Keeping my own opinion to myself to avoid tainting any results. Do you feel, with what we know so far as facts, that the coming changes will be a positive for the community and game as a whole or a negative. Again not based on rumors you might have or not have heard, such as consolidating into meelee that hasent been seen on paper or talked about by GW specifically. Just on what we know as fact so far, such as unbound lists, everything scores (though troops score better, you will have to read). Ect...
I like any buff that comes to assault right now. However, I am concerned that further discarding the FOC will throw the game further into an unbalanced state where a pickup game is nearly impossible, and I believe that will drive enough people out that it will be the final nail in the coffin for GW.
To me, from what I've seen leaked regarding 7th edition, is that GW has basically thrown in the towel on making any kind of balanced rules-system, and has placed that burden on the player base between Forged and Unbound army-lists.
This, in a nutshell, is GW abandoning their jobs as game designers.
For that, then, I would rather buy their models for use in other games, than buy their models and their sh*tty rules for prices far beyond anything approaching rationality for such... poor effort.
again poles based on opinions are not way to early to tell, its opinion. I could have asked it back when it was just announced that 7th existed and yes or no would be acceptable, heck people thought that a new edition only 2 years after the other was a bad idea, and thus opinions.
Now based on this I have a good feeling about this edition, it even states in the book that you do not have to play against unbound armies, so I'm a happy chappy
Eh, I'm just not sure how much an opinion consensus poll does on this topic, especially since we have all of these separate blurbs without the rest of the context of the rules.
But to oblige another Dakkanaut, I will say currently that I feel the changes are negative.
Now based on this I have a good feeling about this edition, it even states in the book that you do not have to play against unbound armies, so I'm a happy chappy
It says that? I missed that part. At least they make it official that you can have done in the first place. Sadly I see why "Proof" is needed. Now only if GW will make a stance on FW now.
Voted no for one reason, command benefits. Warlord trait & superscoring units won't save you against 11 heldrakes, or 10 riptides.
Players fielding a FOC list or lore friendly list, should have serious advantages. Extra points, special rules etc would have been much more appropriate.
I love that everything is now scoring. I hated how arbitrary it was that only troops could score. I think that Unbound lists being unable to contest is a sensible weakness.
GorillaWarfare wrote: I love that everything is now scoring. I hated how arbitrary it was that only troops could score. I think that Unbound lists being unable to contest is a sensible weakness.
As long as infantry can't be contested by vehicles I'm fine with everything scoring.
Psienesis wrote: To me, from what I've seen leaked regarding 7th edition, is that GW has basically thrown in the towel on making any kind of balanced rules-system, and has placed that burden on the player base between Forged and Unbound army-lists.
This, in a nutshell, is GW abandoning their jobs as game designers.
For that, then, I would rather buy their models for use in other games, than buy their models and their sh*tty rules for prices far beyond anything approaching rationality for such... poor effort.
Exactly what I was going to say, but better put.
So...yeah, what Psienesis said.
Making a rule letting you ignore other rules does not good game design make.
Orock wrote: Keeping my own opinion to myself to avoid tainting any results. Do you feel, with what we know so far as facts, that the coming changes will be a positive for the community and game as a whole or a negative. Again not based on rumors you might have or not have heard, such as consolidating into meelee that hasent been seen on paper or talked about by GW specifically. Just on what we know as fact so far, such as unbound lists, everything scores (though troops score better, you will have to read). Ect...
What are these facts you speak of? Have yet to see anything from an official source
GorillaWarfare wrote: I love that everything is now scoring. I hated how arbitrary it was that only troops could score. I think that Unbound lists being unable to contest is a sensible weakness.
As long as infantry can't be contested by vehicles I'm fine with everything scoring.
land raiders bought as part of a troop squad count as scoring. All night scythes with min squads count as scoring. 40 chimeras with 3 guys in em each from grey knights count as scoring.
GorillaWarfare wrote: I love that everything is now scoring. I hated how arbitrary it was that only troops could score. I think that Unbound lists being unable to contest is a sensible weakness.
As long as infantry can't be contested by vehicles I'm fine with everything scoring.
I am fine with vehicles contesting objectives against infantry. I have a hard time believing that a squad of cultists are in control of a location if there is a landraider within 3 inches.
Orock wrote: Keeping my own opinion to myself to avoid tainting any results. Do you feel, with what we know so far as facts, that the coming changes will be a positive for the community and game as a whole or a negative. Again not based on rumors you might have or not have heard, such as consolidating into meelee that hasent been seen on paper or talked about by GW specifically. Just on what we know as fact so far, such as unbound lists, everything scores (though troops score better, you will have to read). Ect...
What are these facts you speak of? Have yet to see anything from an official source
yep, in fact a video was posted in this thread above you, if you care to watch. As well as information in official white dwarf magazines.
Orock wrote: Keeping my own opinion to myself to avoid tainting any results. Do you feel, with what we know so far as facts, that the coming changes will be a positive for the community and game as a whole or a negative. Again not based on rumors you might have or not have heard, such as consolidating into meelee that hasent been seen on paper or talked about by GW specifically. Just on what we know as fact so far, such as unbound lists, everything scores (though troops score better, you will have to read). Ect...
What are these facts you speak of? Have yet to see anything from an official source
What he meant was to to take the rumors as facts for the purpose of this poll
Orock wrote: Keeping my own opinion to myself to avoid tainting any results. Do you feel, with what we know so far as facts, that the coming changes will be a positive for the community and game as a whole or a negative. Again not based on rumors you might have or not have heard, such as consolidating into meelee that hasent been seen on paper or talked about by GW specifically. Just on what we know as fact so far, such as unbound lists, everything scores (though troops score better, you will have to read). Ect...
What are these facts you speak of? Have yet to see anything from an official source
What he meant was to to take the rumors as facts for the purpose of this poll
No, in fact I specifically said to avoid the rumors, and just go off known facts. Look there is a video out by jervis, spoilered above in this very thread, that explains these new rules.
Now based on this I have a good feeling about this edition, it even states in the book that you do not have to play against unbound armies, so I'm a happy chappy
It says that? I missed that part. At least they make it official that you can have done in the first place. Sadly I see why "Proof" is needed. Now only if GW will make a stance on FW now.
But yeah I agree I hope they give ruling to tell people that FW is legal (as it is but people just like failing their arms for no reason)
If anyone can fix my image, it would be appreciated (apparently Dakka does not agree with FB )
Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
slowthar wrote: I like any buff that comes to assault right now. However, I am concerned that further discarding the FOC will throw the game further into an unbalanced state where a pickup game is nearly impossible, and I believe that will drive enough people out that it will be the final nail in the coffin for GW.
We've said this about every single addition/change to 40k for the last 5 years.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition
Its not just scoring with vehicles on the last turn. Its also running out into the open to get a better shot, or ignoring closer dangerous enemy units to instead focus on a farther away unit on an object, etc. There are a whole host of suicidal things you can do if you go last. There must be a nice solution to this problem, probably involving a more integrated turn structure. The solution is definitely not barring vehicles from scoring.
slowthar wrote: I like any buff that comes to assault right now. However, I am concerned that further discarding the FOC will throw the game further into an unbalanced state where a pickup game is nearly impossible, and I believe that will drive enough people out that it will be the final nail in the coffin for GW.
We've said this about every single addition/change to 40k for the last 5 years.
And for all you know, its absolutely correct.
You don't know how many people have left, never to return because of changes like this. You don't know how many are going to leave because of this edition. It very well may be the last nail in the coffin for many players.
Further, the game is sliding deeper into a state of total unbalance.
Desubot wrote: Im 50/50 on it for now and am in the camp of wait and see.
things i like : assault buffs,
things i dont like : vehicles scoring
the rest im not sure yet.
Why don't you like vehicles scoring desu?
Overly spammable dedicated transports being able to turbo boost turn 5 capturing points.
same with fast vehicles like Tau tetras or piranha tank shocking people off objectives.
or vehicles that are very hard to kill like land raiders (even worse the forge world variety)
as mentioned earlier as well with dedicated flyers like necron scythes though that is more situational.
Its a little thing but like i said ima wait and see exactly what we are getting before i cry the sky is falling.
Thus far, with consolidation into new combats coming back, psychic powers getting a Fantasy style Magic phase, and "Unbound" armies composed of whatever people want to toss on a table, none of it sounds particularly fun or engaging.
Desubot wrote: Im 50/50 on it for now and am in the camp of wait and see.
things i like : assault buffs,
things i dont like : vehicles scoring
the rest im not sure yet.
Why don't you like vehicles scoring desu?
Overly spammable dedicated transports being able to turbo boost turn 5 capturing points.
same with fast vehicles like Tau tetras or piranha tank shocking people off objectives.
or vehicles that are very hard to kill like land raiders (even worse the forge world variety)
as mentioned earlier as well with dedicated flyers like necron scythes though that is more situational.
Its a little thing but like i said ima wait and see exactly what we are getting before i cry the sky is falling.
Flyers shouldn't be allowed to score. I can imagine a tank holding an area and keeping infantry away. This is just a tactical game after all. Its not like the tank needs to stay there for days or weeks camping out the objective. But a flyer which is zooming by cannot even pretend to be in control of an object.
I would hope the new object card system helps to alleviate last turn objective grabbing. Are the cards still just rumors? It sounds like the cards would have you trying to claim objectives as quickly as possible (so you have the opportunity to reveal more objectives and claim more). in that case, you would have to use your dedicated transports early on and would expose them.
it sounds terrible but who knows, maybe it will shock everyone. mid way through fifth i was thinking of starting an army. then the grey knight unbalance hit and i decided to wait and see if they would get their gak together. seems to have been downhill ever since. im happy i didn't waste the time.
Desubot wrote: Im 50/50 on it for now and am in the camp of wait and see.
things i like : assault buffs,
things i dont like : vehicles scoring
the rest im not sure yet.
Why don't you like vehicles scoring desu?
Overly spammable dedicated transports being able to turbo boost turn 5 capturing points.
same with fast vehicles like Tau tetras or piranha tank shocking people off objectives.
or vehicles that are very hard to kill like land raiders (even worse the forge world variety)
as mentioned earlier as well with dedicated flyers like necron scythes though that is more situational.
Its a little thing but like i said ima wait and see exactly what we are getting before i cry the sky is falling.
I don't see how those are different from hiding Jetbikes boosting across the board on the last turn, or MC/deathstar units sitting on objectives.
Desubot wrote: Im 50/50 on it for now and am in the camp of wait and see.
things i like : assault buffs,
things i dont like : vehicles scoring
the rest im not sure yet.
Why don't you like vehicles scoring desu?
Overly spammable dedicated transports being able to turbo boost turn 5 capturing points.
same with fast vehicles like Tau tetras or piranha tank shocking people off objectives.
or vehicles that are very hard to kill like land raiders (even worse the forge world variety)
as mentioned earlier as well with dedicated flyers like necron scythes though that is more situational.
Its a little thing but like i said ima wait and see exactly what we are getting before i cry the sky is falling.
I don't see how those are different from hiding Jetbikes boosting across the board on the last turn, or MC/deathstar units sitting on objectives.
It isn't very much different (except i think a tank squadron like hellhounds could effectively tank shock a whole unit out of 3" contesting range IF it still relevant in 7th)
I also hate last second jetbike contesting anyway so probably explains why i also hate this
Orock wrote: Keeping my own opinion to myself to avoid tainting any results. Do you feel, with what we know so far as facts, that the coming changes will be a positive for the community and game as a whole or a negative. Again not based on rumors you might have or not have heard, such as consolidating into meelee that hasent been seen on paper or talked about by GW specifically. Just on what we know as fact so far, such as unbound lists, everything scores (though troops score better, you will have to read). Ect...
What are these facts you speak of? Have yet to see anything from an official source
What he meant was to to take the rumors as facts for the purpose of this poll
No, in fact I specifically said to avoid the rumors, and just go off known facts. Look there is a video out by jervis, spoilered above in this very thread, that explains these new rules.
slowthar wrote: I like any buff that comes to assault right now. However, I am concerned that further discarding the FOC will throw the game further into an unbalanced state where a pickup game is nearly impossible, and I believe that will drive enough people out that it will be the final nail in the coffin for GW.
We've said this about every single addition/change to 40k for the last 5 years.
Well, maybe you have; I'm sure SOMEBODY has, but I haven't before. I am now. And hey, I could be completely wrong.
Who knows, maybe Jervis is a genius and I don't give him enough credit, but everything from my past experience with this game and this company suggests that these guys probably played a bunch of super fluffy games without the FOC and went, "this is a fantastic way to play! let's roll it out!" and not one of them was a big enough a**hole to bring an army of 3 Riptides, 4 Wraithknights, and 6 Heldrakes so all the other ones could see how terribly unfun it can be.
Don't get me wrong, throwing out the FOC is probably a fantastic way for some people to play. My concern is that it will ruin the game for a significant number of people, and there's only so many people that can stop playing before the company can no longer stay afloat. If the game has this laser-focus on this specific type of gamer, to the exclusion of others, my concern is that it will no longer have broad enough appeal to stay financially viable.
Minor tweaks that somehow constitute a new edition don't get me excited at all. There are still core, fundamental rules with 40k that I hate. Alas the dream of GW doing a full rewrite will never happen.
I like the changes. They're more additive than an entire overhaul, which would require more than 2 years to be done. I treat this as Reaper of Souls did to Diablo 3: breathed new life on it.
Desubot wrote: Im starting to lean towards liking it. only because of the supposed ally chart redux where there are less battle brother best friends forever around.
as well as psychic phase that may allow us to finally deal with blessings.
Oh, joy. Looks like GW is trying to get ALL players to buy the Daemons Codex.
you think that's bad, wait till you see the vehicle rules.
also
From Bell of Lost Souls:
Warhammer 7th Edition: Price: roughly $80
Edition is presented in a new format, 3 hardcover books in a slipcover. Pagecount of all three is about 450 pages in total:
The Rulebook: @200 pages, only rules
The Grimdark: @128 pages - Fluff and history of the Warhammer universe
The Hobby: @114 pages - Full miniatures and hobby book. All splash pics, and intro to the hobby stuff.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnd I can already see spammed cursed earth on assault termies..
2+ InvSv termies? sure, go ahead..
People really do hate tanks becoming the big thing? I say bring it on I love Tanks and if tanks are getting better then I know Walkers will get better..
happygolucky wrote: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnd I can already see spammed cursed earth on assault termies..
2+ InvSv termies? sure, go ahead..
People really do hate tanks becoming the big thing? I say bring it on I love Tanks and if tanks are getting better then I know Walkers will get better..
Bring Back the Kan wall I say
Termies won't get jack from that power - only Daemonics.
However, daemon armies are now going to be harder than Slaanesh's thingy at an all-daemonette party.
Too early to tell, but GWs focus on what is easily perceived as a model selling tactic, ie. "unbound" lists does not bode well especially given the potential annoyances for pick up games and balance issues.
Well slap my ass and call me Susie. So ML 3 Psykers can, I'm assuming, spawn a squad of something every turn.
Remember that you will have the possibility to block psychic powers with DTW dice. Psychic powers hopefully wont be "roll 2d6 below 10 and laugh your ass off".
40k was already loosing players and the pickup game culture in 6th, now this is going to further hurt the game and drive more people away by making pickup games much harder to get.
Also, $80 for the new triple rule book is yet another barrier for new players. Not to mention the already too expensive codices. And you're looking at a heavy investment before you even buy your first model. That will be hard to justify in many people's minds.
I wanted 40k to change, but this is the wrong direction.
Using fantasy rules for psykers. Most people seem to like this with the exception that super powerful psykers like ahriman and fateweaver will be able to block all spells pretty much and taking cheap psykers will no longer be a thing as they'll never get a spell off.
Here's what I don't like:
As I understand it, by taking a bound list, you get to re-roll the warlord trait. That's not a sufficient buff in my opinion. All non-god-tier troops will become obsolete. The buffs to FoC chart and allies chart bound armies simply needs to be much higher. When you're up against 8 Bloodthirsters or 8 heldrakes and tigurius having soul blaze on your warlords close combat attacks is not going to give you the advantage you need.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition
Its not just scoring with vehicles on the last turn. Its also running out into the open to get a better shot, or ignoring closer dangerous enemy units to instead focus on a farther away unit on an object, etc. There are a whole host of suicidal things you can do if you go last. There must be a nice solution to this problem, probably involving a more integrated turn structure. The solution is definitely not barring vehicles from scoring.
Unfortunately its not vehicles scoring/contesting that cause this problem.
Its that only the last turn of the game matters for objectives that causes this problem.
I sat out 6th because I didn't like where the game had gone. Just about everything I've heard about 7th already has me convinced I'll be sitting it out, too.
Blatantly egregious gak like Unbound armies and the "everyone can now summon daemons (so go buy lots of daemons)!" cash grab make me actively want to not support GW, and I've honestly never felt that level of antipathy for the company before.
Actually paying attention to the rumors and updates makes me sorta optimistic about this update:
The bonuses for Battle-Forged armies vs Unbound seems OK (not that my gaming group runs super cheesy stuck anyway), the rumored Psychic phase hearkens to WFB (where it initially spun-off from), and it seems we might actually get a definition on the exact nature of Formations (as they are forced into 6th with no restrictions, it will be intriguing as to what they do).
I can't wait until 7th edition comes out, and we go from millions of threads talking about whether incomplete bits and pieces of rumors about 7th edition are good or bad and can actually start talking about whether or not 7th edition is good or bad.
I gonna have to wait. Devil's in the details with quite a bit of the stuff we're hearing about. I'm somewhere between pessimistically hopeful and optimistically skeptical.
My opinion on 7th Ed 40k? I stopped playing 40k when the X-Wing Miniatures Game hit the scene and the 7th Edition of the 40k rules will not change that. I'd rather play a game where I can get 2-3 games done in the same time it takes to play one game of 40k.
Seaward wrote: I sat out 6th because I didn't like where the game had gone. Just about everything I've heard about 7th already has me convinced I'll be sitting it out, too.
Blatantly egregious gak like Unbound armies and the "everyone can now summon daemons (so go buy lots of daemons)!" cash grab make me actively want to not support GW, and I've honestly never felt that level of antipathy for the company before.
While I can understand that you say you sat out the edition because you didn't like the direction, how can you say you really have a solid opinion one way or the other on the way the game turned out? I mean when 6th first came out I remember how everyone was crying that flyers were the worst thing to ever happen to the game, and now they are more of an annoyance than a game changer.
5th edition had vehicle spam and just plain bad wound allocation
6th has assault nerfed too much and deathstars
7th will undoubtably have its downfalls, but that doesn't mean its the end of the game. While you don't see the appeal of something like unbound, doesn't mean its terrible either. I know I for one am going to go out and build a Word Bearers list right off the bat and summon me some daemons, and then run a list with nothing but Khorne berzerkers and see if I can flood an opponent in red power armor! Did GW need to add the rule? No, we could easily have just said "Hey, I want to do this for this game" and it would have been fine, but I also think it's cool that they are making it a viable option and giving us some rules to work with, even if they are going to need some homebrew love. And for those of you who are going to respond with "Have fun playing against a heldrake spam list!" well all I can say is, no. I won't play against a list like that. Simple as that. And if you think tournaments will allow lists like that then... where have you been?
My only negative for right now is the time-table. I feel like they crammed the entire lifespan of an edition into 2 years. I feel like we are just now getting rules down just right, and they are changing again. I hope next edition sticks around a bit longer.
Lobukia wrote: I gonna have to wait. Devil's in the details with quite a bit of the stuff we're hearing about. I'm somewhere between pessimistically hopeful and optimistically skeptical.
I feel ya there.
Crossing my mental fingers, hoping GW will have realized some of its mistakes.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition
Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.
That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition
Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.
That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.
Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition
Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.
That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.
Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.
This works even better with Serpents which are a bit faster.
I think we'll see a move towards tank-heavy lists.
TNT925 wrote: While I can understand that you say you sat out the edition because you didn't like the direction, how can you say you really have a solid opinion one way or the other on the way the game turned out? I mean when 6th first came out I remember how everyone was crying that flyers were the worst thing to ever happen to the game, and now they are more of an annoyance than a game changer.
It's not at all difficult to follow the 40K meta despite not playing 40K, at least if you've played 40K before. As soon as I saw Allies, I said, "Hmm, this seems like it'll be overpowered. It'll be overpowered because they want to sell models to people who already have armies." That turned out to be absolutely true. And nothing I saw from any of the codices in subsequent releases suggested that they'd resolved their biggest issue - writing rules to sell models instead of writing rules to make a fun, balanced game - and so there was no reason to hop back aboard the party bus.
It's possible that GW's business model wouldn't work if they wrote decent rules without trying to force the player into paying to win. But my consumer model is to wait until they feth their method up enough to accidentally put out some halfway-workable rules that aren't naked cash grabs, and then jump in for that edition.
7th will undoubtably have its downfalls, but that doesn't mean its the end of the game. While you don't see the appeal of something like unbound, doesn't mean its terrible either. I know I for one am going to go out and build a Word Bearers list right off the bat and summon me some daemons, and then run a list with nothing but Khorne berzerkers and see if I can flood an opponent in red power armor! Did GW need to add the rule? No, we could easily have just said "Hey, I want to do this for this game" and it would have been fine, but I also think it's cool that they are making it a viable option and giving us some rules to work with, even if they are going to need some homebrew love. And for those of you who are going to respond with "Have fun playing against a heldrake spam list!" well all I can say is, no. I won't play against a list like that. Simple as that. And if you think tournaments will allow lists like that then... where have you been?
You're basically the type of guy GW relies on to make these harebrained schemes of theirs work. And there's nothing wrong with that. If you like where they're going with the game, then by all means, keep playing it.
I don't. The background fluff is basically the only thing keeping me even remotely invested in 40K at the moment, and they're furthering their long tradition of gutting their own fluff with 7th Edition. When Grey Knights are summoning Bloodthirsters, they've lost me. Simple as that.
And they've lost my spend on their tertiary product lines, too. Black Library's going to force their guys to gak out crappy novels involving said Grey Knights summoning said Bloodthirsters, so even the pure fluff stuff I won't be able to enjoy anymore.
Seaward wrote: I sat out 6th because I didn't like where the game had gone. Just about everything I've heard about 7th already has me convinced I'll be sitting it out, too.
Blatantly egregious gak like Unbound armies and the "everyone can now summon daemons (so go buy lots of daemons)!" cash grab make me actively want to not support GW, and I've honestly never felt that level of antipathy for the company before.
While I can understand that you say you sat out the edition because you didn't like the direction, how can you say you really have a solid opinion one way or the other on the way the game turned out? I mean when 6th first came out I remember how everyone was crying that flyers were the worst thing to ever happen to the game, and now they are more of an annoyance than a game changer.
5th edition had vehicle spam and just plain bad wound allocation
6th has assault nerfed too much and deathstars
7th will undoubtably have its downfalls, but that doesn't mean its the end of the game. While you don't see the appeal of something like unbound, doesn't mean its terrible either. I know I for one am going to go out and build a Word Bearers list right off the bat and summon me some daemons, and then run a list with nothing but Khorne berzerkers and see if I can flood an opponent in red power armor! Did GW need to add the rule? No, we could easily have just said "Hey, I want to do this for this game" and it would have been fine, but I also think it's cool that they are making it a viable option and giving us some rules to work with, even if they are going to need some homebrew love. And for those of you who are going to respond with "Have fun playing against a heldrake spam list!" well all I can say is, no. I won't play against a list like that. Simple as that. And if you think tournaments will allow lists like that then... where have you been?
My only negative for right now is the time-table. I feel like they crammed the entire lifespan of an edition into 2 years. I feel like we are just now getting rules down just right, and they are changing again. I hope next edition sticks around a bit longer.
Actually flyers are still pretty terrifying. It's just the top meta lists have all the answers for them.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition
Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.
That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.
Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.
This works even better with Serpents which are a bit faster.
I think we'll see a move towards tank-heavy lists.
Razorback spam will be back.
I've never seen the end of it, 'back spam is my meta. Strong even in 6th.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.
this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition
Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.
That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.
Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.
This works even better with Serpents which are a bit faster.
I think we'll see a move towards tank-heavy lists.
Razorback spam will be back.
I've never seen the end of it, 'back spam is my meta. Strong even in 6th.
What kind of army/chapter do you play?
I think that BA with fast Razorbacks will be quite competitive.
I think that BA with fast Razorbacks will be quite competitive.
I play Chaos :C
I end up against two UM forces and one BA force. The BA player also has an ork army, and one UM player also has Tau.
All armies except the tau are parking lots, and the tau are being all skyfire in my face.
EDIT: Moving on to IG though, and I've got a Vendetta, 3 Russes, 2 mechvets with autocannons and a couple of HQ's. They'll be allying in Be'lakor and a heldrake. Suck it, loyalist bitches.
I think that BA with fast Razorbacks will be quite competitive.
I play Chaos :C
I end up against two UM forces and one BA force. The BA player also has an ork army, and one UM player also has Tau.
All armies except the tau are parking lots, and the tau are being all skyfire in my face.
EDIT: Moving on to IG though, and I've got a Vendetta, 3 Russes, 2 mechvets with autocannons and a couple of HQ's. They'll be allying in Be'lakor and a heldrake. Suck it, loyalist bitches.
And then they show up with Elysian Drop troopers and you're back to crying.
I don't like Unbound, nor do I think scoring vehicles are necessary.
However, I'm liking everything else so far, and I doubt anyone around here will play Unbound lists... and if they do I'll choose not to play them or go 'what the heck' and enjoy the challenge.
Most Unbound lists people have made so far look terrible, and I love everyone saying 'All-Drake lists will be OP as hell'
Yes, Heldrakes are powerful but they are flyers, and more than 2 makes it hard to not suicide them, yay collisions!
So, yes, so far I'm liking how 7th edition looks. No doubt when it is released and I have the whole picture I'll dislike it and go back to steering clear of 40k as much as possible.
It says that? I missed that part. At least they make it official that you can have done in the first place. Sadly I see why "Proof" is needed. Now only if GW will make a stance on FW now.
They do , they turn more or less every game in to a game with FW . the short rule book blurp has it in bold text that before every game you have to talk decide which FoC your using . Every game is going to have to either start with hours of talking , what is going to be legal for the game or people will have this one way of playing and god help you if you would like to play the game different.
All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.
Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.
Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.
Sigvatr wrote: All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.
Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.
Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.
On the other hand scoring vehicles pleases my Necron wall of Av13 lists.
Sigvatr wrote: All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.
Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.
Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.
On the other hand scoring vehicles pleases my Necron wall of Av13 lists.
:C
There aren't enough MC's or lascannons in my collection.
Sigvatr wrote: All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.
Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.
Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.
On the other hand scoring vehicles pleases my Necron wall of Av13 lists.
I got one myself. It's just lame to basically sit on an objective with GA or, seriously, capture an objective with a NS...
The biggest flaws in 40k will remain whatever changes are made to the core rules since 40k has always been a codex centric game. some units will be more powerful than others, alternating turns will still remain and the game will remain overburdened by special rules that break other rules and have massive inconsistencies in relative power level between the armies.
Arguably the imbalance between armies is a moot point when you play a narrative game among friends, and this is the area GW seem to be pushing the game. Tournaments will likely respond to 'unbound' armies by simply excluding them from the tournament format like has been done in a lot of cases with Lords of War.
Whether the changes affect PUG's remains to be seen, and i can see most groups reaching a consensus on what is, and isn't allowed in a TAC list. But i can also see a lot of people continuing to play 40k even if 7th ed turns out to be the massive mess i'm expecting it to be. despite the ground other systems are taking from GW, 40k still remains the most played system in my area. I will continue to encourage people to play other systems, since i started playing Infinity i've managed to turn a few people to it, and ive hijacked a few games nights by taking the copy of Heroquest my missus bought me for my birthday to them.
i usually take one or more alternative games to these events to show that 40k isn't the only game on the market, nor the best one. Frag, Flux and a touch of evil have all gone down very well indeed!
However, if my personal collection is anything to go by, those with 40k armies tend to have large ones, its still easier to find a 40k game than almost any other system, and 40k has the brand recognition advantage over most other games.
I won't be buying any more figures from GW, i 'may' get stuff from ebay in small amounts, and i wont be buying the new rulebook. i will probably still be forced to play unless there is a massive shift in opinion, and i will still encourage others to try different systems, however i don't think it matters if 40k is better or worse in the slightest
So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.
Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.
...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.
So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.
I am pleased that the Unbound armies are optional, as I think they will be wildly unbalanced.
The new Psychic phase is probably going to be a major pain in the arse if you don’t particularly like Space Magic or else your army doesn’t have any or has relatively limited amounts of it. For example, my two armies are Tau and Tyranids. Tau naturally don’t have any Psychics so the whole phase will be a waste of time. Tyranids do have Psychics but they are all about ordinary shooting attacks (Zoanthropes) or affecting your own army, so dealing with these is going to be a hassle and nuisance. So that bit is a downer for me.
Allies needed revision which apparently they are getting. I didn’t want Allies at all in 6th, and my apprehension was proved correct by their serious unbalancing effects, so it is good to see this being mitigated but I fear the new “factions” rules will give the Imperium a lot of advantages in allying while making life more difficult for most of the Xenos, thereby simply moving the point of unbalance. However we can just agree to play without Allies.
The Objective Cards will probably be all right. Not exactly a major leap forwards in game design but probably harmless.
Most of the rest of it is the usual tinkering with bits and bobs like changes to Jinking and Consolidation moves. This sort of stuff happens every edition and just changes the unbalance in the meta as people get the new “ubber” tactics worked out in a month or two. Then we see some more changes from new codexes being unbalanced.
Apparently D weapons are being dialled down. I never wanted them in the game anyway, so this may make them playable or it may not -- I shall have to wait and see.
Nothing is being done to change the turn sequence fundamentals that would make the game a lot more fun and playable quite easily. Disappointing but predictable.
Overall I think 7th edition will be slightly better than 6th but slightly worse than 4th and 5th.
The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
niv-mizzet wrote: So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.
Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.
...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.
So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.
If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.
I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.
niv-mizzet wrote: So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.
Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.
...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.
So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.
If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.
I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.
Or CSM.
One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.
I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.
I hope for the "Dwarf" method. Dwarfs in WHFB do not have any wizards on their own but in return, get superior magic defense. Free army-wide Adamantium Will maybe.
niv-mizzet wrote: So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.
Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.
...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.
So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.
If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.
I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.
Or CSM.
One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.
Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.
niv-mizzet wrote: So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.
Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.
...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.
So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.
If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.
I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.
Or CSM.
One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.
Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?
niv-mizzet wrote: So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.
Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.
...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.
So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.
If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.
I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.
Or CSM.
One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.
Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
I am not sure what you mean. The HQ slots in your primary detachment are not used up by ally HQ choices. We are talking about a chaos space marines primary detachment, right?
niv-mizzet wrote: So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.
Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.
...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.
So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.
If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.
I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.
Or CSM.
One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.
Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
I am not sure what you mean. The HQ slots in your primary detachment are not used up by ally HQ choices. We are talking about a chaos space marines primary detachment, right?
Eh. I always end up thinking of the CSM as an allied detachment - it's the only way I can get it to work. And it ends up being Be'lakor, troop tax and a heldrake.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?
Bunch of new stuff from the WD recently, to give a better picture. Thank god chumping meelee monsters is out.
ALSO no new starter set. They are pulling the old ones and packaging them with a "trials set" of rules, that DO NOT give you the whole rule set you need to play with. So you would HAVE to buy yet another 85 dollar book set. Im changing to no.
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.
Some people want to win without resorting to unseemly methods for the uncivilized.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?
I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.
I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?
I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.
I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.
Some people want to win without resorting to unseemly methods for the uncivilized.
How is it "uncivilised" when demon primary armies can do the same without going unbound ?
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.
Some people want to win without resorting to unseemly methods for the uncivilized.
How is it "uncivilised" when demon primary armies can do the same without going unbound ?
Daemon, not demon.
Unbound is ridiculously dumb and not to be taken seriously, between a bunch of Imperial only allied detachments, formations, dual FOC (even if cowards try to avert it with 1999+1 games), and allies, the FOC is already enough of a joke. Let's not dig the grave for it just yet.
But a demon army can take the 4-5 casters and do the same summoning as the unbound csm one . In fact it is better , because demon kin don't suffer from the perils on all doubles while casting malific . they can also cycle through HQs , better , because they already start with a grimoire on the table , while the csm player has to summon it first.
If playing csm unbound or with ally demons is as you said uncivilised , then playing demons should be banned. Because they can do the same , and get all the perks from having a warforged armies .
Kilkrazy wrote: The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?
I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.
I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.
I shall go into the GW and ask for the rules separately. If they don't sell them I will not buy the full set, and ask the manager to mention this to head office. Hopefully other people will do the same.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?
I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.
I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.
I shall go into the GW and ask for the rules separately. If they don't sell them I will not buy the full set, and ask the manager to mention this to head office. Hopefully other people will do the same.
I think the store manager will not care and GW will not care.
A small rulebook would be nice since carrying a large one around is a pain.
Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.
Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.
Some people want to win without resorting to unseemly methods for the uncivilized.
I was thinking more along the lines of the current Ed, but okay.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.
Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?
I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.
I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.
I shall go into the GW and ask for the rules separately. If they don't sell them I will not buy the full set, and ask the manager to mention this to head office. Hopefully other people will do the same.
I have resigned to waiting until some sort of rules-only product comes out.
I believe GW is bound to release this once it believes it has consumed the market of customers willing to buy the whole kit and kaboodle. They will still want whatever revenue they can still garner from customers who as more restrained on purchasing, and I can bet even GW realizes that there will be a substantial portion of their base that is not buying the $85 version because the last rulebook came so soon.
Now, if everyone went the route of waiting, I bet you'd see a digital rules-only release within the month!
Kilkrazy wrote: I shall go into the GW and ask for the rules separately. If they don't sell them I will not buy the full set, and ask the manager to mention this to head office. Hopefully other people will do the same.
Despite my long-standing policy of avoiding GW stores like the plague, I'll go ahead and do the same.
Now based on this I have a good feeling about this edition, it even states in the book that you do not have to play against unbound armies, so I'm a happy chappy
You didn't need a rule for that, you know. Playing Warhammer 40k is not compulsory.
Also. The rules book also states that points limits are optional. Note that it doesn't say that the LEVEL of points limits are optional, that they are optional in their entirety.
Glorywarrior wrote: Just the fact that FMC only take one grounding test per turn. like WTF?
It's better than.
"OH MY GOD!!! A LASGUN HIT ME IN THE EYE!!!!! I'M BLIND DAMMIT!!!! IT DIDN'T EVEN PIERCE THE JELLY OF MY EYEBALL BUT I'M GOING TO CRASH INTO THIS ROCK NOW!"
Which I always thought was a bit silly, surely the fact that it didn't wound him meant the attack was ineffective.
I only thing I really want to see is an assault buff since I mostly play Kill Team. Other than that, I really could care less since I have other games to tie up my time, so I really do not feel any way yet.
7th edition is the worst so far from what I have seen.
4th was excellent (except the fact that any unit could score), 5th was solid (though cried parking lot / mech lists everywhere); 6th was bursting at the seams due to changes and introduction of new elements, but still tried to stick true to the tried and tested core rules mechanic (although assault armies too a massive beating - and the nid codex give bug players the finishing blow), but 7th will completely throw any semblance of order out of the water.
promising to fix several 6th edition exploits (except fixing assault), they will break things elsewhere and cause more harm than good. 40k as we know it is dead already, and has just boiled down to buying all the toys GW releases every month, if not every week.
For the past year GW marketing is more and more oriented about customers with short attention spans.
Glorywarrior wrote: Just the fact that FMC only take one grounding test per turn. like WTF?
It's better than.
"OH MY GOD!!! A LASGUN HIT ME IN THE EYE!!!!! I'M BLIND DAMMIT!!!! IT DIDN'T EVEN PIERCE THE JELLY OF MY EYEBALL BUT I'M GOING TO CRASH INTO THIS ROCK NOW!"
Which I always thought was a bit silly, surely the fact that it didn't wound him meant the attack was ineffective.
^this.
It's beyond idiotic to see millennia-old warp monsters who are veterans of millions of warzones panic every time a bullet whips by.
I hope it's in the right direction with respect to the game being better and the armies getting a bit more balance from the rules, Orks and assault armies are useless now. I hope that changes.
We will have to see, maybe they took the big loss as an indicator that we aren't going to buy your stuff if the game isn't good or fun to play anymore.
They have a bad track record, but when 7th drops, one of two things will happen. We buy it and like it or we don't and the game continues it's decline.
icemansk wrote: I hope it's in the right direction with respect to the game being better and the armies getting a bit more balance from the rules, Orks and assault armies are useless now. I hope that changes.
We will have to see, maybe they took the big loss as an indicator that we aren't going to buy your stuff if the game isn't good or fun to play anymore.
They have a bad track record, but when 7th drops, one of two things will happen. We buy it and like it or we don't and the game continues it's decline.
I for one hope it is better.
What I'm hoping is that GW will finally stop making short-term cash grabs, and try to go back to building up the customer base. A non-sustainable company is a crap one, and its shareholders will bail at the first sign of trouble. Sustainable ones will find that when things get bad, shareholders may stick around hoping to win out in the long term.
icemansk wrote: I hope it's in the right direction with respect to the game being better and the armies getting a bit more balance from the rules, Orks and assault armies are useless now. I hope that changes.
We will have to see, maybe they took the big loss as an indicator that we aren't going to buy your stuff if the game isn't good or fun to play anymore.
They have a bad track record, but when 7th drops, one of two things will happen. We buy it and like it or we don't and the game continues it's decline.
I for one hope it is better.
What I'm hoping is that GW will finally stop making short-term cash grabs, and try to go back to building up the customer base. A non-sustainable company is a crap one, and its shareholders will bail at the first sign of trouble. Sustainable ones will find that when things get bad, shareholders may stick around hoping to win out in the long term.
This. 7th feels like a step towards re-making 40k into a fun, semi-realistic (to the setting) game. The Unbound and Iron-forged armies come down to the PLAYERS, and not GW itself. If you pop into a GW store or a FLGS and someone brings 10 riptides, then don't play them. It's pretty much the same thing as someone coming to look for a game of apocalypse.
So far 7th looks to me like a good decision. I only can hope assault armies like Orks aren't canned, but I doubt it with the openness 7th sounds like it's bringing. Plus, it's not as if you need to follow the rules directly - talk it out with your fellow players. There still is rules flexibility.
Glorywarrior wrote: Just the fact that FMC only take one grounding test per turn. like WTF?
It's better than.
"OH MY GOD!!! A LASGUN HIT ME IN THE EYE!!!!! I'M BLIND DAMMIT!!!! IT DIDN'T EVEN PIERCE THE JELLY OF MY EYEBALL BUT I'M GOING TO CRASH INTO THIS ROCK NOW!"
Which I always thought was a bit silly, surely the fact that it didn't wound him meant the attack was ineffective.
^this.
It's beyond idiotic to see millennia-old warp monsters who are veterans of millions of warzones panic every time a bullet whips by.
Didn't you know that Pathfinders with markerlights are the number one reason why the forces of Chaos and the Tyranid swarms fear to do battle with the Tau?
Glorywarrior wrote: Just the fact that FMC only take one grounding test per turn. like WTF?
It's better than.
"OH MY GOD!!! A LASGUN HIT ME IN THE EYE!!!!! I'M BLIND DAMMIT!!!! IT DIDN'T EVEN PIERCE THE JELLY OF MY EYEBALL BUT I'M GOING TO CRASH INTO THIS ROCK NOW!"
Which I always thought was a bit silly, surely the fact that it didn't wound him meant the attack was ineffective.
^this.
It's beyond idiotic to see millennia-old warp monsters who are veterans of millions of warzones panic every time a bullet whips by.
Didn't you know that Pathfinders with markerlights are the number one reason why the forces of Chaos and the Tyranid swarms fear to do battle with the Tau?
From what I've seen so far it seems like an improvement. But then again I only play my friends and don't play tourney.
We play a transparent game with the focus on playing a tactical game for fun, seeing what works well and what doesn't (without building the cheesey/OP/Death Star/ blah blah blah lists)
Looking forward to unbound lists, so much freedom to take interesting army lists especially for "scripted" missions.
Mad Boss Morgrot wrote: From what I've seen so far it seems like an improvement. But then again I only play my friends and don't play tourney.
We play a transparent game with the focus on playing a tactical game for fun, seeing what works well and what doesn't (without building the cheesey/OP/Death Star/ blah blah blah lists)
Looking forward to unbound lists, so much freedom to take interesting army lists especially for "scripted" missions.
Agreed. The changes sound good for the most part, I like the idea of tactical objectives awarding victory points every turn rather than just at the end of the game. I'm not crazy about the psychic phase, but I'm prepared to wait and see it in action before passing judgement.
Looks like they may have pulled it off. A major revamp from the Jervis video explanation on GW's website. Kinda rationalizes why they took the step. It's a changed universe now that the big cat is out of the bag. Guessing you will be able to get just the rules at some point but can get all three books if you are relatively new to the hobby or addicted to it. Will be interesting to see if you 'have to have' the other two non-rules books - ie: certain army characteristic that you must know to apply the rules. One would hope the codex would have that info already so it is not a constant catch-up on how to play the 'new' game. Are we entering a bright sunlit upland where we can play in a blissful state of rules stability for awhile?
ciaotym wrote: Will be interesting to see if you 'have to have' the other two non-rules books - ie: certain army characteristic that you must know to apply the rules. One would hope the codex would have that info already so it is not a constant catch-up on how to play the 'new' game. Are we entering a bright sunlit upland where we can play in a blissful state of rules stability for awhile?
Codexes will probably have army-specific rules in them, especially if a codex gets updated. I think we have a playable game now, but we'll just have to see how things are next week.
Currently you can only buy the 3 books as a set, but because of that I think you could go to a store and ask to buy only one, or that they'll be sold individually as well.
How are tau worse to you then any other of the good armies out there. The problem is not marker lights , but chaos having three books based around helldrakes .
I dislike the change to snap fire . Suddenly marines and eldar are going to be taking down my vendetta even easier and are going to have a more effective overwatch. I think I will take out the last vendetta I have in my list , It goes down very fast now and with unbound and the change to snap fire I may as well not bother.
I wonder how GW thinks AM armies stop demons FMC or nid skyblight builds , without having good interceptors? Always go first and play with no terrain maybe .
Too soon to say, but Unbound - at least as it's being written up by WD - does not fill me with confidence for the direction they're going in. Sure it can be used to create fluffy lists, but when every single example I've seen given in WD is solely about spamming big models it appears their infatuation with oversized toys and Epic 28mm is here to stay.
I like that I can run all big gribbly demons without having to pay the nurgling tax. Because seriously, demons had no real issues-we could play whatever we wanted and all but ignore troops. And now everyone is free to do so. Willing to play unbound? I rock without nurglings. Refuse unbound? I'll play with nurglings. I realize some people will abuse the system. That can be said about every game system out there that is more intricate than Chess. I hate what 6th edition was, so any change to me is a positive. If 7th is terrible, I continue to sit out and my daemons are used for KoW. Big whoop.
)
I love Tanks and if tanks are getting better then I know Walkers will get better..
