57935
Post by: Samurai_Eduh
As far as I know, there is nothing confirmed about that.
68490
Post by: Hammernator
Are there any confirmed rules that would buff assault armies? I read most of this thread and didn't find anything, but it got so big that I might have missed it.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
You can't speed roll shooting phases anymore specifically because wounds are resolved by weapon, so if your flamer knocks some bolter guys out of rapid fire, this would reduce your shots. That's how the white dwarf is written, thus yes, shooting phases will take longer. Unless we fall back on the concept of the white dwarf is wrong, thus GW is either incompetent or lying,
Tournaments are the best measure for game length. Round lengths got longer because games were longer for 6th. The only thing I can tell you is listen to every competitive 40k podcast and email TOs. There have been multiple discussions about game length and games not reaching their natural conclusion in timed events where previously they had. Again, don't believe me if you wish, I don't have a reason to lie. I know Feast of Blades went to 2.5 rounds specifically over their previous 2 and many more did the same,
No rules have been leaked that would suggest any buff to assault based armies. :/
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Nope, only thing I have read that would affect assault armies was the reduction of charging into difficult terrain. No buffs to CC armies as yet. I remain hopeful.
69848
Post by: ninjafiredragon
That is the one thing I realllyyyy want to see in 7th
68289
Post by: Nem
 TheKbob wrote:You can't speed roll shooting phases anymore specifically because wounds are resolved by weapon, so if your flamer knocks some bolter guys out of rapid fire, this would reduce your shots. That's how the white dwarf is written, thus yes, shooting phases will take longer. Unless we fall back on the concept of the white dwarf is wrong, thus GW is either incompetent or lying,
Tournaments are the best measure for game length. Round lengths got longer because games were longer for 6th. The only thing I can tell you is listen to every competitive 40k podcast and email TOs. There have been multiple discussions about game length and games not reaching their natural conclusion in timed events where previously they had. Again, don't believe me if you wish, I don't have a reason to lie. I know Feast of Blades went to 2.5 rounds specifically over their previous 2 and many more did the same,
No rules have been leaked that would suggest any buff to assault based armies. :/
idk, shooting weapons being resolved separately is a buff (in disguise, well, mainly a shooting nerf.) for CC armies if range of weapon is taken into consideration as in 6th. Lots of short range weaponry will no longer be able to wound large distances due to the one guy firing the 24'' weapon with the unit. ( Assuming that is all in).
But nothing confirmed I can think of, indeed in over watch remains unchanged but just -2 BS then it'll be worse. I still have hopes though, I think most will come in the form of shooting nerfs rather than CC buffs. I don't think we'll see any drop-and-charge being added.
CC armies are also buffed by the challenge rule spilling wounds over, but that's mainly single CC orientated models, which needed this buff really.
68289
Post by: Nem
Some early rumour's noted the possibility of having to pass a test to be able to OW. I would be willing to bet if -2 BS is true then there is something extra needed to OW.
Or something similar, flat out 6+ to hit (which would nerf the worst offenders (tau)).
53985
Post by: TheKbob
 Nem wrote:
idk, shooting weapons being resolved separately is a buff (in disguise, well, mainly a shooting nerf.) for CC armies if range of weapon is taken into consideration as in 6th. Lots of short range weaponry will no longer be able to wound large distances due to the one guy firing the 24'' weapon with the unit. ( Assuming that is all in).
But nothing confirmed I can think of, indeed in over watch remains unchanged but just -2 BS then it'll be worse. I still have hopes though, I think most will come in the form of shooting nerfs rather than CC buffs. I don't think we'll see any drop-and-charge being added.
CC armies are also buffed by the challenge rule spilling wounds over, but that's mainly single CC orientated models, which needed this buff really.
Could be the boon indeed, it all relies on the factual validity of this snap fire talk. I'm not looking forward to the new wound allocation as it will probably make me either take two flamers or just one heavy flamer in my battle sister squads.
I'm torn on the spill over of wounds. I don't play any CC beasts and chumping them with a sgt was the only way to counter them for me. Now they just cut through a unit and I won't accept challenge at all being it's useless. Wounds should count for resolution, sure, but this is a bit much.
26519
Post by: xttz
 Squidbot wrote:Nope, only thing I have read that would affect assault armies was the reduction of charging into difficult terrain. No buffs to CC armies as yet. I remain hopeful.
The difficult terrain thing is pretty huge to certain armies, especially Tyranids and melee Daemons. It was crazy how essential assault grenades were yet so many pure assault units didn't get them. Now things like Hormagaunts, Genestealers and Bloodletters will be at least a bit more effective.
Edit: It was also a dumb mechanic for Monstrous Creatures. Watching an Avatar charge into combat past a shrubbery and drop from I10 to I1 really shows how ridiculous it was.
There's also the change to let challenge wounds spill over into combat, which helps uber melee units like Bloodthirsters.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
 xttz wrote: Squidbot wrote:Nope, only thing I have read that would affect assault armies was the reduction of charging into difficult terrain. No buffs to CC armies as yet. I remain hopeful.
The difficult terrain thing is pretty huge to certain armies, especially Tyranids and melee Daemons. It was crazy how essential assault grenades were yet so many pure assault units didn't get them. Now things like Hormagaunts, Genestealers and Bloodletters will be at least a bit more effective.
There's also the change to let challenge wounds spill over into combat, which helps uber melee units like Bloodthirsters.
The -2" charge through terrain speaks nothing about assault grenades and initiative. Only the distance needed to close.
I hope the rule of 2 applies however and just makes assaulting in terrain with no grenades a -2 I instead of I1
53985
Post by: TheKbob
 tetrisphreak wrote: xttz wrote: Squidbot wrote:Nope, only thing I have read that would affect assault armies was the reduction of charging into difficult terrain. No buffs to CC armies as yet. I remain hopeful.
The difficult terrain thing is pretty huge to certain armies, especially Tyranids and melee Daemons. It was crazy how essential assault grenades were yet so many pure assault units didn't get them. Now things like Hormagaunts, Genestealers and Bloodletters will be at least a bit more effective.
There's also the change to let challenge wounds spill over into combat, which helps uber melee units like Bloodthirsters.
The -2" charge through terrain speaks nothing about assault grenades and initiative. Only the distance needed to close.
I hope the rule of 2 applies however and just makes assaulting in terrain with no grenades a -2 I instead of I1
That would almost make Genestealers effective...! That'll never happen... 
52163
Post by: Shandara
It would almost make Howling Banshees effective..! That'll never happen... 
5315
Post by: Angelic
TheKbob wrote:You can't speed roll shooting phases anymore specifically because wounds are resolved by weapon, so if your flamer knocks some bolter guys out of rapid fire, this would reduce your shots.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. All hits and all wounds can be rolled together. Obviously, different dice per weapon. The rumors I have seen are about a difference at the wound resolution stage, not "to hit" or "to wound", so there is no reduction of "shots". Basically, once you have your wound pool, resolve them in the order you wish, obviously optimal would be shortest to longest. Just do a quick measure after each set of saves to see max number of casualties that can be caused for that weapons range. To be honest, this is the way we were doing it at the beginning of 6th before that FAQ came out that implied a ML increases the kill range of Bolters. It was a little slower, but not much since most of the time we had to separate for S and AP anyway.
77684
Post by: wallygator
i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
5315
Post by: Angelic
 wallygator wrote:i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
Even though multiple Witchfires can be cast, the mechanics of the phase make me think fewer powers will actually be cast in the new edition. We'll have to see what the new composition of powers is, but if they are similar to now, I think most will devote the limited resources to Blessings/Maledictions, just as before.
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
wallygator wrote:i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
Only when you play Daemons. Most other armies have very little if any psychic shooting attacks, most of the annoying things are blessings.
84972
Post by: PapaSoul
How about the changes to jink? I've heard hearsay but seen nothing, and I usually follow the philosophy of "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see"
43680
Post by: mercury14
The Jink thing was in a leaked WD pic I believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If snap firing is -2 BS then assault armies will be hit with a crushing nerf. As well as flyers, especially AV 10 ones.
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
77684
Post by: wallygator
mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
i think the same people who think "allright, unbound army! 10 ritpides with gakloads of markerlights, done! "
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right? 
27004
Post by: clively
wallygator wrote:i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
I think psychic tests actually got harder to pull off. Most psykers are ld 10. That means the test passes about 83% of the time. With the rules change, on two dice you have just shy of a 25% chance of passing. On 3 dice it goes up to 75%, but the odds of perils goes up too. Also 3 dice means you have less powers you can cast a turn. Finally, it looks like we always get to deny - provided you haven't used up your charge pool.
Is it another shooting phase? Yes. But a minor one. Kind of like how overwatch was an extra shooting attack but ultimately pretty minor as well.
74492
Post by: TimmyIsChaos
mercury14 wrote:
The Jink thing was in a leaked WD pic I believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If snap firing is -2 BS then assault armies will be hit with a crushing nerf. As well as flyers, especially AV 10 ones.
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
But it does kinda make sense that people with better BS are going to be better at overwatch.
If you're playing against anything that isn't majority BS4 or higher you're not going to notice any difference, except for anything that's BS2 of course.
Also if anyone thinks the psychic phase is going to slow down the game, it won't.
Now instead of having two different phases to cast power in, you have one. It will be faster if anything.
21196
Post by: agnosto
I think somewhere along the way in this thread, the initial rumor was overwatch at -2 bs and that got conflated by some to mean all snapshots. Someone said something about if they didn't move the turn before but that could have been wish listing (which there's been a fair amount of in this thread).
I'm just going off of my faulty memory here and am certainly not going through 100s of pages to find it so we'll have to wait and see.
74492
Post by: TimmyIsChaos
Oops, multi!
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Angelic wrote: TheKbob wrote:You can't speed roll shooting phases anymore specifically because wounds are resolved by weapon, so if your flamer knocks some bolter guys out of rapid fire, this would reduce your shots.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. All hits and all wounds can be rolled together. Obviously, different dice per weapon. The rumors I have seen are about a difference at the wound resolution stage, not "to hit" or "to wound", so there is no reduction of "shots". Basically, once you have your wound pool, resolve them in the order you wish, obviously optimal would be shortest to longest. Just do a quick measure after each set of saves to see max number of casualties that can be caused for that weapons range. To be honest, this is the way we were doing it at the beginning of 6th before that FAQ came out that implied a ML increases the kill range of Bolters. It was a little slower, but not much since most of the time we had to separate for S and AP anyway.
Not quite --- the shooting page clearly says to resolve all to-hit and to-wound rolls for each class of weapon one at a time. (I've seen this for myself by reading the tiny print in the White Dwarf preview). This means that if you have, for instance, a flamer and 4 bolters rapid-firing at a unit you do the flamer first, then see who in the unit survived and measure your bolters and fire those next. This can sometimes make it so that you kill a few models with one class of weapon, which leaves another class of weapon in that unit out of range to shoot (whereas in 6th they'd all shoot together). Be that as it may, it does prevent " WTF" moments by allowing a single model in a unit (like an ork boy with a big shoota or a tyranid warrior with a barbed strangler) to increase the effective range of the whole unit.
It sounds like it will add time to games but in my experience most rolls for weapons are being done separately now anyhow (we just save the wounds all at the end). I like this change and it actually makes logical sense.
21196
Post by: agnosto
 Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
lol. Have an exalt. "In the 41st millennia there are only pointy sticks."
43680
Post by: mercury14
TimmyIsChaos wrote:
But it does kinda make sense that people with better BS are going to be better at overwatch.
If you're playing against anything that isn't majority BS4 or higher you're not going to notice any difference, except for anything that's BS2 of course.
From a game balance perspective, do you really want a unit of Dire Avengers hitting on 5+, rending, and their Exarch hitting on 4+ possibly twin-linked?
Have fun assaulting a Guardian blob since they can wipe out a whole squad of 5 assault marines in Overwatch.
77684
Post by: wallygator
clively wrote: wallygator wrote:i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
I think psychic tests actually got harder to pull off. Most psykers are ld 10. That means the test passes about 83% of the time. With the rules change, on two dice you have just shy of a 25% chance of passing. On 3 dice it goes up to 75%, but the odds of perils goes up too. Also 3 dice means you have less powers you can cast a turn. Finally, it looks like we always get to deny - provided you haven't used up your charge pool.
Is it another shooting phase? Yes. But a minor one. Kind of like how overwatch was an extra shooting attack but ultimately pretty minor as well.
hmm... i haven't looked it that way. could be an intresting addition to the game then
64174
Post by: Davespil
mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.
84972
Post by: PapaSoul
[qwave =mercury14 592379 6833347 null]
The Jink thing was in a leaked WD pic I believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If snap firing is -2 BS then assault armies will be hit with a crushing nerf. As well as flyers, especially AV 10 ones.
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Aww man :/ I ran my eldar Skimmer heavy. Hornets, a fire prism and a nightspinner (not wave serpents, ever) and now they're useless, especially the heavy tanks as they are relient on templates. The snap shots after jinking is complete idiocy, as the improved jink save just makes wave serpents better while nerfing the rest. A wave serpent with holo fields moving flat out now gets a 2+. And then a 2+ to deny pens. I usually dont have a problem with GW, but the state of the game since 6th began has been a lot like the old woman who swallowed the fly. And we all know how that ended.
64174
Post by: Davespil
Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
PapaSoul wrote:mercury14 wrote:
The Jink thing was in a leaked WD pic I believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If snap firing is -2 BS then assault armies will be hit with a crushing nerf. As well as flyers, especially AV 10 ones.
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Aww man :/ I ran my eldar Skimmer heavy. Hornets, a fire prism and a nightspinner (not wave serpents, ever) and now they're useless, especially the heavy tanks as they are relient on templates. The snap shots after jinking is complete idiocy, as the improved jink save just makes wave serpents better while nerfing the rest. A wave serpent with holo fields moving flat out now gets a 2+. And then a 2+ to deny pens. I usually dont have a problem with GW, but the state of the game since 6th began has been a lot like the old woman who swallowed the fly. And we all know how that ended.
Let's be optimistic here - If snap shots are changed from Flat BS1 to just a -2 BS modifier, blasts and templates might still get to shoot in 7th edition. After all, how hard is it to spray a flamer when you're in a hurry?
43680
Post by: mercury14
PapaSoul wrote:
Aww man :/ I ran my eldar Skimmer heavy. Hornets, a fire prism and a nightspinner (not wave serpents, ever) and now they're useless, especially the heavy tanks as they are relient on templates. The snap shots after jinking is complete idiocy, as the improved jink save just makes wave serpents better while nerfing the rest. A wave serpent with holo fields moving flat out now gets a 2+. And then a 2+ to deny pens. I usually dont have a problem with GW, but the state of the game since 6th began has been a lot like the old woman who swallowed the fly. And we all know how that ended.
Hornets will be freaking great. They can snap-fire when moving flat-out remember and possibly now hit on a 5+. So they're jinking on a 4+ now (harder to kill), and if they have to jink they can just go flat-out for a 2+ save ( HF), and still shoot reasonably well.
Prisms and night spinners have it a bit worse, however they're harder to kill now (3+ jink with HF) and have the range to minimize the amount of fire they take. And Nightspinners are going to say "you made me jink? LOL now I'm moving flat-out for an uber-save". Automatically Appended Next Post: Tetris, I highly doubt we're going to be shooting templates and blasts in overwatch now....
9370
Post by: Accolade
 Davespil wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.
Yeah, I am in agreement with this. Obviously 40k isn't all about realism, but sometimes the efforts to make things kewl and axesome come across as heavy-handed and childish. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any assault whatsoever, but that it shouldn't be about massive charges and counter charges like this is the Crimean War- which even then, the large horse charges resulted in significant defeat when the Crimean guns just mowed them all down.
Personally, if I was GW I would make assault less and less important in 40k to help differentiate both it and WHFB to encourage people to play both games. With the Psychic Phase returning, there is less and less reason to play WHFB (apart from pretty models).
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
But futuristic armor/force field technology and advancements in powered melee weaponry and weapons that can be psychically charged mean they could be just as viable as guns that fire miniature suns.
Especially when that gun that fires miniature suns is thousands of years old and is "maintained" by monks who have no idea how it works...
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".
All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.
Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.
43680
Post by: mercury14
Maybe armor got really good in 39,299 years too?
It doesn't matter, it's a game. If we want to think "realism" then every battle is an instant nuclear fusion strike from outer orbit.
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
 Alex C wrote:But futuristic armor/force field technology and advancements in powered melee weaponry and weapons that can be psychically charged mean they could be just as viable as guns that fire miniature suns.
Especially when that gun that fires miniature suns is thousands of years old and is "maintained" by monks who have no idea how it works...
General warfare and technology 101.
Technological advancements and production methods for armour of any kind will always be outpaced by the ability to make weapons to deal with it. Because the exact same technology that produces the armour can be reduced from a omni-directional defensive measure to one, very sharp and very pointy area.
If you can make futuristic armour with force-fields making it amazeballs, you can also use that same material and the same type of forcefield, reduce it to a singular point at the end of a gun and the gun will win.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Davespil wrote:mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.
This is a great quote, because it goes to the heart of what is fundamentally wrong with 40k i.e it doesn't know what the dakka it wants to be.
Is it a futuristic, small scale, skirmish RPG? Or is it epic in 28mm? D-weapons, riptides, deathstar units etc etc, are neither here nor there. The game suffers from an identity crisis - we get a horrible compromise of big battles and skirmishes crammed into one, and from what I've been reading, it's just gotten worse. This psychic phase will sink the game - it's too bloated for its own good.
You used to be able to play 40k in an hour or two. Now with all these extra phases, dataslate things etc it feels like it could last for days.
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
That's the biggest problem.
40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.
Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.
Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.
We're at the point where some games of 40k involve as many men as some of the smallest original Epic games used to involve- and in 40k style rules, that's hell.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
I've got a few concerns that have the eager/dreading getting the rulebook in hand:
1) psykers: how well with this mechanic work? It looks like an overall nerf from the WD info, but given that the design team also states that they did this to boost the effectiveness of librarians, I'm worried how it will all run once we all start getting games under our belt.
2) FMCs... seem like they didn't need help (just won 1st and 2nd at adepticon) yet unless I am missing something, looks like they'll get a big boost this edition
3) Nothing indicating a fix for the 2++ rerolls. Probably my biggest concern... here's hoping the FAQs (if we actually ever get them) fix this if new game mechanics doesn't
4) Consolidating into combat.... I love assault armies... I really really do, but this was unbalancing when he had it before and it will only get worse if we bring it back
5) MOAR RANDUMBS!! We keep increasing the amount of dice rolled each turn relative to models on the table. GW doesn't seem to have streamlined the game (nor do they seem to even understand the difference between making a game simple and making a game elegantly lean in its mechanics)
6) Unbound... wow, its only not funny because its true, it must appeal to some sub-crowd that I don't get who plays with people far different from the gamers I've encountered everywhere (or people simply aren't thinking through the long term implications of this option).... epically dumb idea
7) Allies... we really needed battle brothers to just disappear and the move needs to go away from allies boosting each other. Every indicator says that GW's gone the other way. How do they playtest?
8) Summonings.... I'm not that worried about the fluff silliness this is (yes, I've probably read every BL novel ever, I know it happens... when my SM get to have stats like BL marines, we can talk fluff to rules crossovers), I'm worried about GW's ability to maintain something close to game balance with this. I don't need the game to be chess, but it can't be JFL vs NFL either.
43680
Post by: mercury14
I wasn't playing 40k last time there was consolidating into combat so maybe I'm missing something... But after combat the victor can consolidate 1D6 and try to reach the base of another unit? Shouldn't it be a simple matter for the other unit to just stay a little over 6" away?
18375
Post by: AndrewC
tetrisphreak wrote:Angelic wrote: TheKbob wrote:You can't speed roll shooting phases anymore specifically because wounds are resolved by weapon, so if your flamer knocks some bolter guys out of rapid fire, this would reduce your shots.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. All hits and all wounds can be rolled together. Obviously, different dice per weapon. The rumors I have seen are about a difference at the wound resolution stage, not "to hit" or "to wound", so there is no reduction of "shots". Basically, once you have your wound pool, resolve them in the order you wish, obviously optimal would be shortest to longest. Just do a quick measure after each set of saves to see max number of casualties that can be caused for that weapons range. To be honest, this is the way we were doing it at the beginning of 6th before that FAQ came out that implied a ML increases the kill range of Bolters. It was a little slower, but not much since most of the time we had to separate for S and AP anyway.
Not quite --- the shooting page clearly says to resolve all to-hit and to-wound rolls for each class of weapon one at a time. (I've seen this for myself by reading the tiny print in the White Dwarf preview). This means that if you have, for instance, a flamer and 4 bolters rapid-firing at a unit you do the flamer first, then see who in the unit survived and measure your bolters and fire those next. This can sometimes make it so that you kill a few models with one class of weapon, which leaves another class of weapon in that unit out of range to shoot (whereas in 6th they'd all shoot together). Be that as it may, it does prevent " WTF" moments by allowing a single model in a unit (like an ork boy with a big shoota or a tyranid warrior with a barbed strangler) to increase the effective range of the whole unit.
It sounds like it will add time to games but in my experience most rolls for weapons are being done separately now anyhow (we just save the wounds all at the end). I like this change and it actually makes logical sense.
But it looks like it's going to be a killer to implement though. eg Tac squad w/flamer is shooting at a conga line of something starting at 5" out to 15" max. How do you work out what is firing and at what range. The flamer hits out to 8" fine, but how do you figure out what bolters are firing at RF 12" and which are firing at single shot 24". Will we have to work out multi range weapons one at a time? How will Crisis suits with different weapons work?
I suppose only time and the rules will tell, but not impressed with some of these changes, and impressed with others eg tanks needing 7+
Cheers
Andrew
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Brachiaraidos wrote: Alex C wrote:But futuristic armor/force field technology and advancements in powered melee weaponry and weapons that can be psychically charged mean they could be just as viable as guns that fire miniature suns.
Especially when that gun that fires miniature suns is thousands of years old and is "maintained" by monks who have no idea how it works...
General warfare and technology 101.
Technological advancements and production methods for armour of any kind will always be outpaced by the ability to make weapons to deal with it. Because the exact same technology that produces the armour can be reduced from a omni-directional defensive measure to one, very sharp and very pointy area.
If you can make futuristic armour with force-fields making it amazeballs, you can also use that same material and the same type of forcefield, reduce it to a singular point at the end of a gun and the gun will win.
Economics 101... the ability to produce said weapons may not exist in proportion to the ability of others to produce armor (psst... futuristic plasma weapons and the training to use and maintain them cost more than metal sticks and 4th grade inner city melee skills combined with PEDs)
Fantasy 101... epic sword fights are kinda thing in this genre... you know that, right?
Magic 101... I see your technology and raise you an eternal spirit army bred on hate and blood that appears from another realm and reaps your souls...
78690
Post by: Colpicklejar
Eyjio wrote:Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".
All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.
Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.
Well said. Assaulting, as improbable as it is in a "modern" battle, is an essential part of the feel of 40k. I got into the game because I liked the image of axe-waving orks ramming flaming monster trucks into the thick of 8 foot-tall armored superhumans wielding chainsaw-swords and electric piston-fists.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
 Colpicklejar wrote:Eyjio wrote:Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".
All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.
Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.
Well said. Assaulting, as improbable as it is in a "modern" battle, is an essential part of the feel of 40k. I got into the game because I liked the image of axe-waving orks ramming flaming monster trucks into the thick of 8 foot-tall armored superhumans wielding chainsaw-swords and electric piston-fists.
Yeah, me too. It would be fine to say these things if every faction was built around shooting but we have:
- CSM
-Daemons
-Orks
-Nids
Which are all predominantly based around needing to get into assault to get value from those units. Many other armies also pay additional points to get bonuses in assault. You can't design like that and then attempt to strip it out later; it just doesn't work. Anyone who thinks it should be a game revolving solely around shooting is either a power gamer or has no consideration towards anyone else's army choice. There are many games which don't make close combat an integral part, so if anyone is still looking for one, please do go play them (and several of those games are excellent). That is not 40k and hopefully never will be, so let's stop making up garbage based on fictional warfare where everything is described as immune to small arms in the background.
72279
Post by: Loopstah
 AndrewC wrote:
How do you work out what is firing and at what range. The flamer hits out to 8" fine, but how do you figure out what bolters are firing at RF 12" and which are firing at single shot 24". Will we have to work out multi range weapons one at a time?
Andrew
You would do all the bolters together I assume as they are the same weapon. Just measure first to see how many RF shots you get and how many normal shots and add them up.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
But the problem there loopstah, the wounds are limited by the range, (or so the rumoured rules read to me) so by taking RF shots, you would lose the ability to hit targets further than 12".
It's a bit of a mess.
Cheers
Andrew
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AndrewC wrote:But the problem there loopstah, the wounds are limited by the range, (or so the rumoured rules read to me) so by taking RF shots, you would lose the ability to hit targets further than 12".
Rapid Fire doesn't change your range - at least in 6th. Don't think it did in 5th either. Doubt it will in 7th.
49658
Post by: undertow
 H.B.M.C. wrote: undertow wrote:Agreed, musical wounds was the worst thing about 5th and I'm so glad it's gone. The only compromise I'd be OK with would be owner choosing the model, but then all wounds apply to that model until it is removed.
Yeah, I'm not talking about musical wounds at all. I've discribed exactly how it worked.
This is what you posted:
H.B.M.C. wrote:1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.
Maybe we have different definitions of 'musical wounds' but it seems like you're saying that you'd like to see wounds assigned in a round-robin fashion instead of assigning all to a single model until it is removed. I'd be ok with letting the owner choose as long as subsequent wounds automatically hit that model if it's still on the table.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
Colpicklejar wrote:Eyjio wrote:Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".
All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.
Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.
Well said. Assaulting, as improbable as it is in a "modern" battle, is an essential part of the feel of 40k. I got into the game because I liked the image of axe-waving orks ramming flaming monster trucks into the thick of 8 foot-tall armored superhumans wielding chainsaw-swords and electric piston-fists.
Truth! I really love the idea the 40,000 years into the future there are axe wielding madmen. Khorne Berzerkers got me into the game. Of course shooting things are obvious, but Lysander fighting a bloodthirster is much more epic than 40 guardsman shooting that same thirster to death.
49658
Post by: undertow
 rabidguineapig wrote: wallygator wrote:i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
Only when you play Daemons. Most other armies have very little if any psychic shooting attacks, most of the annoying things are blessings.
Most Daemons only have psychic shooting, so they really won't get two shooting phases either.
9370
Post by: Accolade
Eyjio wrote:Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".
All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.
Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.
You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.
But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.
74576
Post by: prowla
Brachiaraidos wrote:
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
Nah. After all, Space Marines the 40k poster boys are close combat / assault specialists - it's the only place where they are better than a battle tank or a line of heavy bolters. I'm all for 'sci-realism', but for the purpose of 40k, I just assume that every battle takes place in a place where they really needed to get some boots on the ground to do the dirty work! 
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
 Accolade wrote:Eyjio wrote:Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".
All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.
Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.
You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.
But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.
I would like assault to be less common, but more dangerous somehow. It would add to the desperate and dramatic feel of the game.
(Of course, GW would somehow make it useless or op.)
49662
Post by: Mij'aan
Davespil wrote:mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.
 ...Are you serious...? Automatically Appended Next Post:  MWHistorian wrote: Accolade wrote:Eyjio wrote:Yeah, everyone's right, we should definitely emulate current warfare and make assault redundant using logic of "durr, guns>swords".
All units replaced by tiny squads. There are no large engagements at all. Games must be 1000x bigger with almost no combat engagements, where 99% of kills are done via artillery, air strikes and drone strikes. The majority of soldiers cannot carry all their listed wargear due to budgetary constraints and most turns are not actually firing but instead discerning whether a given area is free of friendlies. Games now last years, with soldiers needing to be rotated in and out of action. Yeah, that definitely sounds like a good game, great work guys, pack it up.
Or you know, maybe people want assault because it's an interesting change in dynamic from "stand in gun line, fire at other gun line" or "sit in tank and fire, kill other guys sitting in tanks at range", logic be damned. There is never an excuse to sacrifice diversity and variety of play styles based on current modern warfare - it's a game, not a simulator. If it was a simulator, it would be incredibly boring to play because realistically the only safe way to engage is to not engage at all.
You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.
But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.
I would like assault to be less common, but more dangerous somehow. It would add to the desperate and dramatic feel of the game.
(Of course, GW would somehow make it useless or op.)
It is far more likely that the playerbase would find a way to abuse it and make it OP. 
43514
Post by: Blackgaze
There's only 2 things I hope get changed:
- Allowing charging from outflanking/transport (non open topped), even with some form of penalty.
- Ordnance doesn't count other weapons to snap shot from heavy/walkers.
There must be lots of changes in that book that will shape the game. I just hope its the ones thats needed than to question why.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".
28305
Post by: Talizvar
 Squidbot wrote:This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".
We all have our different views of how much "realism" we want with our "fiction".
I find it hilarious how little realism you CAN apply with Orks, that can survive in space with whatever they built and not destroy it with their friendly fights to pass the time.
The belittling statements are less funny than the dogged determination to use CC in a more shooty ruleset.
At least there is hope for CC getting equalized a bit since a few armies lean that way a bit more.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Squidbot wrote:This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".
Nobody actually said that. Some people claimed that others had said it in order to argue against a point which wasn't raised.
67213
Post by: ids1984
Don't know if this has been covered but my local store has just announced pre orders go in store and online at 7pm today (UK timezone).
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Accolade wrote: You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k. But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.
I called nobody stupid, because I don't believe anyone that was in response to is stupid. It is, however, extremely foolish to decree that shooting should always vastly dominate assault in a game which used to have precisely the opposite, where the the background supports almost every battle hinging around CC. Assault wasn't just diminished in 6e, it was nearly pointless. Look at the viable assault units - mass MCs (too big to stop), Wraiths (insanely durable, ridiculous amount of attacks), screamerstar (nigh invincible), jet council (nigh invincible), gargoyles (too many to stop, mostly used as a tarpit), etc. There are precisely 0 viable foot assault units. If you want to succeed in assault, you MUSt be able to move 9" per turn AND be able to shred things with very few models. That's not "diminished", that's blatantly broken to the extreme that it forces deathstar builds and non-fluffy lists simply because if you attempt to actually emulate the fluff (using marines to shoot choppy things and assault shooty things for example) you get annihilated. Every game. To negate most of the damage done by shooting, you need good armour, lots of cover and usually to be able to hide out of sight. To negate most of the damage done by assault, your model closest to the enemy needs to be in any form of area cover OR have good overwatch OR be better in assault anyway OR be faster OR be in a vehicle, etc. In fact, the only way assault is 100% reliable is if you're charging at a unit completely exposed with no mass shooting and no combat ability. As for people not saying "get rid of assault", let's quote some things which absolutely do imply that exact sentiment: Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
lol. Have an exalt. "In the 41st millennia there are only pointy sticks."
Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.
In fact, you're the only one who argued against assault who prefaced it with "I don't think assault should disappear". Even then, you said that assault, in its undeniably crippled current state, should be even WORSE. This is a system where there's no penalty against shooting other than cover, yet assault has random distance, worse to hits (4+ vs 3+ for most shooting), worse ability to wound (most units are still S4 compared to the S7+ shooting everywhere), needs high mobility to get there at all and renders that unit almost useless whilst it tries to get there. We're at the stage where terminators, supposedly some of the most elite units SM can bring to bear are actually WORSE than just taking 2 space marines! They're more expensive, fire less shots, have similar durability and less options, all for the trade of a powerfist they're unlikely to ever get to use. Does that seem reasonable? TH/ SS terminators are all but worthless nowadays, they have no reliable delivery and are about as scary as molasses flowing downhill with their mobility. This isn't a case of "oh, assault is worse than shooting but that's okay as guns should generally beat assault", this is a case of "assault is almost an entirely pointless phase unless you're taking the nastiest possible lists, at which point it's still more useful as a method to stop people shooting than it is to kill them, yet people still say it should be worse". I can agree with the former sentiment with shooting being marginally more powerful. I cannot, however, agree with people saying that the current state of affairs is reasonable or more fun than the alternative because as it stands, I haven't used the assault phase as anything other than a tarpit since I stopped using mass wraiths. That's pitiful IMO.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Brachiaraidos wrote:
That's the biggest problem.
40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.
Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.
Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.
We're at the point where some games of 40k involve as many men as some of the smallest original Epic games used to involve- and in 40k style rules, that's hell.
Hit the nail on the head. I'm not against massive free for all games of 40k, a proper supplement is long overdue, but this horrible halfway house approach is strangling the game.
Consider the following. In 5th, I played a small 750 points game with my IG. It was a close, tense, fun game, because every model counted. Even your basic guardsman could make a difference. Ten guardsmen were no match for ten tactical marines, and rightly so, but it never felt like I was going to get blown off the table in one turn.
Later on, I watched bigger games of 5th and massive games of 6th and lent a friend some units for a massive game of 40k. In one game, I watched most of my friend's units getting blown away before they even had time to scratch their backsides. He may as well have removed those units with a shovel! I remember thinking how disheartening must it be for somebody to paint 2000 points of troops, all those hours of painting, gluing, filing dozens of arms etc etc only to see them wasted in one turn. What kind of fun, social game is that?
68667
Post by: Squidbot
 A Town Called Malus wrote: Squidbot wrote:This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".
Nobody actually said that. Some people claimed that others had said it in order to argue against a point which wasn't raised.
I know, I read the thread too.
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
undertow wrote: rabidguineapig wrote: wallygator wrote:i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
Only when you play Daemons. Most other armies have very little if any psychic shooting attacks, most of the annoying things are blessings.
Most Daemons only have psychic shooting, so they really won't get two shooting phases either.
Very true, though you can do a decent enough job of mixing the two in a Daemon army with soul grinders, skull cannons, lash princes, etc... It's still going to be a good balance between the two, and I wouldn't worry about non-psychic armies getting blown off the board in both the psychic and then shooting phase. I guess you could have some bad luck with shrieking Nids and the devourers that shoot afterward.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
Cavalry charges were a very big deal until the early 20th century, actually.
and shovels, bayonets, knives..... well not obsolete enough to save thousands of people who still died from these attacks in the 20th century. These were not obsolete in the trenches, jungles, and certainly were not obsolete in the streets and tunnels of stalingrad, were they?
In short, you're wrong
9370
Post by: Accolade
Eyjio wrote: Accolade wrote:
You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.
But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.
I called nobody stupid, because I don't believe anyone that was in response to is stupid. It is, however, extremely foolish to decree that shooting should always vastly dominate assault in a game which used to have precisely the opposite, where the the background supports almost every battle hinging around CC. Assault wasn't just diminished in 6e, it was nearly pointless. Look at the viable assault units - mass MCs (too big to stop), Wraiths (insanely durable, ridiculous amount of attacks), screamerstar (nigh invincible), jet council (nigh invincible), gargoyles (too many to stop, mostly used as a tarpit), etc. There are precisely 0 viable foot assault units. If you want to succeed in assault, you MUSt be able to move 9" per turn AND be able to shred things with very few models. That's not "diminished", that's blatantly broken to the extreme that it forces deathstar builds and non-fluffy lists simply because if you attempt to actually emulate the fluff (using marines to shoot choppy things and assault shooty things for example) you get annihilated. Every game. To negate most of the damage done by shooting, you need good armour, lots of cover and usually to be able to hide out of sight. To negate most of the damage done by assault, your model closest to the enemy needs to be in any form of area cover OR have good overwatch OR be better in assault anyway OR be faster OR be in a vehicle, etc. In fact, the only way assault is 100% reliable is if you're charging at a unit completely exposed with no mass shooting and no combat ability.
I'm sorry, but detailing your opponent's position by starting with "Durr" is at all times implying that people you are talking about are ignorant. The hyperbole you added after that with the "why stop there?!" only further separates from the point anyone was trying to make by going way way past their argument.
As for people not saying "get rid of assault", let's quote some things which absolutely do imply that exact sentiment:
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
lol. Have an exalt. "In the 41st millennia there are only pointy sticks."
Considering a couple of these had or afterwards, I think they were all said with some level of jest.
Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.
This point is obviously arguing for less melee, but again you don't need to typify these comments as a "Durr" argument. Make your points logically and you will win the argument easily without being derogatory.
In fact, you're the only one who argued against assault who prefaced it with "I don't think assault should disappear". Even then, you said that assault, in its undeniably crippled current state, should be even WORSE. This is a system where there's no penalty against shooting other than cover, yet assault has random distance, worse to hits (4+ vs 3+ for most shooting), worse ability to wound (most units are still S4 compared to the S7+ shooting everywhere), needs high mobility to get there at all and renders that unit almost useless whilst it tries to get there. We're at the stage where terminators, supposedly some of the most elite units SM can bring to bear are actually WORSE than just taking 2 space marines! They're more expensive, fire less shots, have similar durability and less options, all for the trade of a powerfist they're unlikely to ever get to use. Does that seem reasonable? TH/SS terminators are all but worthless nowadays, they have no reliable delivery and are about as scary as molasses flowing downhill with their mobility. This isn't a case of "oh, assault is worse than shooting but that's okay as guns should generally beat assault", this is a case of "assault is almost an entirely pointless phase unless you're taking the nastiest possible lists, at which point it's still more useful as a method to stop people shooting than it is to kill them, yet people still say it should be worse". I can agree with the former sentiment with shooting being marginally more powerful. I cannot, however, agree with people saying that the current state of affairs is reasonable or more fun than the alternative because as it stands, I haven't used the assault phase as anything other than a tarpit since I stopped using mass wraiths. That's pitiful IMO.
The reason I talked about making assault worse was in the context of further differentiating it from WHFB. It was a scenario more related to "If I worked for GW, how would I try to draw people into Fantasy" than a critique on assault.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
This assault discussion is
A) Off topic
B) Old ground (very old ground)
C) Irrelevant
But mostly off topic.
HTH has always been a large part of 40K, and as such there is a responsibility on the design team to ensure it's viability is well balanced with shooting.
Might I suggest that be an end to it before the Mods get all shouty?
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?
63396
Post by: zammerak
 azreal13 wrote:This assault discussion is
A) Off topic
B) Old ground (very old ground)
C) Irrelevant
But mostly off topic.
HTH has always been a large part of 40K, and as such there is a responsibility on the design team to ensure it's viability is well balanced with shooting.
Might I suggest that be an end to it before the Mods get all shouty?
Have an exalt!
As much as this is entertainment at my desk lets get back to dIscussing 7th ed rules!
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
 44Ronin wrote:Cavalry charges were a very big deal until the early 20th century, actually.
and shovels, bayonets, knives..... well not obsolete enough to save thousands of people who still died from these attacks in the 20th century. These were not obsolete in the trenches, jungles, and certainly were not obsolete in the streets and tunnels of stalingrad, were they?
In short, you're wrong
In short, no I'm not.
These options all exist and are used when everything else has gone absolutely tits up. But close quarters combat IS a thing, even to this day.
Whatever the war films may tell you, whatever CoD shows you with fancy swanky knives, it's not a melee. The essence of fighting within ten feet boils down to who can point their gun quickest. The award usually goes to the one with the shortest gun, for ease of handling. Even when fighting at point blank ranges, a gun is untold amounts more dangerous than your fists are. There are such things as occasions when a melee fight is your best chance of survival, or your best option. These times are so rare as to be easily dismissed.
As for the exact time periods, the process really began building speed in the 1700's and has been made steadily more pronounced over time since. I'm not saying that one day in 1704 everybody woke up and decided to throw away their swords.
Accolade wrote:You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.
But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.
That would be the dream. Of course assault has its place for the dedicated units of that type, but I consider the reducing focus on it a good thing and only sleighted to get better. Once we're allowed to use sidearms and single shots on rapid fire weapons within ten feet rather than throw our boomsticks into a pile in the corner, close combat will finally be something I enjoy. A clutch shot with a melta gun is always going to be a better idea than trying to beat a Hive Tyrant's shins with it.
61618
Post by: Desubot
 Grey Knight Luke wrote:Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?
I dont recall if it was confirmed but i believe it was after movement.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Grey Knight Luke wrote:Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?
Rumor is, its after movement, and before shooting
131
Post by: malfred
azreal13 wrote:
Might I suggest that be an end to it before the Mods get all shouty?
MOD SMASH!
The assault discussion seems relevant insofar as you discuss it in the context of
changes (or the lack thereof) in the new edition. If there's enough information to
discuss it, then feel free. If we're just guessing still, save it for after the book drops.
57935
Post by: Samurai_Eduh
Grey Knight Luke wrote:Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?
After the movement phase.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Grey Knight Luke wrote:Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?
All sources point to after.
How much of that is informed by fact, and how much is informed by it being a direct rip of WHFB Magic Phase I can't really say, but it seems logical, especially with many blessings and maledictions needing to be in effect for shooting/assault phases for them to be useful, and a one turn lead in time would be stupid.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
With that in mind, I am wondering how this will affect movement related psychic powers (e.g. Wings of Sanguinus)? I guess it will need to be FAQ'd, but I really don't know a simple solution for it.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Grey Knight Luke wrote:
With that in mind, I am wondering how this will affect movement related psychic powers (e.g. Wings of Sanguinus)? I guess it will need to be FAQ'd, but I really don't know a simple solution for it.
Looks like you cast them to have them work the next movement phase.
Though a Jump Dreadnought should still get the re-rolls to charge and Hammer of Wrath in the Assault Phase I think.
37480
Post by: matphat
I think all the rumors and partial rules leaks from that WD has made everyone crazy.
You people would feel better if you calmed down and waited for the release.
Personally, I'm going to go play a modified Pancake for ever after. JK! JK!
84972
Post by: PapaSoul
From glossing over the WD scans again I've yet to see any clarification on the jink changes, anyone got a source?
4308
Post by: coredump
 insaniak wrote: Lansirill wrote:The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.
What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.
7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.
It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.
I understand your concerns.... but there are *lot* of details that we just don't have, and even some small details can *really* change how this process plays out. Yes, I too read the WD pages, and yes *IF* they were very careful about using the exactly correct terms...... But really, I have no faith in this at all. WD is notorious for 'summarizing' the rules...while omitting some very important details. I assert that when they say "resolve" the wounds, we cant know what that means. Similarly, it is almost impossible to know what they mean by 'same weapon types'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.
So simple. It required almost no thought.
You really dont remember the issues we had (and YMDC threads) dealing with having to spread out the wounds, then re-grouping into 'buckets' of similar models, then the confusion about how you 'assigned' the wound to a certain model, but it actually applied to *any* model in the same 'bucket'. Unless there was only 1 model in that bucket.... So you could stack 3 Rends onto a Sgt, but not onto one specific tac marine....
yeah, that system never had any issues....
26519
Post by: xttz
PapaSoul wrote:From glossing over the WD scans again I've yet to see any clarification on the jink changes, anyone got a source?
The Jink and Snap Shot changes came from the echo-chamber rumour mill and haven't been verified yet.
51306
Post by: slaede
PapaSoul wrote:From glossing over the WD scans again I've yet to see any clarification on the jink changes, anyone got a source?
I broke that one. The source is a GW rep. It has been confirmed by Torrent of Fire.
59141
Post by: Elemental
You know the giant stompy robots in Battletech? They totally wouldn't be able to walk or mount weapons, and to make it more realistic, everyone should be using tanks. That would improve the game and make it cooler, right?
64174
Post by: Davespil
Eyjio wrote: Accolade wrote:
You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.
But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.
I called nobody stupid, because I don't believe anyone that was in response to is stupid. It is, however, extremely foolish to decree that shooting should always vastly dominate assault in a game which used to have precisely the opposite, where the the background supports almost every battle hinging around CC. Assault wasn't just diminished in 6e, it was nearly pointless. Look at the viable assault units - mass MCs (too big to stop), Wraiths (insanely durable, ridiculous amount of attacks), screamerstar (nigh invincible), jet council (nigh invincible), gargoyles (too many to stop, mostly used as a tarpit), etc. There are precisely 0 viable foot assault units. If you want to succeed in assault, you MUSt be able to move 9" per turn AND be able to shred things with very few models. That's not "diminished", that's blatantly broken to the extreme that it forces deathstar builds and non-fluffy lists simply because if you attempt to actually emulate the fluff (using marines to shoot choppy things and assault shooty things for example) you get annihilated. Every game. To negate most of the damage done by shooting, you need good armour, lots of cover and usually to be able to hide out of sight. To negate most of the damage done by assault, your model closest to the enemy needs to be in any form of area cover OR have good overwatch OR be better in assault anyway OR be faster OR be in a vehicle, etc. In fact, the only way assault is 100% reliable is if you're charging at a unit completely exposed with no mass shooting and no combat ability.
As for people not saying "get rid of assault", let's quote some things which absolutely do imply that exact sentiment:
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
lol. Have an exalt. "In the 41st millennia there are only pointy sticks."
Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.
In fact, you're the only one who argued against assault who prefaced it with "I don't think assault should disappear". Even then, you said that assault, in its undeniably crippled current state, should be even WORSE. This is a system where there's no penalty against shooting other than cover, yet assault has random distance, worse to hits (4+ vs 3+ for most shooting), worse ability to wound (most units are still S4 compared to the S7+ shooting everywhere), needs high mobility to get there at all and renders that unit almost useless whilst it tries to get there. We're at the stage where terminators, supposedly some of the most elite units SM can bring to bear are actually WORSE than just taking 2 space marines! They're more expensive, fire less shots, have similar durability and less options, all for the trade of a powerfist they're unlikely to ever get to use. Does that seem reasonable? TH/ SS terminators are all but worthless nowadays, they have no reliable delivery and are about as scary as molasses flowing downhill with their mobility. This isn't a case of "oh, assault is worse than shooting but that's okay as guns should generally beat assault", this is a case of "assault is almost an entirely pointless phase unless you're taking the nastiest possible lists, at which point it's still more useful as a method to stop people shooting than it is to kill them, yet people still say it should be worse". I can agree with the former sentiment with shooting being marginally more powerful. I cannot, however, agree with people saying that the current state of affairs is reasonable or more fun than the alternative because as it stands, I haven't used the assault phase as anything other than a tarpit since I stopped using mass wraiths. That's pitiful IMO.[/quote
I don't think that assault should be removed from the game entirely. But I do believe that common sense should prevail. With the amount of insane fire power available the game should take on a more shooty approach. Every army has guns/ranged attacks and I think that should be more the focus. And armor will always have little effect on firearms. If you can invent a protection for something, you can invent a way to bypass it.
If you have a bunch of guys charging across a battlefield towards a gun line, then those charging shouldn't make it to said gun line alive. But if that charging army were to make good use of cover and maneuver, supported by shooting and artillery, than that’s another story. I'm not talking about no CC, but just less of a focus on it. I just think that it’s hilarious that all these CC armies have guns, but just run right at the enemy and use that gun to club them with.
I love the focus on shooting in the 6th and I would love to see GW come up with better guns/tactics for CC armies so they can have the necessary fire power to compete with the shooty armies but still keep their superiority in CC. And people mention chaos as being CC focused but they have a lot of ranged fire power and one of the better aircraft.
49658
Post by: undertow
rabidguineapig wrote: undertow wrote: rabidguineapig wrote: wallygator wrote:i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.
Only when you play Daemons. Most other armies have very little if any psychic shooting attacks, most of the annoying things are blessings.
Most Daemons only have psychic shooting, so they really won't get two shooting phases either.
Very true, though you can do a decent enough job of mixing the two in a Daemon army with soul grinders, skull cannons, lash princes, etc... It's still going to be a good balance between the two, and I wouldn't worry about non-psychic armies getting blown off the board in both the psychic and then shooting phase. I guess you could have some bad luck with shrieking Nids and the devourers that shoot afterward.
True, but barring any models getting Daemonic Rewards that result in shooting attacks, and those models also getting Psychic shooting attacks, there shouldn't be any net gain in number of shots, just that some will occur in the Psychic Phase and some in the Shooting Phase
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
I really hope forgeworld puts out "tactical flyer" rules or something that puts them back with FWs original rules. I don't like this -2BS to hit a flyer.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
coredump wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.
So simple. It required almost no thought.
You really dont remember the issues we had (and YMDC threads) dealing with having to spread out the wounds, then re-grouping into 'buckets' of similar models, then the confusion about how you 'assigned' the wound to a certain model, but it actually applied to *any* model in the same 'bucket'. Unless there was only 1 model in that bucket.... So you could stack 3 Rends onto a Sgt, but not onto one specific tac marine....
yeah, that system never had any issues....
H.B.M.C. is referring to an even older edition where there were no wound buckets or worrying about similar or different models. It was far simpler, far faster, and far easier to understand. The only negative was that the Powerfist Sergeant and Meltagunner would pretty much always be the last models to die, regardless of the attacking player's wishes.
85057
Post by: vadersson
Hey gang,
Just stopped at my local GW store (Columbus, OH). They told me a few things.
1. They have gotten no new price information. Looks like this forum is more up to date.
2. Pre-orders start at 2:00 PM EDT TODAY
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just thought I would share what I heard.
Thanks,
Duncan
(Glad to finally have some small contribution to this thread...)
34243
Post by: Blacksails
 vadersson wrote:
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
36241
Post by: Murrdox
 Elemental wrote:You know the giant stompy robots in Battletech? They totally wouldn't be able to walk or mount weapons, and to make it more realistic, everyone should be using tanks. That would improve the game and make it cooler, right?
I love Battletech. War is so much cooler when you're not just pushing a button to launch an inter-continental ballistic missile at your opponent 300km away. Nope! You need to get within 100m of him in a huge, hulking, clunky robot and LASER HIM TO DEATH.
Kill the meat, save the metal.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Saldiven wrote:coredump wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about: 1. Roll To Hit. 2. Roll to Wound. 3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS. 4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable). 5. Owning player removes casualties. So simple. It required almost no thought.
You really dont remember the issues we had (and YMDC threads) dealing with having to spread out the wounds, then re-grouping into 'buckets' of similar models, then the confusion about how you 'assigned' the wound to a certain model, but it actually applied to *any* model in the same 'bucket'. Unless there was only 1 model in that bucket.... So you could stack 3 Rends onto a Sgt, but not onto one specific tac marine.... yeah, that system never had any issues....
H.B.M.C. is referring to an even older edition where there were no wound buckets or worrying about similar or different models. It was far simpler, far faster, and far easier to understand. The only negative was that the Powerfist Sergeant and Meltagunner would pretty much always be the last models to die, regardless of the attacking player's wishes.
Add Precision shots then and we're golden
18080
Post by: Anpu42
I don’t think Unbound is going break the game. Yes there are a bunch out there who will Abuse Unbound to take the most Broken WAAC Cheese list they can. It should take you about one day for you to figure out who those are and avoid them.
Then you have those Fluffy/Semi-Competitive Player who are jumping for joy now that they can take their Fluffy list and not have that TFG/Rules Lawyer tell you that you can’t “Field Your Army, It is Not Legal!”.
Unbound is going to let me play my 1st Veteran’s Company.
Tell me this is a Broken Army, No
Competitive? Probably not unless the other Player is pulling out his Fluffy Army
Fun and Exiting? Probably.
The Mission Cards:
I love the concept; one of our players never played “Objective” Games, it was always about tabling. Even if he did not Table the others if he decimated his opponent he would declare “Victor” even if he lost by Victory Points.
Mission Cards may force him to change (Though I doubt it), but they will keep the game “Dynamic” forcing me to abandon my Gun-Lining and take more “Mobile Armies”…and I don’t think that is a bad thing.
Psychic Power Phase:
Undecided, to me it will Marginalize Psykers making them flavorless.
Skimmer Save:
Once more Mixed Fellings, I like the 4+ “Jink” for Snap Fire. I will have to see how it effects my Typhoons.
Wound Allocation/Firing Order Changes:
I see no issues here.
>Announce I am firing in order my 8x Bolt Guns, then 2x Plasma-Guns for my Grey Hunters. I pick up 16 Green Dice and then the 4 Red Dice and Roll them.
>Figure out what the Bolt Guns did.
>Figure out what the Plasma-Guns did.
Replace the words Plasma-Guns for Melta-Guns or Flamers when needed.
49658
Post by: undertow
 Co'tor Shas wrote:I really hope forgeworld puts out "tactical flyer" rules or something that puts them back with FWs original rules. I don't like this -2BS to hit a flyer.
I still haven't seen any confirmation of that.
24892
Post by: Byte
slaede wrote:PapaSoul wrote:From glossing over the WD scans again I've yet to see any clarification on the jink changes, anyone got a source?
I broke that one. The source is a GW rep. It has been confirmed by Torrent of Fire.
Confirmed it's a rumor.
51306
Post by: slaede
undertow wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:I really hope forgeworld puts out "tactical flyer" rules or something that puts them back with FWs original rules. I don't like this -2BS to hit a flyer.
I still haven't seen any confirmation of that.
It's bunk. It was made up on 4chan.
85299
Post by: Spoletta
I'm really liking what i'm hearing about this edition, both the rumors and the confirmed stuff.
They are pushing the CC armies which was needed and they are doing it the right way. Many thought that to make CC viable you had to allow assaults from DS or in general reserves. Let me tell you my opinion, fixing assault by making it faster to get in CC is really really the wrong way to do that. Why?
The CC in this game is in trouble due to the actual high lethality of the game which came with the power creep of new releases. Making it easy to get in meele would only increase the lethality of the game, which is not good. Instead you have to nerf gun lines and they are doing it many small ways that shift the balance of CC vs shooty by quite a big deal.
1) Random turn per turn objectives. High mobility is not the primary stat of a gunline.
2) Rumored nerf of ignore cover.
3) Rumored test on overwatch (would fit quite well with OW being at bs-2)
4) Psy phase after movement. A psyker on the move has higher range on his maledictions.
If they make one last change i'd be a happy panda, and that is: please please please change the twin linked rule from reroll to hit to reroll to wound. First it doesn't make sense to become more accurate by pointing two guns in the same direction, while it makes a lot of sense to make it hurt more on a hit. Second it would drastically reduce the effects of that rule on T3 models (and partially on T4) which is the basis for assault units. Rerolling a 2+ (pretty much any shot against a T3) increases your average wounds by 17%, rerolling a 4+ increases it by 50%. This would also reign in the scatter laser, since it mostly affects high S weapons.
181
Post by: gorgon
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:
That's the biggest problem.
40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.
Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.
Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.
We're at the point where some games of 40k involve as many men as some of the smallest original Epic games used to involve- and in 40k style rules, that's hell.
Hit the nail on the head. I'm not against massive free for all games of 40k, a proper supplement is long overdue, but this horrible halfway house approach is strangling the game.
Consider the following. In 5th, I played a small 750 points game with my IG. It was a close, tense, fun game, because every model counted. Even your basic guardsman could make a difference. Ten guardsmen were no match for ten tactical marines, and rightly so, but it never felt like I was going to get blown off the table in one turn.
Later on, I watched bigger games of 5th and massive games of 6th and lent a friend some units for a massive game of 40k. In one game, I watched most of my friend's units getting blown away before they even had time to scratch their backsides. He may as well have removed those units with a shovel! I remember thinking how disheartening must it be for somebody to paint 2000 points of troops, all those hours of painting, gluing, filing dozens of arms etc etc only to see them wasted in one turn. What kind of fun, social game is that?
 So play the game at a lower points level?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 Blacksails wrote: vadersson wrote:
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
No, nobody is getting a free update, remember who we're dealing with! I'm sorry, but that's the most obviously false rumour I've sen yet.
85602
Post by: daemonish
So £50, do I get a discount for trading in my old rule book which I've only had for 2 years? No? well then until I am told this edition is the best thing since sliced bread by at leas 50 reliable sources then my money will stay in my pocket. Even if it is the the best edition ever I will just get a tiny rule book off eBay from those that buy the new/revamped boxed set and don't want the mini book.
1478
Post by: warboss
 daemonish wrote:So £50, do I get a discount for trading in my old rule book which ? No well then until I am told this edition is the best thing since sliced bread by at leas 50 reliable sources then my money will stay in my pocket. Even it is the the best edition ever I will just get a tiny rule book off eBay for those that buy the new/revamped boxed set and don't want the mini book.
.
Only if you find someone to sell it to via the swap shop or bartertown... There are three reasons I'm planning on getting this despite my reservations..
1) I sold my 6e rulebook at 50% off a few months ago.
2) My FLGS isn't happy about this and has heard the grumbling so they're offering a discount to buy it.
3) It is coming in 3 books so the "rules" part is smaller/lighter negating the reason I'd wait for the small format softcover to come out.
If any one of those three wasn't true, I wouldn't be getting the 7e rulebook and in fact hadn't planned on buying it until my FLGS sent out an email with the discount announcement.
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
Blacksails wrote: vadersson wrote:
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
I think so. I just checked the store, it's no longer available from iTunes.
This appears to mean that, no matter what, I am getting the new Rulebook. Despite the fact I do not want it. *sigh*
There's a protest going on in my gaming group over this. Friends of mine are ditching their armies, I have bought 4 over the past 2 weeks just to keep them off eBay.
72279
Post by: Loopstah
 techsoldaten wrote:
There's a protest going on in my gaming group over this. Friends of mine are ditching their armies, I have bought 4 over the past 2 weeks just to keep them off eBay.
The sad thing is GW couldn't care less about this because your friends have already bought their armies and thus given them money. In GW eyes they've already won.
It's a nice gesture but utterly futile.
63396
Post by: zammerak
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
I think so. I just checked the store, it's no longer available from iTunes.
This appears to mean that, no matter what, I am getting the new Rulebook. Despite the fact I do not want it. *sigh*
There's a protest going on in my gaming group over this. Friends of mine are ditching their armies, I have bought 4 over the past 2 weeks just to keep them off eBay.
On the bright side you have 4 new armies!
36241
Post by: Murrdox
I'm going to be sad to not use my 6th Edition limited edition book anymore. Yeah it was over-priced, but my awesome wife got it for me as a Christmas present after 6th Edition came out (I was waiting on buying the main rulebook until the mini-book was available, so I didn't have it yet).
The book is huge, but it's so high quality, and was just so much fun to read and use. I loved it. Great present.
In contrast... the new huge box seems... meh. It looks like the exact same books that you get normally, with different covers, in a box with some objective markers and a poster?
Ugh.
4308
Post by: coredump
Saldiven wrote:coredump wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:
1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.
So simple. It required almost no thought.
You really dont remember the issues we had (and YMDC threads) dealing with having to spread out the wounds, then re-grouping into 'buckets' of similar models, then the confusion about how you 'assigned' the wound to a certain model, but it actually applied to *any* model in the same 'bucket'. Unless there was only 1 model in that bucket.... So you could stack 3 Rends onto a Sgt, but not onto one specific tac marine....
yeah, that system never had any issues....
H.B.M.C. is referring to an even older edition where there were no wound buckets or worrying about similar or different models. It was far simpler, far faster, and far easier to understand. The only negative was that the Powerfist Sergeant and Meltagunner would pretty much always be the last models to die, regardless of the attacking player's wishes.
Don't think so, the "1 per model before wrapping around" was pretty unique to the case I am referring to.
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
Loopstah wrote: techsoldaten wrote:
There's a protest going on in my gaming group over this. Friends of mine are ditching their armies, I have bought 4 over the past 2 weeks just to keep them off eBay.
The sad thing is GW couldn't care less about this because your friends have already bought their armies and thus given them money. In GW eyes they've already won.
It's a nice gesture but utterly futile.
Thank you for salting the wound.
Seriously, the feeling here is that there are other hobbies / games that don't require you to make constant purchases to support a broken system. The person who is taking it on the chin is the owner of the FLGS, who is a friend and just signed a new lease on his space. He is going to need to sell a lot of these things to keep up, and it looks like people are abandoning the store.
85057
Post by: vadersson
Blacksails wrote: vadersson wrote:
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
That is what it sounded like. He said only the iPad enhanced edition. Something about that it had only been available for 3 months or something.
Thanks,
Duncan
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
 zammerak wrote: Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
I think so. I just checked the store, it's no longer available from iTunes. This appears to mean that, no matter what, I am getting the new Rulebook. Despite the fact I do not want it. *sigh* There's a protest going on in my gaming group over this. Friends of mine are ditching their armies, I have bought 4 over the past 2 weeks just to keep them off eBay. On the bright side you have 4 new armies!
Oh yeah, and people are going to love it when I bring my 8 Heldrake / 13 DP / 8 Forgefiend / 32 Obliterator / 7 Lard Raider / 13 Predator / 280 troop Black Iron Alpha Nurgle unbound no max points list to the table.
I could play Apocalypse against myself atm.
63396
Post by: zammerak
Oh yeah, and people are going to love it when I bring my 8 Heldrake / 13 DP / 8 Forgefiend / 32 Obliterator / 7 Lard Raider / 13 Predator / 280 troop Black Iron Alpha Nurgle unbound no max points list to the table.
I could play Apocalypse against myself atm.
Sweet Jesus lol, I would play some mean APOC against that!
Come to MA, we will make sure you git ur moneys worth haha
15543
Post by: spartanlegion
Blacksails wrote: vadersson wrote:
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
OMG, LMFAO when I read this! *sigh* that will have me laughing for awhile. Good one, good joke dude!
8520
Post by: Leth
techsoldaten wrote:Loopstah wrote: techsoldaten wrote:
There's a protest going on in my gaming group over this. Friends of mine are ditching their armies, I have bought 4 over the past 2 weeks just to keep them off eBay.
The sad thing is GW couldn't care less about this because your friends have already bought their armies and thus given them money. In GW eyes they've already won.
It's a nice gesture but utterly futile.
Thank you for salting the wound.
Seriously, the feeling here is that there are other hobbies / games that don't require you to make constant purchases to support a broken system. The person who is taking it on the chin is the owner of the FLGS, who is a friend and just signed a new lease on his space. He is going to need to sell a lot of these things to keep up, and it looks like people are abandoning the store.
So people who probably spent a couple hundred dollars on their armies are protesting a new rulebook why? Because they only got two years out of the last one without even looking to see if the new edition is an improvement? I am happy with pretty much everything I have heard so far and it actually looks like GW was trying to address some of the issues with the edition. If it costs me an additional 85 bucks to get more versatility and enjoyment out of my games I will happily pay it.
Seems pretty stupid to me but whatever, to each his own.
63396
Post by: zammerak
2. Pre-orders start at 2:00 PM EDT TODAY
I dont see um? 
20522
Post by: crazyK
vadersson wrote: Blacksails wrote: vadersson wrote:
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
That is what it sounded like. He said only the iPad enhanced edition. Something about that it had only been available for 3 months or something.
Thanks,
Duncan
Yeah it did seem like I just bought the iBook version recently. My hope was to keep up with current FAQs ( Lol). I am not holding my breath but it would be nice to see a new rulebook show up when I update in iBooks without having to buy it again.
5372
Post by: Hatemonger
Brachiaraidos wrote:40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.
Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.
Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.
I mostly agree with you, except that this is exactly what the change from 2nd to 3rd edition was supposed to be about. If you have access to WD #226, it has all the "introductions" to the (then) new 3rd edition, including lots of designer notes and explanations, and it's well worth a read. Changes like Rapid Fire getting extra shots based on range, Cover Saves and the armor/ AP system instead of modifiers, were all done to facilitate batch rolling. Instead of "This marine is at long range from that Ork in cover, and this one is short range from that Ork in cover, and these two are short range from those guys in the open, but they moved, so..." you just go on to "These guys fire bolters at those Orks... 5 hits... 3 wounds. Take saves." Psychic powers went from a card-based mini-game to basically "actions" that you do in the appropriate phase - albeit most of them just glorified alternate guns, which was admittedly rather bland.
Fast forward to today, and I'm fiddling with model placement so that my special weapons are close enough to hit, but not close enough to automatically be the first to die due to "Closest Model" removal, and then my opponent is rolling saves separately again because of Look Out Sir. They're adding the Psychic Phase back in, which I confess does actually seem like a simplification against the proliferation of powers used during-or-maybe-at-the-beginning-of- any given phase. I'm rolling on tables before we start playing, because my Commander gets different special rules every game, and my daemons also get different wargear. My daemons also might get different invulnerable saves over the turns, but also random anger-of-the-gods-artillery-strikes, because CHAOS. But I guess now we'll also be rolling/drawing for different mission objectives every turn, too?
Each of these things might be ok on its own. It's not any one of them that I feel bogs the game down, it's the cumulative effect of all of them together. To be fair, they all have the potential to add little bits of flavor to a game, but I'm left wondering if the cost involved is really worth it to me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Is it a futuristic, small scale, skirmish RPG? Or is it epic in 28mm? D-weapons, riptides, deathstar units etc etc, are neither here nor there. The game suffers from an identity crisis - we get a horrible compromise of big battles and skirmishes crammed into one, and from what I've been reading, it's just gotten worse.
I think this cuts to the heart of it, but it's not just about the size of the game, it's about the focus. Superheavies are cool. Detailed characters with little roleplay elements are cool. Offbeat games with unlikely alliances are cool. Mental duels between mighty psykers are cool. Grand battles with sweeping movements of massed troops are cool. Bombing runs and dogfights and air-cav drops are cool. That's all cool! But I don't know that it's really cool to try and do all of that at the same time. In my head - in the ideal sense - yeah, sure it is. But at a certain point, something has to give, and unfortunately, I fear it is the gameplay that is being compromised now. They've gone to great pains to include a lot of fun ideas, but I feel like the sum total does not result in a more satisfying experience for me.
- H8
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Pre orders have gone live in UK GW stores, at 7. Am I the only one hitting refresh on the GW site? I already placed my pre order at my brick and mortar store, I just want so see the shiny.
15543
Post by: spartanlegion
daemonish wrote:So £50, do I get a discount for trading in my old rule book which I've only had for 2 years?
I really don't get this whole "2 years, 2 years, 2 years" thing. Yeah, 6th was out 2 years. Now it's done. Here's 7th. It is what it is, move on, etc... Get into AT-43, they haven't had any updates or new rule books for a long time! http://straightfrommyvoluptuouships.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/keep-calm-and-don-t-cry-over-spilt-milk.png
63396
Post by: zammerak
Pre orders have gone live in UK GW stores, at 7. Am I the only one hitting refresh on the GW site? I already placed my pre order at my brick and mortar store, I just want so see the shiny.
Same for us in the states
I want shinny! 
181
Post by: gorgon
 Leth wrote: techsoldaten wrote:Loopstah wrote: techsoldaten wrote:
There's a protest going on in my gaming group over this. Friends of mine are ditching their armies, I have bought 4 over the past 2 weeks just to keep them off eBay.
The sad thing is GW couldn't care less about this because your friends have already bought their armies and thus given them money. In GW eyes they've already won.
It's a nice gesture but utterly futile.
Thank you for salting the wound.
Seriously, the feeling here is that there are other hobbies / games that don't require you to make constant purchases to support a broken system. The person who is taking it on the chin is the owner of the FLGS, who is a friend and just signed a new lease on his space. He is going to need to sell a lot of these things to keep up, and it looks like people are abandoning the store.
So people who probably spent a couple hundred dollars on their armies are protesting a new rulebook why? Because they only got two years out of the last one without even looking to see if the new edition is an improvement? I am happy with pretty much everything I have heard so far and it actually looks like GW was trying to address some of the issues with the edition. If it costs me an additional 85 bucks to get more versatility and enjoyment out of my games I will happily pay it.
Seems pretty stupid to me but whatever, to each his own.
It's why I've never had any desire to own a game store. I can't imagine my livelihood depending on some of the personalities that frequent those stores. Tough business.
72279
Post by: Loopstah
Squidbot wrote:Pre orders have gone live in UK GW stores, at 7. Am I the only one hitting refresh on the GW site? I already placed my pre order at my brick and mortar store, I just want so see the shiny.
]
Nope, not the only one. 
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Accolade wrote: Davespil wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.
Yeah, I am in agreement with this. Obviously 40k isn't all about realism, but sometimes the efforts to make things kewl and axesome come across as heavy-handed and childish. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any assault whatsoever, but that it shouldn't be about massive charges and counter charges like this is the Crimean War- which even then, the large horse charges resulted in significant defeat when the Crimean guns just mowed them all down.
Personally, if I was GW I would make assault less and less important in 40k to help differentiate both it and WHFB to encourage people to play both games. With the Psychic Phase returning, there is less and less reason to play WHFB (apart from pretty models).
The whole point of 40K is anachronisms. Machineguns and swords, space knights and space elves, laser guns and revolvers, tanks and cavalry charges. These days pretty much the only reasons to play 40K are the aesthetic and the background, so unless you're stuck playing it because literally no other games are played in your area, why would you want to dilute and change those? There are innumerable tabletop and videogames out there that cater to everything from hyper-real modern military to near-future hard sci-fi that would satisfy this "guns pwn everything" mindset, so why not play one of those instead of wishing to change major parts of 40K's thematic underpinnings that attract a lot of other people to the setting in the first place?
85057
Post by: vadersson
The Black Library has the preorder up for the eBook. $59.99 US?!?! Sigh, for that price I may just get the hardback.
15543
Post by: spartanlegion
Blacksails wrote: vadersson wrote:
3. Owners of the iBooks enhanced edition of the rules will get a free update to 7th edition. Sounded like iBook only.
Just to clarify, is this people with the 6th edition enhanced edition only getting the free update?
This is as likely as me taking in my 2012 stick shift Mustang back to the dealer and asking him to swap me a 2014 automatic Mustang, since I bought the 2012 afterall!
4001
Post by: Compel
It's not up on GW's main site yet that I can see.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
 Yodhrin wrote: Accolade wrote: Davespil wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.
Yeah, I am in agreement with this. Obviously 40k isn't all about realism, but sometimes the efforts to make things kewl and axesome come across as heavy-handed and childish. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any assault whatsoever, but that it shouldn't be about massive charges and counter charges like this is the Crimean War- which even then, the large horse charges resulted in significant defeat when the Crimean guns just mowed them all down.
Personally, if I was GW I would make assault less and less important in 40k to help differentiate both it and WHFB to encourage people to play both games. With the Psychic Phase returning, there is less and less reason to play WHFB (apart from pretty models).
The whole point of 40K is anachronisms. Machineguns and swords, space knights and space elves, laser guns and revolvers, tanks and cavalry charges. These days pretty much the only reasons to play 40K are the aesthetic and the background, so unless you're stuck playing it because literally no other games are played in your area, why would you want to dilute and change those? There are innumerable tabletop and videogames out there that cater to everything from hyper-real modern military to near-future hard sci-fi that would satisfy this "guns pwn everything" mindset, so why not play one of those instead of wishing to change major parts of 40K's thematic underpinnings that attract a lot of other people to the setting in the first place?
Don't forget that two sides just sitting around shooting at each other is patently boring from a game-play standpoint.
72279
Post by: Loopstah
Right that's it. I can't pre-order the new rules right now and GW have upset me so much by being slow about this that I'm going to throw all my armies in the bin and start playing Warmachine instead.
Bad form GW, Bad form.
4001
Post by: Compel
There we go, all it took was me to post that it wasn't there.
See, aren't I a helpful person?
53744
Post by: rollawaythestone
Oh Geez. Rakarth is indeed on the cover of 'the rules'. Otherwise, I don't really mind the minimalist picture-on-white cover of the new book.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
vadersson wrote:The Black Library has the preorder up for the eBook. $59.99 US?!?! Sigh, for that price I may just get the hardback.
The Hardback that is $85? I dunno, a $25.01 discount doesn't sound that bad to me. Automatically Appended Next Post: Loopstah wrote:
Right that's it. I can't pre-order the new rules right now and GW have upset me so much by being slow about this that I'm going to throw all my armies in the bin and start playing Warmachine instead.
Bad form GW, Bad form.
I hope this is sarcasm because GW usually opens up the pre-orders in the UK later in the day than this.
52163
Post by: Shandara
And they are go..
This trio of lavishly-presented hardback books depict the sensational imagery, miniatures, stories and gameplay that are the bedrock of Warhammer 40,000.
Each volume of Warhammer 40,000 presents a different aspect of the hobby. The first 144 page book, A Galaxy of War, explores the art of collecting and painting your own force of miniatures.
The history of the 41st Millennium is presented in the second book, Dark Millennium. In 128 pages it describes the crumbling Imperium of man and their many enemies, within and without, which wage war against humanity and each other.
The final volume, The Rules, is a 208 page book contains all the rules for playing games of Warhammer 40,000.
Clearly, the rules come last!
72279
Post by: Loopstah
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Loopstah wrote:
Right that's it. I can't pre-order the new rules right now and GW have upset me so much by being slow about this that I'm going to throw all my armies in the bin and start playing Warmachine instead.
Bad form GW, Bad form.
I hope this is sarcasm because GW usually opens up the pre-orders in the UK later in the day than this.
Yes it was sarcasm, I just thought I'd join in with all the over-reaction that's been occuring in the past 200 pages.
Bagged myself a Munitorium Edition, Whoopy do! 
85057
Post by: vadersson
BTW, there are downloadable previews of the epub and mobi (kindle) files of new new 40K books. Looks like the Rules will actually have all three books in it (the old ebook only had the Rules pages.)
So far the Kindle edition seems better formatted, but it might be my reader.
Thanks,
Duncan
11988
Post by: Dracos
"[...] the art of collecting and[...]"
Collecting is a form of art? I think they need a bigger shovel for that level of BS.
Some things look good this edition, but GW advertising BS always makes me laugh.
Not preordering as the chances of the city's stock running out seems about zero. Not sure why people feel the need to preorder this. Is there a serious concern that there might not be stock?
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Need to put my pre order then at my FLGS today
77029
Post by: Bull0
I'll be over here waiting for them to update Dark Vengeance with a new mini rulebook, or a new starter set. Forking over £50 again so soon for some seemingly pointless changes and a whole heap of "buy riptides" just isn't going to happen, GW Automatically Appended Next Post:  Dracos wrote:"[...] the art of collecting and[...]"
Collecting is a form of art? I think they need a bigger shovel for that level of BS.
Yeah, some folks are in this for the collecting. Collecting pleasing collections of models could be considered art, I guess.
8520
Post by: Leth
Dracos wrote:"[...] the art of collecting and[...]"
Collecting is a form of art? I think they need a bigger shovel for that level of BS.
Some things look good this edition, but GW advertising BS always makes me laugh.
Not preordering as the chances of the city's stock running out seems about zero. Not sure why people feel the need to preorder this. Is there a serious concern that there might not be stock?
I pre order because it helps my local game store. I know I am going to buy it day one, so I might as well let them know so I don't take one off the shelves that someone on the fence might want
53744
Post by: rollawaythestone
In the Munitorum preview, they show Iron Arm on the top of the stack of Psychic Cards. Can anyone make out whether it's changed? Looks like Warp Charge 1 still.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Dracos wrote:"[...] the art of collecting and[...]"
Collecting is a form of art? I think they need a bigger shovel for that level of BS.
Some things look good this edition, but GW advertising BS always makes me laugh.
Not preordering as the chances of the city's stock running out seems about zero. Not sure why people feel the need to preorder this. Is there a serious concern that there might not be stock?
Well its nice having the option to preorder limited edition stuff. And if they are already doing that might as well do other stuff too.
25728
Post by: -DE-
Finally, I can learn the art of collecting miniatures! Yesss!
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Saldiven wrote:
Don't forget that two sides just sitting around shooting at each other is patently boring from a game-play standpoint.
Only with a badly designed ruleset. There are lots of ways to make ranged combat games interesting, not least things like suppression and smoke as well as forcing movement through the use of objectives. Melee focused armies can themselves be extremely tedious to play.
70279
Post by: pax_imperialis
I'm genuinely surprised the electronic version is cheaper than the hardcopy. Its almost like sense....from gw....
68667
Post by: Squidbot
It's so shiny.
It's interesting that DE are on the cover of the rules.
1478
Post by: warboss
Dracos wrote:"[...] the art of collecting and[...]" Collecting is a form of art? I think they need a bigger shovel for that level of BS. Some things look good this edition, but GW advertising BS always makes me laugh. Not preordering as the chances of the city's stock running out seems about zero. Not sure why people feel the need to preorder this. Is there a serious concern that there might not be stock?
Perhaps that is a tacit admission that alot of people will be engaging in performance art when paying for this cash grab new book less than 1-2 years after 6e/ apoc/escalation/stronghold. Interpretive dance (stomping feet and beating chests) and solo Heston-esque performances (damn you! you dirty stinking Jokaero!) of anguish are indeed parts of established art forms.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
61093
Post by: skink007
 WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Yep totally comparable.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Awesome - they mention the Adeptus Custodes but not the Sororitas.............stupid GW :(
84972
Post by: PapaSoul
WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Not even close.
58132
Post by: BairdEC
US$140? I guess I'll have to wait and see what they eventually release as a cheaper option.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Last I checked (and I did spend 12 years selling the things) a new model of phone didn't make it much harder for your pre-existing model to function.
In fact, I've owned phones that were superseded by a new model while I was using them, and I'm certain they carried on working just fine.
If you want to draw a comparison, try imagining the backlash if Microsoft released a new version of Windows after two years, and dropped support overnight for previous editions.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Holy gak snacks, $400CAD for the limited edition? Even worse than I thought it was going to be.
I'm having a hard time stomaching the $100 for the basic rulebook.
GW really is just seeing how much people will pay for a few fancy shinies and a limited number on the cover.
Absurd.
77029
Post by: Bull0
azreal13 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Last I checked (and I did spend 12 years selling the things) a new model of phone didn't make it much harder for your pre-existing model to function.
In fact, I've owned phones that were superseded by a new model while I was using them, and I'm certain they carried on working just fine.
If you want to draw a comparison, try imagining the backlash if Microsoft released a new version of Windows after two years, and dropped support overnight for previous editions.
Or say, when the iPhone 5 came out, you couldn't make calls on your iPhone 4 anymore.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
 Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Last I checked (and I did spend 12 years selling the things) a new model of phone didn't make it much harder for your pre-existing model to function.
In fact, I've owned phones that were superseded by a new model while I was using them, and I'm certain they carried on working just fine.
If you want to draw a comparison, try imagining the backlash if Microsoft released a new version of Windows after two years, and dropped support overnight for previous editions.
Or say, when the iPhone 5 came out, you couldn't make calls on your iPhone 4 anymore.
Technically we can all stay playing 6th edition if we want...
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
You still seem to be having problems with the idea that there are more than just You and EveryoneElseHivemind on this planet. Some people can and will be irritated by and complain about both. Some of us, shock horror, don't even own Apple products for exactly that reason(among others).
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Last I checked (and I did spend 12 years selling the things) a new model of phone didn't make it much harder for your pre-existing model to function.
In fact, I've owned phones that were superseded by a new model while I was using them, and I'm certain they carried on working just fine.
If you want to draw a comparison, try imagining the backlash if Microsoft released a new version of Windows after two years, and dropped support overnight for previous editions.
Or say, when the iPhone 5 came out, you couldn't make calls on your iPhone 4 anymore.
So you're saying theres no one out there that plays the old editions anymore? Its physically impossible for them to do so now? Just like you're unable to make calls on your old iPhone?
1478
Post by: warboss
WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Are you the guy that made the crazy iphone comparison 20 pages earlier in this thread that was disproven as an incredibly bad comparison? Or did you also make the xbox live comparison that was so ridiculous it was mod-banned and pruned from the thread? Both were like comparing apples to volkswagons. Feel free to compare gaming books (whether virtual or physical) to... you know... gaming books or at worst books in general that are updated traditionally every 4-5 years.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
*Edit* Not worth it.
Awful comparison is awful.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
 warboss wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Are you the guy that made the crazy iphone comparison 20 pages earlier in this thread that was disproven as an incredibly bad comparison? Or did you also make the xbox live comparison? Both were like comparing apples to volkswagons. Feel free to compare gaming books (whether virtual or physical) to... you know... gaming books or at worst books in general that are updated traditionally every 4-5 years.
I made neither
But unsure because its a different medium that makes it any more less valid. There are constatnly updates to certain systems, be it software, games (video or physical), hardware etc to varying degrees of update timeframes. 2 years for a paperback? Its fast for a paperback, and apparently traditionally fast for 40k. Its also 10 dollars more, usually upgrades are more expensive than what preceded it. I'm still how a new version invalidates an old version based on the time frame, people still play old versions even if they're un supported all the time
84869
Post by: RedFox
damn, i was really hoping to see that rumored terminator web-store exclusive mini
44272
Post by: Azreal13
WrentheFaceless wrote: Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Last I checked (and I did spend 12 years selling the things) a new model of phone didn't make it much harder for your pre-existing model to function.
In fact, I've owned phones that were superseded by a new model while I was using them, and I'm certain they carried on working just fine.
If you want to draw a comparison, try imagining the backlash if Microsoft released a new version of Windows after two years, and dropped support overnight for previous editions.
Or say, when the iPhone 5 came out, you couldn't make calls on your iPhone 4 anymore.
So you're saying theres no one out there that plays the old editions anymore? Its physically impossible for them to do so now? Just like you're unable to make calls on your old iPhone?
No, hence my very specific choice of "much harder" rather than impossible.
72436
Post by: eskimo
FFS.
Apple, MS and GW all suck. Talk about the freakin' new edition. Sick of having to scroll through this bs just to read someones opinion about 7th, which what the thread is about. Have you nothing bettet todo that fill pointless egos!?
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Blacksails wrote:Holy gak snacks, $400CAD for the limited edition? Even worse than I thought it was going to be.
I'm having a hard time stomaching the $100 for the basic rulebook.
GW really is just seeing how much people will pay for a few fancy shinies and a limited number on the cover.
Absurd.
Yeah it's starting to seem like toys for the 1%. I can already hear the "anti-whiner" brigade reminding me that no one is forcing me to blah blah blah
34243
Post by: Blacksails
 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah it's starting to seem like toys for 1%. I can already hear the accusatory whiner brigade reminding me that no one is forcing me to blah blah blah
You mean the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia, right?
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
lol you're too fast. I had already edited it. But ya, those guys.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I don't understand why you're complaining about the price on the collector's edition.
No matter what you're looking at, those kinds of things are always stupidly expensive and give very little "back" to the person buying them.
It's $108 USD for the rules, psyker cards, and objective cards. Still expensive...but not stupidly expensive.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 eskimo wrote:FFS.
Apple, MS and GW all suck. Talk about the freakin' new edition. Sick of having to scroll through this bs just to read someones opinion about 7th, which what the thread is about. Have you nothing bettet todo that fill pointless egos!?
The irony is strong with this one!
34243
Post by: Blacksails
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah it's starting to seem like toys for the 1%. I can already hear the "anti-whiner" brigade reminding me that no one is forcing me to blah blah blah
Dont think 40k was ever advertised as "cheap and affordable"
34906
Post by: Pacific
Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Funny how a new codex after 2 years draws so much ire, where as an iPhone that has a new version every few months that costs about 4 time as much is always met with applause from the masses...
Last I checked (and I did spend 12 years selling the things) a new model of phone didn't make it much harder for your pre-existing model to function.
In fact, I've owned phones that were superseded by a new model while I was using them, and I'm certain they carried on working just fine.
If you want to draw a comparison, try imagining the backlash if Microsoft released a new version of Windows after two years, and dropped support overnight for previous editions.
Or say, when the iPhone 5 came out, you couldn't make calls on your iPhone 4 anymore.
Imagine, then, that a month after the iPhone came out then there was a pretty good chance the people you were phoning had the new iPhone, and you could no longer speak to them?
I think that's probably closer to the mark. If you turn up at a club for a random PUG in 2 months time, how many of those players are going to be using 6th edition? You've got a nice weighty book on the book shelf, full of lovely background and art. But, in that regard it's probably 95% similar to the rulesbooks from 3rd, 4th and 5th editions, sat next to it.
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Dont think 40k was ever advertised as "cheap and affordable"
There are scales of cost/value, however. Relatively, 40k is much more expensive than it was a few editions ago. It's more expensive than pretty much every game on the market, unless you're into mixing wargaming with LARP and need to buy a horse.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 Kanluwen wrote:I don't understand why you're complaining about the price on the collector's edition.
No matter what you're looking at, those kinds of things are always stupidly expensive and give very little "back" to the person buying them.
It's $108 USD for the rules, psyker cards, and objective cards. Still expensive...but not stupidly expensive.
I'd suggest that people are complaining because GW don't really know where the line between sharp pricing but just about reasonable for the extra shiny is, and painful gouging.
Plus, and I hate you for making me say this, people are entitled to hold and express any opinion they like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WrentheFaceless wrote: Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah it's starting to seem like toys for the 1%. I can already hear the "anti-whiner" brigade reminding me that no one is forcing me to blah blah blah
Dont think 40k was ever advertised.
FTFY
Historically it WAS at least more accessible though.
52163
Post by: Shandara
azreal13 wrote:
Plus, and I hate you for making me say this, people are entitled to hold and express any opinion they like.
Argh, you killed the discussion!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
azreal13 wrote: Kanluwen wrote:I don't understand why you're complaining about the price on the collector's edition.
No matter what you're looking at, those kinds of things are always stupidly expensive and give very little "back" to the person buying them.
It's $108 USD for the rules, psyker cards, and objective cards. Still expensive...but not stupidly expensive.
I'd suggest that people are complaining because GW don't really know where the line between sharp pricing but just about reasonable for the extra shiny is, and painful gouging.
I'd counter that suggestion with the statement of "nobody knows" how best to do that.
Video games are just as bad as GW for these "collector's editions"...
Plus, and I hate you for making me say this, people are entitled to hold and express any opinion they like.
Fair enough, I just find it silly that people are somehow surprised that the collector's edition is both stupidly expensive and not really going to give you anything unique.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Kanluwen wrote: azreal13 wrote: Kanluwen wrote:I don't understand why you're complaining about the price on the collector's edition.
No matter what you're looking at, those kinds of things are always stupidly expensive and give very little "back" to the person buying them.
It's $108 USD for the rules, psyker cards, and objective cards. Still expensive...but not stupidly expensive.
I'd suggest that people are complaining because GW don't really know where the line between sharp pricing but just about reasonable for the extra shiny is, and painful gouging.
I'd counter that suggestion with the statement of "nobody knows" how best to do that.
Video games are just as bad as GW for these "collector's editions"...
Plus, and I hate you for making me say this, people are entitled to hold and express any opinion they like.
Fair enough, I just find it silly that people are somehow surprised that the collector's edition is both stupidly expensive and not really going to give you anything unique.
I've seen plenty of steel book movies, video games etc with collector editions that are maybe 50-100% more than the standard, I look at them and think "there's nothing about that product that justifies it's price to me." I see the Munitorum Edition and I think "HOLY fething HELL, HOW MUCH FOR THAT gak??!"
Seems others, from my perspective, are at least aware of roughly where the line hangs out.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Blacksails wrote: Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah it's starting to seem like toys for 1%. I can already hear the accusatory whiner brigade reminding me that no one is forcing me to blah blah blah
You mean the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia, right?
Have an exalt because we all need people to come along and:
a) tell us to stop whining, even when noone seems to be doing so by definition.
b) tell us noone is forcing us to...whatever.
c) tell us that if we don't like it, quit.
Because any one of these will most definitely not cause an argument at all. uh uh. no way.
Two of the most used words on this entire forum are "whine" and "hate". It's gotten to the point where I'm becoming blind to the words and they get sort of fuzzy on the screen when someone types them.
My "concerns" with the rumors (though I'm happy to wait and read the actual rules before I "whine"):
1. As a Tau player, having zero access to BB psychic backup means I'll just sit and take models off during both the psychic AND the assault phases..wheeeee, fun game.
2. Not a big fan of extra book-keeping during the game ala mission cards.
3. Not a big fan of slowing down the game at all (regardless of how you play it)....more complicated does not mean better rules writing.
4. Jink rules seem random; as rules for vehicles stand now, some will actually benefit while others are made nearly worthless.
5. Overwatch buff seems interesting but I don't think it should be a poor man's skyfire. There are dedicated anti-air units for a reason and small-arms fire doesn't usually take down hypersonic aircraft even in sci-fi books/movies.
Before someone zeroes in on the above, note that I said that I'm actually happy to wait and read the rules, I'm simply expressing my concerns based upon the current rumors.
72279
Post by: Loopstah
Kanluwen wrote:
Fair enough, I just find it silly that people are somehow surprised that the collector's edition is both stupidly expensive and not really going to give you anything unique.
I'm surprised they didn't release a mid-level edition with fancy covers and an alternate slipcase priced at about £100, only having the vanilla version and the Munitorium versions seems like a missed opportunity.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
Kanluwen wrote:I don't understand why you're complaining about the price on the collector's edition.
No matter what you're looking at, those kinds of things are always stupidly expensive and give very little "back" to the person buying them.
Actually I bought the 5th edition Gamer's edition.
Does anyone remember it?
It was just 40 pounds or so above rulebook price, and for it you got a munitorum METAL (!) box in cadian green, with foam inlay, and an exclusive set of templates and markers in green.
EDIT:
here it is and it was just 90 us dollars including hardback rulebook:
this was back when GW was affordable.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
To try and kick the direction of the thread more back towards topic, is everyone unable to see a pre-order/preview of the itunes version, or do I need to clear out a cache or something?
77029
Post by: Bull0
azreal13 wrote:No, hence my very specific choice of "much harder" rather than impossible.
And (although this is stupid) I chose my words because in this comparison you can only use your iPhone 4 to call other people who still have the iPhone 4!
49658
Post by: undertow
vadersson wrote:The Black Library has the preorder up for the eBook. $59.99 US?!?! Sigh, for that price I may just get the hardback.
I know the pre-order thing has already been covered to death in this thread, but why on earth would anyone pre-order a digital copy of something? I can understand placing a pre-order for a physical item if you're worried about getting a copy guaranteed when the store opens. However, a pre-order on digital goods that have no real scarcity issues just seems like lunacy to me.
77029
Post by: Bull0
 Pacific wrote:
Imagine, then, that a month after the iPhone came out then there was a pretty good chance the people you were phoning had the new iPhone, and you could no longer speak to them?
I think that's probably closer to the mark. If you turn up at a club for a random PUG in 2 months time, how many of those players are going to be using 6th edition? You've got a nice weighty book on the book shelf, full of lovely background and art. But, in that regard it's probably 95% similar to the rulesbooks from 3rd, 4th and 5th editions, sat next to it.
Yeah, this. This is what I meant.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote:No, hence my very specific choice of "much harder" rather than impossible.
And (although this is stupid) I chose my words because in this comparison you can only use your iPhone 4 to call other people who still have the iPhone 4!
I literally cannot over state how little I care at this point.
49658
Post by: undertow
I've been buying the iTunes versions but decided to try the ebook version for the AM codex and IMO it's just not worth the $10 (or whatever) discount. Granted, the iTunes versions are huge (1.5gb compared to a 50mb epub), and they're slightly more expensive, but the presentation is so much better. Tapping a rule, weapon or whatever and having the popup with all the relevant info is so nice. I'm really tempted to pick up the iTunes version of 7th.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
azreal13 wrote: Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote:No, hence my very specific choice of "much harder" rather than impossible.
And (although this is stupid) I chose my words because in this comparison you can only use your iPhone 4 to call other people who still have the iPhone 4!
I literally cannot over state how little I care at this point.
Actually you just posted. So you must have some level of care. And what's "literally" doing there? Are you ESL? Didn't you also just state that people have a right to an opinion? How 'bout you stop trying to be the leader of the Mod Cadet Corps for a few pages?
Back on topic:
Dang I hate these choices, between digital and paper, getting the psychic cards or not, ergh!
I really really wish they sold the hardback rules from the collector set by themselves. I must admit, that until this moment, I didn't think the two year turnaround would bother me. But now I've got that massive 6th ed book I just bought that's worthless.
A pox upon you G'dub.
37477
Post by: Battlesong
Couldn't find delete, I apologize to the mods
9594
Post by: RiTides
Preoder is up on this UK site at least, they just emailed the link out:
http://kirtongames.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=852
60365
Post by: fishy bob
The final volume, The Rules, is a 208 page book contains all the rules for playing games of Warhammer 40,000.
Uhm, no, it does not
I really wish they'd put up some photos of the actual pages of the books. Pictures of the covers aren't very helpful.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 Lobukia wrote: azreal13 wrote: Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote:No, hence my very specific choice of "much harder" rather than impossible.
And (although this is stupid) I chose my words because in this comparison you can only use your iPhone 4 to call other people who still have the iPhone 4!
I literally cannot over state how little I care at this point.
Actually you just posted. So you must have some level of care. And what's "literally" doing there? Are you ESL? Didn't you also just state that people have a right to an opinion? How 'bout you stop trying to be the leader of the Mod Cadet Corps for a few pages?
Ah, the Internet, last bastion of pedantry, I did consider not posting, but in a meta, the Internet will eat itself sort of a way, felt the only way I could express how it wasn't important, to me or the discussion, was to express how it wasn't important.
I'd also be interested on your thoughts how Bull0's post contains any sort of opinion, of his or anyone else? It's more an explanation, if anything, but pertaining to a line of conversation that won't do anyone any favours in keeping the thread in roughly the right direction, hence my attempt to kill it dead, might have worked too if you hadn't chosen to get offended by something that didn't involve you. I'm not attempting to moderate, I'm doing it for my own sanity, because a thread this size struggles to stay on course as it is, and some of the utterly irrelevant bs that keeps spewing out just doesn't need to be taking up real estate in my brain.
I'm aware of the irony of posting off topic posts in response to attempts to keep things on topic, so by all means respond if you like, but I won't be any further.
25400
Post by: Fayric
 Battlesong wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
Y'know, in theory I understand it's a little bit ludicrous to be looking for close combat in a sci-fi wargame above the skirmish level; however GW makes armies that are primarily close combat armies and therefore they should put SOME effort into making sure those models are somewhat viable - seriously, I would love to actually use my genestealers at some point.
I always figured 40k humanity needed close combat marines because you shoot a bunch of orks, and they keep coming, so you shoot a bunch of more orks, and they still keep coming, so you keep shooting orks untill soon enough you have to pull out that chainsword and get down and dirty with the green tide because they are not waiting for you to reload.
And, uh, this should be clear in 7th edition imo. Totally on topic.
52086
Post by: Brother Weasel
undertow wrote: vadersson wrote:The Black Library has the preorder up for the eBook. $59.99 US?!?! Sigh, for that price I may just get the hardback.
I know the pre-order thing has already been covered to death in this thread, but why on earth would anyone pre-order a digital copy of something? I can understand placing a pre-order for a physical item if you're worried about getting a copy guaranteed when the store opens. However, a pre-order on digital goods that have no real scarcity issues just seems like lunacy to me.
who cares when someone places their order? if i decide to place my order today or the day it comes out, why is that lunacy? do i NEED to, no. but if i'm going to buy it, why should i wait till the day it comes out if i think about doing it now? is that money going to grow in the next week if i don't spend it?...
is there an advantage to preordering digital? No. Is there a disadvantage? No.
77029
Post by: Bull0
azreal13 wrote: Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote:No, hence my very specific choice of "much harder" rather than impossible.
And (although this is stupid) I chose my words because in this comparison you can only use your iPhone 4 to call other people who still have the iPhone 4!
I literally cannot over state how little I care at this point.
Well, I'll go feth myself then. Pedantry's only interesting if you're doing it. Gotcha.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Oh, calm down. If you're genuinely offended and didn't see the deadpan behind my comment, hit the triangle.
Otherwise stop taking this so seriously.
63396
Post by: zammerak
Back on topic, at least the normal eddition is sub 99 usd.
Might just go get it
56040
Post by: Basimpo
$140?? Holy cow batman this hobby just got too expensive for me to do it any other way but old fashioned free download, wow.
77029
Post by: Bull0
Nah, I don't really see the funny side on that one Az, much as I don't see how explaining my logic merited your "humourous" put-down response.
"What Bull0 said totally didn't make sense."
"Yeah it did, because X"
"I *literally* couldn't un-overstate how little I don't not care about that"
"Harsh"
"Oh, calm down"
Amateur hour
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
A quote from he epub preview from Black Library of the 7th edition codex:
Do all your loins tremble in excitement?
18698
Post by: kronk
Basimpo wrote:$140?? Holy cow batman this hobby just got too expensive for me to do it any other way but old fashioned free download, wow.
BairdEC wrote:US$140? I guess I'll have to wait and see what they eventually release as a cheaper option.
You're looking at the Australian price. US price is $85. See? Linky Look at the flag at the top right, people. Also, poor Aussie bastards!
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
Oh yeah, and people are going to love it when I bring my 8 Heldrake / 13 DP / 8 Forgefiend / 32 Obliterator / 7 Lard Raider / 13 Predator / 280 troop Black Iron Alpha Nurgle unbound no max points list to the table.
I could play Apocalypse against myself atm.
Sweet Jesus lol, I would play some mean APOC against that!
Come to MA, we will make sure you git ur moneys worth haha
You just might find me there, in the grimdark of the future, when there are no players left in the mid atlantic.
123
Post by: Alpharius
200+ pages in, and we're drifting badly in here...
ON TOPIC and POLITE, please.
thanks!
9370
Post by: Accolade
Brachiaraidos wrote:A quote from he epub preview from Black Library of the 7th edition codex: Do all your loins tremble in excitement?
Man, GW's "Forging the Narrative" is turning into the whole X-Bone thing- a term seen largely in derision. And they only seem to be making it worse.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
So downloaded the preview - can't really see much of interest?
noticed this:
Here, in serried ranks of unbroken valour, stand the Three Hundred – the elite of the Adeptus Custodes, the Emperor’s bodyguard. P
thats new isnt it? I bet they have spears and shields and look like Hoplites as well
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Brachiaraidos wrote:A quote from he epub preview from Black Library of the 7th edition codex:
Do all your loins tremble in excitement?
I'm not paying GW to socialize me, I'm paying them to make a game. If I have to make a game and give them money, I'm not sure why I'm doing the second part.
The core problem has not been addressed from the looks of it, I don't think the 24th will be a good day. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Remember kids, it's not a game, it's a "shared experience".
GAMESworkshop no no no, SHARED EXPERIENCE WORKSHOP.
4543
Post by: Phydox
No new starter box? So, the starter box is the same with an outdated rulebook and a little message on the website that "there are new rules available"? Also, if you want the current rulebook your choice is an $85US hardback or a $59-$69 ebook? I really need to step away for a little while and try a different company, this is really getting annoying.
You can say what you want, GW is Brilliant! They know we are sheepeople, who will justify this because we're so committed to the hobby financially.. Maybe they can get it down to an annual rulebook for $85. Stockholders will love that!
I haven't bought a big rulebook for the past two editions. You find higher priorities when you start a family. I'm gonna have a hard time stomaching this. I can't believe there isn't more outcry! I just have to find a group of like minded individuals, who are tired of this stuff and want to: Just play either this edition or an earlier one, make our own set of house rules, or download free rules from a games workshop competitor.
Since dumping Microsoft and installing Linux, I've begun to like free (and stickin it to the man). 
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
Looking at the Munitorum edition on GW's website. It looks to come in a box similar in size to the Apocalypse limited edition I purchased not so long ago.
The books in the Apocalypse limited edition are about half the height of the standard edition rulebook. The formations are provided unbound, with tabs - which are hard to deal with when you have all your friends over. The books all have ribbons that let you pull them out of the way so you can get at whatever is underneath.
71007
Post by: SwampRats45MK
Does anyone think that GW will just release the "Rules" portion of that trilogy box set because here in Canada its costing a whopping $100 for 3 books, two of which I find incredibly useless. One is just a over-glorified catalogue of GW employee armies and the other is the fluff that will likely not have changed that much anyways from sixth. I.e. the latest event in the timeline is the unfixable fault in the emperor's chair and the 13th Black Crusade beginning.
52163
Post by: Shandara
 Mr Morden wrote:So downloaded the preview - can't really see much of interest?
noticed this:
Here, in serried ranks of unbroken valour, stand the Three Hundred – the elite of the Adeptus Custodes, the Emperor’s bodyguard. P
thats new isnt it? I bet they have spears and shields and look like Hoplites as well
Close:
http://collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/File:Imperial_Bodyguard.jpg
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 SwampRats45MK wrote:Does anyone think that GW will just release the "Rules" portion of that trilogy box set because here in Canada its costing a whopping $100 for 3 books, two of which I find incredibly useless. One is just a over-glorified catalogue of GW employee armies and the other is the fluff that will likely not have changed that much anyways from sixth. I.e. the latest event in the timeline is the unfixable fault in the emperor's chair and the 13th Black Crusade beginning.
It's possible, but if you take 6th as a guide, it was quite late (ha!) in the life cycle before it emerged. I guess a 7th one could arrive sooner if the previous one sold well/quickly.
I'm going digital for this though, I can get itunes vouchers cheap, it is already cheaper than the real book, and the layout of the last book was so convoluted that I can see the hotlinks being a godsend.
71007
Post by: SwampRats45MK
But don't you need an ipad to properly make use of the iBook version?
61775
Post by: ClassicCarraway
Battlesong wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
Y'know, in theory I understand it's a little bit ludicrous to be looking for close combat in a sci-fi wargame above the skirmish level; however GW makes armies that are primarily close combat armies and therefore they should put SOME effort into making sure those models are somewhat viable - seriously, I would love to actually use my genestealers at some point.
In all fairness, in a universe in which the standard military rifle has an effective range of approximately 50 feet or less, hand to hand combat is a rather viable tactic for some.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
Dark Vengeance is being pulled back to GW central to have a new '7th' rule book of some sort stuck in it (and presumably the old mini book purged) as is stated in White Dwarf, and repeatedly in this thread
so there will be 'cheap' rules available relatively soon
of course if you have to have them on release day... spend, spend, spend
44272
Post by: Azreal13
The interactive/enhanced one, yes, but it's incidental to me as I've had one since before GW started doing digi editions. The ePub (cheaper, non interactive, possibly clumsier than dead tree) version will work on pretty much anything with a processor though.
I've started using PDFs for my books recently though, which are similar to ePub, and the search function is invaluable, as long as you remember the name of the rule you want to look up!
65784
Post by: Mr.Omega
azreal13 wrote: Lobukia wrote: azreal13 wrote: Bull0 wrote: azreal13 wrote:No, hence my very specific choice of "much harder" rather than impossible.
And (although this is stupid) I chose my words because in this comparison you can only use your iPhone 4 to call other people who still have the iPhone 4!
I literally cannot over state how little I care at this point.
Actually you just posted. So you must have some level of care. And what's "literally" doing there? Are you ESL? Didn't you also just state that people have a right to an opinion? How 'bout you stop trying to be the leader of the Mod Cadet Corps for a few pages?
Ah, the Internet, last bastion of pedantry, I did consider not posting, but in a meta, the Internet will eat itself sort of a way, felt the only way I could express how it wasn't important, to me or the discussion, was to express how it wasn't important.
I'd also be interested on your thoughts how Bull0's post contains any sort of opinion, of his or anyone else? It's more an explanation, if anything, but pertaining to a line of conversation that won't do anyone any favours in keeping the thread in roughly the right direction, hence my attempt to kill it dead, might have worked too if you hadn't chosen to get offended by something that didn't involve you. I'm not attempting to moderate, I'm doing it for my own sanity, because a thread this size struggles to stay on course as it is, and some of the utterly irrelevant bs that keeps spewing out just doesn't need to be taking up real estate in my brain.
Or, you know, you could have expressed how it wasn't important by not replying? Trying to speak in poetic-like gibberish doesn't disguise that you're just looking for an excuse to spit back when someone has spoken something you sorely realise is the truth here. You're the one that's getting all defensive and offended in this post.
The amount of whining in this thread seems to have decreased, but I expect more "Grrr grrr I quit because I have to buy a single book that costs a fraction of the price of a bi-annual Smart Phone/Tablet purchase, good quality item of clothing and more despite allowing for considerably more enjoyment" This is even when it fixes and tidies several problems with a broken edition that people were already quitting and whining over.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Well, my copy is pre ordered, and I'm very happy about it. Even with two CC armies, I look forwards to more grimdark narrative forging, and feth the haters.
Now I want it to be the 24th :(
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Squidbot wrote:Well, my copy is pre ordered, and I'm very happy about it. Even with two CC armies, I look forwards to more grimdark narrative forging, and feth the haters.
Now I want it to be the 24th :(
So we're not whiners anymore, we're haters.
Here, have a yolo...
4183
Post by: Davor
Yes you do. If you don't have an iPad then you CAN'T have the interactive edition. All you can have is the epub or what ever they call it for e-readers.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
Is everyone else finding approximately 30% difference between print and eBook edition?
Also, I think I'm going to have to give in to psychic cards... mind's not as sharp as it used to be...
57935
Post by: Samurai_Eduh
Munitorum Edition pre-ordered!
44276
Post by: Lobokai
 Mathieu Raymond wrote:Is everyone else finding approximately 30% difference between print and eBook edition?
Also, I think I'm going to have to give in to psychic cards... mind's not as sharp as it used to be...
Go through frontline gaming... after both cards and the rulebook and shipping, still 20% off the GW price
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
We expect fancy unboxing pictures in the future
466
Post by: skkipper
waiting for wife's approval on that bad boy.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
Lobukia wrote: Mathieu Raymond wrote:Is everyone else finding approximately 30% difference between print and eBook edition?
Also, I think I'm going to have to give in to psychic cards... mind's not as sharp as it used to be...
Go through frontline gaming... after both cards and the rulebook and shipping, still 20% off the GW price
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/
I don't think you appreciate the beast that is shipping to Canada. We get a special snowflake tax.
72436
Post by: eskimo
azreal13 wrote: eskimo wrote:FFS.
Apple, MS and GW all suck. Talk about the freakin' new edition. Sick of having to scroll through this bs just to read someones opinion about 7th, which what the thread is about. Have you nothing bettet todo that fill pointless egos!?
The irony is strong with this one!
Your e-penis just grow a little then? Grow up.
Had an email from Element. £40 for the rulebook as a special pre-order price. Must say i'm tempted, but must resist for the possible boxset plus Blood Angels :F
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
Here's the new 40k Galaxy map in all its glory (screencapped from this trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJBzmq4pNAg):
4179
Post by: bubber
Any know if you need both card decks or just the book? I can laminate at work.
Also, if these are in the book with the old 'permission to photocopy for personal use' would there be printable versions in the ebook?
8520
Post by: Leth
BairdEC wrote:US$140? I guess I'll have to wait and see what they eventually release as a cheaper option.
Its Us 85
52163
Post by: Shandara
Leth wrote:BairdEC wrote:US$140? I guess I'll have to wait and see what they eventually release as a cheaper option.
Its Us 85
He's looking at Australian prices.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
also, new pics of the individual books are up on the GW site. the verdict remains: worst rulebook cover design ever:
12798
Post by: Thachng
He's just trolling the Aussies by bring up our prices
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
It should probably have said "the suggestions"
Games have rulebooks, shared experiences on the other hand.
I will say though, I like the art.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
It could have a picture of a Pony on the front of it as long as the rules inside are good. Not looking at the cover as much as I'll look on the inside.
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
WrentheFaceless wrote:It could have a picture of a Pony on the front of it as long as the rules inside are good. Not looking at the cover as much as I'll look on the inside.
This pony!
72279
Post by: Loopstah
 Sir Arun wrote:also, new pics of the individual books are up on the GW site. the verdict remains: worst rulebook cover design ever.
That and the map were what made me get the Munitorium version.
31097
Post by: Holdenstein
Crablezworth wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:A quote from he epub preview from Black Library of the 7th edition codex:
Do all your loins tremble in excitement?
I'm not paying GW to socialize me, I'm paying them to make a game. If I have to make a game and give them money, I'm not sure why I'm doing the second part.
The core problem has not been addressed from the looks of it, I don't think the 24th will be a good day. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Remember kids, it's not a game, it's a "shared experience".
GAMESworkshop no no no, SHARED EXPERIENCE WORKSHOP.
You're clearly playing the wrong game. Please choose another and let the rest of us get on with our hobby, which is clearly not the same as yours.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
What game are you guys playing?
68667
Post by: Squidbot
I came very, very close, but with Orks just around the corner I'm saving some for the awesome new models.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Is there a single player 40k that I'm not aware of where you dont have to socialize with someone?
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Stop feeding the trolls.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
If anyone else here has ever worked in a bar for any length of time, you'll be familiar with the situation that develops, around Christmas mainly, where your regular clientele get swamped by a large variety of people who don't spend much time in bars/pubs at any other time of year, and are totally unfamiliar with the various nuances and protocols of bar life and drinking culture.
Thread about new edition of 40K = this.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Sir Arun wrote:also, new pics of the individual books are up on the GW site. the verdict remains: worst rulebook cover design ever:
I'm willing to bet that the Dark Eldar codex cover will look largely the same too.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm willing to bet that the Dark Eldar codex cover will look largely the same too.
How much?
I'm willing to bet against it.
The Space Marines, etc.., on the new books' cover don't match the (non-Limited) Codex cover art either.
10223
Post by: Tyron
We're all sharing and experience right now!
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
WrentheFaceless wrote:Is there a single player 40k that I'm not aware of where you dont have to socialize with someone?
I think that is just pushing plastic manz around the living room carpet making "pew pew" noises.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Zweischneid wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm willing to bet that the Dark Eldar codex cover will look largely the same too.
How much?
I'm willing to bet against it.
The Space Marines, etc.., on the new books' cover don't match the (non-Limited) Codex cover art either.
That Ultramarine on one of the books was on one of the Marine LE covers ( IIRC, that or he's inside the book. I'm pretty sure he's in the 6th edition rulebook too), the Iron Hands is from their supplement, the Helbrute is from Crusade of Fire....
Considering GW's pattern of recycling art I'd be more surprised if they didn't reuse it. Automatically Appended Next Post:  DarkTraveler777 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Is there a single player 40k that I'm not aware of where you dont have to socialize with someone?
I think that is just pushing plastic manz around the living room carpet making "pew pew" noises.
Have you been sitting outside my window?
Seriously though, that sounds like a bit of fun.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
I'm not too keen on the art book either. Since only half of all armies got updated to 6th edition (typical) the art for the other half wont be in this visions book.
And of all the former armies that did get updated - DA, Chaos Daemons, CSM, Tau, Eldar, SM, Tyranids, IG - (as well as Knights introduced as a new faction and LotD and the 2 week MT codex) - I already have the codices for Tau, Eldar, SM and IG, so I'm gonna see a lot of recycled art. I guess they might also include the art from Escalation, SH, Altar of War and Death From the Skies.
Now if they released it at the end of the army updating cycle...then maybe I'd buy it.
74576
Post by: prowla
BTW, I find it a bit weird they didn't include eBook vouchers in the limited edition. Would had given some return for that £200.. Although, they probably sell it out in 24 hours, anyway
25668
Post by: ChaosxVoid
Looking quite forward to this now, still gonna wait till the review someone does but its cool, will most likely get.
18032
Post by: jspyd3rx
Did you guys not catch the latest video?
NEW! Warhammer 40,000: New army organisation opti…: http://youtu.be/7JnMByJVUow
79006
Post by: Nightlord1987
Whats this!? No tiny head, barrel chested, beer gut plate, knobby knees, backward handed, prune face, one shoulder pad bigger than the other Space Marine on the cover!?
It truly IS a new edition folks...
4543
Post by: Phydox
SwampRats45MK wrote:Does anyone think that GW will just release the "Rules" portion of that trilogy box set because here in Canada its costing a whopping $100 for 3 books, two of which I find incredibly useless. One is just a over-glorified catalogue of GW employee armies and the other is the fluff that will likely not have changed that much anyways from sixth. I.e. the latest event in the timeline is the unfixable fault in the emperor's chair and the 13th Black Crusade beginning.
The rules to this should have been a free download. Prices are so high in this hobby, we've become desensitized. Its insulting! GW comes out with the DA codex and within days comes out with a faq! This is the same thing on a larger scale. They messed up the rules and we pay for it.
Next month GW is gonna sell a $200 toilet seat with its logo. Preorder now!!!!
Wonder how many posts it will take for someone to say "if you can't afford to play then don't"
44272
Post by: Azreal13
By "latest" do you mean first of three, the third of which is already a couple days old?
61093
Post by: skink007
 Phydox wrote:
Wonder how many posts it will take for someone to say "if you can't afford to play then don't"
Or:
It costs less than (insert random luxury product)!
I enjoy it more than schoolbooks!
(insert random wargame other than GW game) is wayyyy better and cheaper, come play!
36303
Post by: Puscifer
 skink007 wrote: Phydox wrote:
Wonder how many posts it will take for someone to say "if you can't afford to play then don't"
Or:
It costs less than (insert random luxury product)!
I enjoy it more than schoolbooks!
(insert random wargame other than GW game) is wayyyy better and cheaper, come play!
By the rational of "random luxury product", Wargaming is not all that an expensive hobby when compared to other hobbies.
Just for example... Muscle Car restoration.
I love muscle cars and would love to try and rebuild one, but it's an incredibly expensive hobby.
Same with PC gaming. I built my own rig and over the course of six years, I've spent £3000+ on the rig and the set up.
Wargaming isn't cheap, but compared to others, it doesn't require a massive investment.
That's my two cents... Back on topic....
Has this weeks WD got a large section of what has changed in 40k?
47937
Post by: Captainlanger
anyone else a little bit annoyed that Games workshop seems to be ebbing closer and closer to everything just being Space marines. haven't seen much else from other armies for months, nothing but supplements for space marines and a whole new IG army. have they forgotten there are actually other armies out there? all these new rules sounding like you can use whatever you want in any army. i just want my Orcs update waited so long now
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
63396
Post by: zammerak
 Captainlanger wrote:anyone else a little bit annoyed that Games workshop seems to be ebbing closer and closer to everything just being Space marines. haven't seen much else from other armies for months, nothing but supplements for space marines and a whole new IG army. have they forgotten there are actually other armies out there? all these new rules sounding like you can use whatever you want in any army. i just want my Orcs update waited so long now
You mean orks right?
Orcs wont do much in 40k 
Being a smarty pants aside, I agree, I want the green skins to get out of the 2008 codex age.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Captainlanger wrote:anyone else a little bit annoyed that Games workshop seems to be ebbing closer and closer to everything just being Space marines. haven't seen much else from other armies for months, nothing but supplements for space marines and a whole new IG army. have they forgotten there are actually other armies out there? all these new rules sounding like you can use whatever you want in any army. i just want my Orcs update waited so long now
Tau AND Tyranids both got an update this year before IG did. It's not just about the Space Marines/Imperium you know. And Orks are rumored for June by a LOT of people.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
I love how the WD article states you only need 1 Troops choice in a Battle Forged list, when the diagram quite clearly shows that 2 are required...
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
So the big thing from my fuzzy pictures: Battle Forged Armies apparently are 1 HQ, 1 Troops and everything else is either a Combined Arms Detachment or an Allied Detachment. Your Primary Detachment is the one with your Warlord in it.
Detachments must be made of units from the same Factions and Factions have different alliance levels with each other.
So our "good old FOC" chart apparently has some new rules. And Allies seem to be done by Factions, not codexes.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Captainlanger wrote:anyone else a little bit annoyed that Games workshop seems to be ebbing closer and closer to everything just being Space marines. haven't seen much else from other armies for months, nothing but supplements for space marines and a whole new IG army. have they forgotten there are actually other armies out there? all these new rules sounding like you can use whatever you want in any army. i just want my Orcs update waited so long now
I feel your pain, but we're getting what we want soon.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Alex C wrote:I love how the WD article states you only need 1 Troops choice in a Battle Forged list, when the diagram quite clearly shows that 2 are required...
That second one might be part of that whole "Combined Arms" thing.
I have a feeling we'll know more soon enough.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
"If indeed you're using points at all"
Yeah, they're in a different world aren't they?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Squidbot wrote: Captainlanger wrote:anyone else a little bit annoyed that Games workshop seems to be ebbing closer and closer to everything just being Space marines. haven't seen much else from other armies for months, nothing but supplements for space marines and a whole new IG army. have they forgotten there are actually other armies out there? all these new rules sounding like you can use whatever you want in any army. i just want my Orcs update waited so long now
I feel your pain, but we're getting what we want soon.
Kirby is letting every player line up outside of GW HW and kick him in the nads? Automatically Appended Next Post: azreal13 wrote:"If indeed you're using points at all"
Yeah, they're in a different world aren't they?
We've had what, like 3 Battle Reports in the last year or so that used no points?
I do wonder if they play their models more like Army Men than 40k miniatures at times.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
man if 1 HQ 1 troops really becomes the new force org I'll have little left to say
the whole idea about 2 mandatory troops was the representation of the common man among an army - if I want specialist armies I'll go unbound, but 1 troops is just GW asking for their troop kits to lose sales
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
azreal13 wrote:"If indeed you're using points at all"
Yeah, they're in a different world aren't they?
Best games are the ones where 1 player is using points for their Battle Forged list, and the other player isn't using points for their Unbound list.
And of course by "best" I really mean "worst possible"...
Suck it up and forge the narrative!
1478
Post by: warboss
Sir Arun wrote:man if 1 HQ 1 troops really becomes the new force org I'll have little left to say
the whole idea about 2 mandatory troops was the representation of the common man among an army - if I want specialist armies I'll go unbound, but 1 troops is just GW asking for their troop kits to lose sales
But every $50 troops plastic box not sold means that same person will buy a Khornemower for $150! Think of all the profit! The bottom line will look great and the shareholders will be running naked through the streets of England with glee! /sarcasm
5601
Post by: Kelly502
Pre-ordering as soon as I leave this office... I wonder what kind of limited miniature trap they'll hook me with when it gets in.
I like the idea of seperate books, can't wait to dive in!
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Sir Arun wrote:man if 1 HQ 1 troops really becomes the new force org I'll have little left to say
the whole idea about 2 mandatory troops was the representation of the common man among an army - if I want specialist armies I'll go unbound, but 1 troops is just GW asking for their troop kits to lose sales
I have a feeling the change really will be 1 HQ, 1 Troop and then everything else comes in "detachments". That sounds like GW's way of rolling. Sure you have to have a second troop choice, it's just part of one of the detachments.
Or the WD made a typo again.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen.
Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
I loves how Jes Bickham begins to address the community with "Forget what you know, The old ways are dead"
the callousness of GW HQ cannot be put in words
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 BlaxicanX wrote:Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen.
Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.
I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.
37470
Post by: tomjoad
Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Sir Arun wrote:I loves how Jes Bickham begins to address the community with "Forget what you know, The old ways are dead"
Funnily enough, that's how most of their new staff inductions start too.
Unfortunately it worked a bit too well on the lawyers and designers!
It is somewhat reassuring that choosing Battle Forged or Unbound is detailed as a step after beginning a game and choosing a points value I guess, doesn't look like the intent is to have anyone ambushed by 5 Riptides and a bunch of Dire Avengers in Waveserpents
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 tomjoad wrote:Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.
Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule. Automatically Appended Next Post: azreal13 wrote:It is somewhat reassuring that choosing Battle Forged or Unbound is detailed as a step after beginning a game and choosing a points value I guess, doesn't look like the intent is to have anyone ambushed by 5 Riptides and a bunch of Dire Avengers in Waveserpents
Knowing GW, that was never the intent. Even 6th basically advised you to make a list after agreeing to everything else about the game, not before. We just prefer to not have to make them at the last minute because it's faster and more convenient that way for us.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
ClockworkZion wrote: tomjoad wrote:Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.
Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.
The rules actually don't say that. They might mean that, but they don't say that at all.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Brachiaraidos wrote: 44Ronin wrote:Cavalry charges were a very big deal until the early 20th century, actually.
and shovels, bayonets, knives..... well not obsolete enough to save thousands of people who still died from these attacks in the 20th century. These were not obsolete in the trenches, jungles, and certainly were not obsolete in the streets and tunnels of stalingrad, were they?
In short, you're wrong
In short, no I'm not.
These options all exist and are used when everything else has gone absolutely tits up. But close quarters combat IS a thing, even to this day.
Whatever the war films may tell you, whatever CoD shows you with fancy swanky knives, it's not a melee. The essence of fighting within ten feet boils down to who can point their gun quickest.
You have a very poor grasp of military history, and what actually happens in close quarter fighting. Your position is downright ignorant to actual history. Your revisionist view is laughable at best.
As for the exact time periods, the process really began building speed in the 1700's and has been made steadily more pronounced over time since. I'm not saying that one day in 1704 everybody woke up and decided to throw away their swords.
Cavalry charges and even infantry charges were a big part of warfare in the Napoleonic era. In fact I'd call these things decisive elements in a battle in those times. You're wrong with your arbitrary date.
Accolade wrote:You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.
That would be the dream. Of course assault has its place for the dedicated units of that type, but I consider the reducing focus on it a good thing and only sleighted to get better. Once we're allowed to use sidearms and single shots on rapid fire weapons within ten feet rather than throw our boomsticks into a pile in the corner, close combat will finally be something I enjoy. A clutch shot with a melta gun is always going to be a better idea than trying to beat a Hive Tyrant's shins with it.
You ever heard of this thing called friendly fire? Ten feet...
I never called anyone stupid, I'm pointing out factual errors and modern misconceptions about warfare. They're almost to the point of being offensively ignorant.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Lobukia wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: tomjoad wrote:Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.
Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.
The rules actually don't say that. They might mean that, but they don't say that at all.
That's not what this says:
And knowing GW the "X is scoring" rules will change to "X has the Objective Secured special rule" or "X has the Objective Secured special rule as long as it's part of a Battle Forged army." It's only given for free to Troops by that bonus to Battle Forged lists, but it has room to be applied differently by other armies too.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
ClockworkZion wrote: tomjoad wrote:Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.
Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote:It is somewhat reassuring that choosing Battle Forged or Unbound is detailed as a step after beginning a game and choosing a points value I guess, doesn't look like the intent is to have anyone ambushed by 5 Riptides and a bunch of Dire Avengers in Waveserpents
Knowing GW, that was never the intent. Even 6th basically advised you to make a list after agreeing to everything else about the game, not before. We just prefer to not have to make them at the last minute because it's faster and more convenient that way for us.
The Studio suffers from a terminal case of "been playing each other for years" so yeah you are right. They probably came to an agreement of what homerules to use. Unfortunately in many other places that kind of gaming is not the norm, with pick up games as the most popular way to play 40K. So GW's lack of desire to fix outstanding mistakes in the rules or unbalanced disasters in the making like unbound might make sense for the devs, after all they do talk about what they want to do before setting up a game so their intent for the rules might be clear in the in-house games. For those players that enter the shop and say "let's play" it's not the same experience and depending on the local player base their enjoyement might range from interesting games to unmitigated disasters that leave you wanting to quit.
BTW with the game as is, making lists after setting a game is another can of worms. Unless you know and trust the other person it might lead to list tailoring.
M.
39502
Post by: Slayer le boucher
Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
Even in 39.000 years ammos arn't unlimited, so you always resort to the base and simple, put the pointy side into the other guy tactic, wich exists and had is usefulness for far more time in history then guns.
Remember mens kill themselfs since they learned to use pointy rocks until they learned to make tempered/damascus steel and beyond, wich covers like, what?, 400.000 years?, wich like you put it, guns only exists since 300years, and even in 39.000 years, the old knife through the eyeball, will still prevail.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
WD article wrote:Librarians were so unappealing in 6th, we always used melee captains and chaplains instead. We needed to fix this balance problem by boosting psykers.
Well, that certainly proves that the WD staff are idiots who have no clue how the game works. Now I'd just love to know how they still have jobs. Are they sleeping with the CEO and largest shareholders?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
ClockworkZion wrote: BlaxicanX wrote:Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen. Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.
I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.
Why bother trying to contest your captured objective when I can use my vastly superior firepower to massacre the troops on your objective and just take it? That goes double for Unbound armies. People keep talking about how Unbound vs. Bound seems to be balanced due to the objective secured rules, but frankly if you're trying to play the objective game with an Unbound army you're just doing it wrong. Murder everything on the board, that your units can also score is icing on the cake.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
BlaxicanX wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: BlaxicanX wrote:Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen.
Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.
I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.
Why bother trying to contest your captured objective when I can use my vastly superior firepower to massacre the troops on your objective and just take it?
That goes double for Unbound armies. People keep talking about how Unbound vs. Bound seems to be balanced due to the objective secured rules, but frankly if you're trying to play the objective game with an Unbound army you're just doing it wrong. Murder everything on the board, that your units can also score is icing on the cake.
Because we can play games where you score VP every turn making even a turn without that Objective Secured not that good for keeping a lead?
49456
Post by: pizzaguardian
 Peregrine wrote:WD article wrote:Librarians were so unappealing in 6th, we always used melee captains and chaplains instead. We needed to fix this balance problem by boosting psykers.
Well, that certainly proves that the WD staff are idiots who have no clue how the game works. Now I'd just love to know how they still have jobs. Are they sleeping with the CEO and largest shareholders?
The ignorance of the state of thd game or plain stupidity there baffles me , i am just wow ed at that quote.
4543
Post by: Phydox
Sir Arun wrote:I loves how Jes Bickham begins to address the community with "Forget what you know, The old ways are dead"
the callousness of GW HQ cannot be put in words
Maybe he's jokingly comparing Unbound Lists to the 40k background. You know, how all the good technology gets lost, mankind forgets how to make things, and they enter a Dark Age...
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
wait unbound armies can score?
85001
Post by: Sihdhartha
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
ClockworkZion wrote: BlaxicanX wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: BlaxicanX wrote:Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen. Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.
I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.
Why bother trying to contest your captured objective when I can use my vastly superior firepower to massacre the troops on your objective and just take it? That goes double for Unbound armies. People keep talking about how Unbound vs. Bound seems to be balanced due to the objective secured rules, but frankly if you're trying to play the objective game with an Unbound army you're just doing it wrong. Murder everything on the board, that your units can also score is icing on the cake.
Because we can play games where you score VP every turn making even a turn without that Objective Secured not that good for keeping a lead?
How is that going to save you from being tabled and losing automatically? Like I said, that you can score in addition to wiping your opponent out is just icing on the cake.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Everything but Zooming Flyers (and presumably Swooping FMCs) can score. Only Troops in a Battle Forged army and units with Objective Secured can score while being contested by a unit without Objective Secured.
I love all this talk about how we're suddenly going to see these broken Unbound armies are just going to overtake the meta. Seriously now, who'd play against an army of 10 Bloodthirsters or all Riptides or any other insane combo you can think of? Be honest now.
The only Unbound armies that will really be hitting the table anywhere are the fun ones. The Deathwatch armies, the 1st Company armies, the all Scouts army that is rolling 100 bodies deep, and the like. We can go to the extremes to break the game but reasonable people won't be playing against those extremes (unless they're bringing their own extremes to see who can bring the most broken combo), just like people don't play against the Quadtide armies or Tripdrakes or whatever other broken combo you can think of.
And frankly I don't see any of this changing tournaments all that much (save for allies being nerfed down in a lot of places) all that much because they won't be going Unbound anytime soon and even if the core rules change it doesn't change the levels of broken some armies can put out when compared to others.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
ClockworkZion wrote: Lobukia wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: tomjoad wrote:Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.
Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.
The rules actually don't say that. They might mean that, but they don't say that at all.
That's not what this says:
And knowing GW the "X is scoring" rules will change to "X has the Objective Secured special rule" or "X has the Objective Secured special rule as long as it's part of a Battle Forged army." It's only given for free to Troops by that bonus to Battle Forged lists, but it has room to be applied differently by other armies too.
What worries me is that RAW, a non-scoring elite model still contests our Objective Secured troops. 
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
How so? It says that a unit with OS controls the objective, even if there is enemy unit nearby.
EDIT:
Oh right...I get it now. Yeah, that is an odd way to word it.
Maybe non-scoring units cannot contest in 7th?
11988
Post by: Dracos
All units score, I'm not sure there is such thing as "non-scoring elite models"
edit: I wonder how summoned units interact with this rule...
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
BlaxicanX wrote:Because we can play games where you score VP every turn making even a turn without that Objective Secured not that good for keeping a lead?
How is that going to save you from being tabled and losing automatically? Like I said, that you can score in addition to wiping your opponent out is just icing on the cake.
And how is that any different from now? And how do you know tabling is an auto-lose now? With the ability to take an army of Flyers that's up in the air now. Automatically Appended Next Post: Lobukia wrote:What worries me is that RAW, a non-scoring elite model still contests our Objective Secured troops.
I'm missing how that'd work since it says Objective Secured still counts as scoring the objective even if another unit is nearby as long as they don't also have "Objective Secured".
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
Okay, so apart from us existing players already having a set number of purchased units and armylists etc. leading us to continue playing battle forged armies, my questions is:
...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?
If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.
as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.
That blows two rumors out of the water, the first one saying "but unbound armies cannot score, so don't worry" and the second one saying "unbound armies still cannot ally with anyone, so dont worry."
If every battle forged unit could score, and no unbound unit could score, and every battle forged troop unit could prevent other battle forged non-troop units from scoring by standing next to them over an objective, and if "Come the apocalypse" still meant no allying whatsoever, THEN I would have reason to appreciate the new 7th edition for giving us thematic freedom in building armies while at the same time keeping things balanced.
Now on the other hand, 40k has completely gone to hell in a handbasket.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Sir Arun wrote:Okay, so apart from us existing players already having a set number of purchased units and armylists etc. leading us to continue playing battle forged armies, my questions is:
...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?
If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.
as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.
That blows two rumors out of the water, the first one saying "but unbound armies cannot score, so don't worry" and the second one saying "unbound armies still cannot ally with anyone, so dont worry."
If every battle forged unit could score, and no unbound unit could score, and every battle forged troop unit could prevent other battle forged non-troop units from scoring by standing next to them over an objective, and if "Come the apocalypse" still meant no allying whatsoever, THEN I would have reason to appreciate the new 7th edition for giving us thematic freedom in building armies while at the same time keeping things balanced.
Now on the other hand, 40k has completely gone to hell in a handbasket.
Honestly, there just isn't just enough info to answer your question. We really don't have the full rules for another week to really answer that question properly. I'm sure someone might disagree with me though.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm missing how that'd work since it says Objective Secured still counts as scoring the objective even if another unit is nearby as long as they don't also have "Objective Secured".
It says even if another "scoring" unit is there... not another unit. I'm just really worried that Unbound or something else will have non-scoring units... which could hurt the ill-prepared 40k commander
61618
Post by: Desubot
Sir Arun wrote:
...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?
If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.
as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.
I think there are benefits to battle forged.
There are all sorts of players and the control aspect of being able to take points from under there opponents.
as well not every opponent will min max people to death.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Lobukia wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm missing how that'd work since it says Objective Secured still counts as scoring the objective even if another unit is nearby as long as they don't also have "Objective Secured".
It says even if another "scoring" unit is there... not another unit. I'm just really worried that Unbound or something else will have non-scoring units... which could hurt the ill-prepared 40k commander
I feel like you're reaching too hard on that one. They say they count as scoring "even if X" which doesn't mean that if Y occurs they stop scoring, it means that even if the normal things that could keep them from scoring don't keep them from scoring as long as they don't have "Objective Secured". Hell the only clause I see in there that makes them not count as controlling an objective is if the other unit also has "Objective Secured".
44272
Post by: Azreal13
ClockworkZion wrote:
I love all this talk about how we're suddenly going to see these broken Unbound armies are just going to overtake the meta. Seriously now, who'd play against an army of 10 Bloodthirsters or all Riptides or any other insane combo you can think of? Be honest now.
It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)
I know your Bloodthirster example was deliberately hyperbolic, but a kitted out BT is nigh on 300 points, so 10 are circa 3k, and by the time they'd agreed amongst themselves who was Warlord, you'd probably only have 6 or 7 left to field! Strong units that aren't undercosted do not concern me for the prospect of Unbound lists, it's things that are undercosted and horribly efficient like the Waveserpent that continue to concern me, in the context of the game as a whole in fact, and the lack of any rumours of anything that's going to tangibly rein them in is the one thing that is still bothering me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Desubot wrote: Sir Arun wrote:
...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?
If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.
as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.
I think there are benefits to battle forged.
There are all sorts of players and the control aspect of being able to take points from under there opponents.
as well not every opponent will min max people to death.
I'm actually quite pleased by the Trait reroll.
If I get "Warp Strider" one more time when my warlord is a GD that I had no intention to DS..... 
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
*Looks at pre-order page*
Nope. Not doing it.
If they'd put those metal objective markers up for sale, I would'a got those, but no. Not spending $140 to replace books that are less than a year old. It's not happening. This is a bridge too far GW, and I'm not going to cross it this time.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
I'm just saying.
It is unlikely to happen, but the very possibility that you can build an army just consisting of Grav Centurions and an ADL with a quadgun and have them sit on your objectives is hard to digest.
|
|
