. I guess im just jelly of lnvuln since im Guard
