Question about detachments:
Does it say what counts as a "Primary Detachment" now? Can you only ever have one?
I was just re-reading my daemon codex, and remembered it says "Each primary detachment in your army may take 4 heralds...", whereas if I read the new Allied Detachment from the GW video, it says that it "may not be your Primary Detachment"(emphasis mine), implying there is a change from having multiple primaries, to only one.
Hatemonger wrote: Question about detachments:
Does it say what counts as a "Primary Detachment" now? Can you only ever have one?
I was just re-reading my daemon codex, and remembered it says "Each primary detachment in your army may take 4 heralds...", whereas if I read the new Allied Detachment from the GW video, it says that it "may not be your Primary Detachment"(emphasis mine), implying there is a change from having multiple primaries, to only one.
- H8
It's been mentioned somewhere, but you only get 1 primary detachment. That's where the warlord gets chosen from.
Edit - unbound lists don't use detachments. Bring as many heralds as you like.
yeah, that's mine. Being 43 and finally done with this game, I'm hanging up my spurs.
But it says the army has never been played....
I wouldn't put to much stock in eBay auctions indicating people jumping ship just because of the new edition. Most likely they are sellers who just held on for the new edition to be released because the demand would be higher.
Hatemonger wrote: Question about detachments:
Does it say what counts as a "Primary Detachment" now? Can you only ever have one?
I was just re-reading my daemon codex, and remembered it says "Each primary detachment in your army may take 4 heralds...", whereas if I read the new Allied Detachment from the GW video, it says that it "may not be your Primary Detachment"(emphasis mine), implying there is a change from having multiple primaries, to only one.
- H8
It's been mentioned somewhere, but you only get 1 primary detachment. That's where the warlord gets chosen from.
Edit - unbound lists don't use detachments. Bring as many heralds as you like.
Hatemonger wrote: Question about detachments:
Does it say what counts as a "Primary Detachment" now? Can you only ever have one?
I was just re-reading my daemon codex, and remembered it says "Each primary detachment in your army may take 4 heralds...", whereas if I read the new Allied Detachment from the GW video, it says that it "may not be your Primary Detachment"(emphasis mine), implying there is a change from having multiple primaries, to only one.
- H8
It's been mentioned somewhere, but you only get 1 primary detachment. That's where the warlord gets chosen from.
Edit - unbound lists don't use detachments. Bring as many heralds as you like.
Or 2,000 points of nothing but Lootas!
I'll play ANY unbound army, even like that one if the spammy unit is authentic, wysiwyg, and painted. Proxying such a list is blatant abuse of the system and I'll simply refuse that sort of game.
yeah, that's mine. Being 43 and finally done with this game, I'm hanging up my spurs.
But it says the army has never been played....
I wouldn't put to much stock in eBay auctions indicating people jumping ship just because of the new edition. Most likely they are sellers who just held on for the new edition to be released because the demand would be higher.
. Yeah? It's never been man handled, played with, dropped, or the like. So?
yeah, that's mine. Being 43 and finally done with this game, I'm hanging up my spurs.
But it says the army has never been played....
I wouldn't put to much stock in eBay auctions indicating people jumping ship just because of the new edition. Most likely they are sellers who just held on for the new edition to be released because the demand would be higher.
. Yeah? It's never been man handled, played with, dropped, or the like. So?
LOL.
I see many an army or model on eBay that are listed as "Pro Painted" and for sale well over £100 for something like an Abaddon or Lysander. An army for over £3000.
Even some have the gaul to sell really badly painted models in an army for over £2k.
Who even buys these "Pro Painted" armies for £3k???
I've seen 2nd Gen Camaro in Yellow and Black with a working engine for cheaper.
SeanDrake wrote: I am now sat looking at this £40 set of books and I have the worst buyers remorse :(
Return it. That's what I did with my Tyranids when I saw the codex. Walked right into my GW store and said "I'd like to return this $250 worth of stuff". Manager: "Seriously?". Me: "Yep".
Last time I was in a GW store.
I am kind of tempted to buy a ton of stuff tomorrow morning... just so I can return it all on Monday...
Thokt wrote: This may be a dense question, but if Unbound troops can't deny objectives - any Battleforged unit has the ability to cap that objective by jumping on it - correct? (Since all units score now)
Objective Secured seems to me to only be pertinent to games of BF v BF, in which troops gain this ability over other scoring units.
Where did you get that Unbound troops can't deny objectives? All Unbound units score just like Battle-Forged units score, but Battle-Forged troops score above and beyond all others.
I think 7th edition for me is going to be the painting edition. If it has the same shelf life of 6th edition (23 months). I should have all my Tyranids finished by the time 8th edition comes out.
Hatemonger wrote: Question about detachments:
Does it say what counts as a "Primary Detachment" now? Can you only ever have one?
I was just re-reading my daemon codex, and remembered it says "Each primary detachment in your army may take 4 heralds...", whereas if I read the new Allied Detachment from the GW video, it says that it "may not be your Primary Detachment"(emphasis mine), implying there is a change from having multiple primaries, to only one.
- H8
It's been mentioned somewhere, but you only get 1 primary detachment. That's where the warlord gets chosen from.
Edit - unbound lists don't use detachments. Bring as many heralds as you like.
Thanks, that's about what I thought.
I know, unbound, but... I was trying to avoid that.
Powerguy wrote: Quick question, is it possible to swap back to the Primaris power at all now or can you only get those powers if you go mono discipline?
You can swap but if you're going mono-discipline might as well not.
Powerguy wrote: Quick question, is it possible to swap back to the Primaris power at all now or can you only get those powers if you go mono discipline?
As I've seen, you can exchange a rolled pwoer for the primaris.
Hatemonger wrote: Question about detachments:
Does it say what counts as a "Primary Detachment" now? Can you only ever have one?
I was just re-reading my daemon codex, and remembered it says "Each primary detachment in your army may take 4 heralds...", whereas if I read the new Allied Detachment from the GW video, it says that it "may not be your Primary Detachment"(emphasis mine), implying there is a change from having multiple primaries, to only one.
- H8
It's been mentioned somewhere, but you only get 1 primary detachment. That's where the warlord gets chosen from.
Edit - unbound lists don't use detachments. Bring as many heralds as you like.
Thanks, that's about what I thought.
I know, unbound, but... I was trying to avoid that.
I feel like players have a bigger fear of "TFG" lists with these unbound armies than we will realistically see in games with no restrictions.
I mean look at the games today - either bring a 2++ re-roll or GTFO. In legal armies - how is THAT fun or accepted? I beseech TOs to let this thing ride as the rulebook allows for a quarter year or more before knee jerkily banning stuff. It'll never happen but I can hope.
Maybe rumors of a tournament supplement are true for later this year...
I know you've been asked the same question multiple times about 1300 times in the past 18 hours but will you indulge me.
I am not quite clear on Vector Strike. Kirby was reporting that FMCs still get d3 vector strike hits but i remember you saying it was 1 but d3 vs flyers/swooping MCs?
Would it be possible for a copy paste of the VS rules?
Heldrakes will still be str8 ap3 though.
Why? Meteoric Descent only states Vector Strike whilst Zooming at Strength 7.
Nothing about its AP value being set.
Powerguy wrote: Quick question, is it possible to swap back to the Primaris power at all now or can you only get those powers if you go mono discipline?
You can swap but if you're going mono-discipline might as well not.
True, but many psychic heavy armies use multiple disciplines and it would have been a big hit for them if they could no longer mix and match and get Prescience/Shriek. For instance it would have meant that the Jetcouncil or the Beaststar would have been very very unlikely to get Prescience, as you would have to land Fortune on the first psyker and then not go for Invis or any other powers on the second one. I didn't think that the Beast Pack could get even more bent, but a unit with a 4++ re-rollable that can only be hit on 6's in shooting and assault and has 100 re-rollable attacks on the charge is just a tad scary...
It is on a psyker by psyker basis. So as long as Psyker A only takes powers from Divination, it gets the Primaris for free. If Psyker B (even if in the same detachment) only takes powers from Telepathy, it will get the primaris for free.
Can still pretty easily have you army pull from multiple disciplines.
And yes, if you want, you can still 'trade in' for the primaris.
I'm curious about something in specific, did they address the issue of the poor wording about when you were locked in combat versus firing overwatch? The old rules left an interpretation that you could be assaulted successfully, but still overwatch a separate unit in the same phase.
Sounds like Infilcheating will still be a thing, or is that 100% A-Okay in the rules now? Infilcheating being attaching an IC with the infiltrate special rule to a unit that doesn't have it and infiltrating.
Did they happen to clarify what super heavy walkers do when they move through terrain? Do they really just roll 2d6 and take the highest?
Sigvatr wrote: Until 7th, psychic powers were almost risk-free to cast with LD 10 running around all over the place.
Who would have expected a nerf to free buffs? Weird.
And yes, I really can't feel any sympathy for people angry about psykers being nerfed when at the same time, some armies don't even have access to any psykers.
If only those armies that didn't have access to Psykers were compensated somehow, like with greater shooting capability or something.
Maybe with their army's next respective codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
optometris wrote: I welcome the extra randomness. It forces you to act more tactfully during the game
I don't understand this. Randomness adds nothing but randomness...
Agreed, here's the definition of a tactic
tac·tic
/ˈtaktik/
noun
noun: tactic; plural noun: tactics
an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
Notice how it doesn't say random end?
tac·ti·cal
/ˈtaktikəl/
adjective
adjective: tactical
of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.
Again, not random.
strat·e·gy
/ˈstratəjē/
noun
noun: strategy; plural noun: strategies
a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
If the overall aim (goal, objective) changes all the time, I can't see that "increasing" the tactical nature of the game. Random of the sake of it is bad.
Meh fine tactic wasn't the best word, lets go with adaptable - you'll have do be more adaptable. If the situation suddenly changes you'll need to apply some quick thinking and rework your strategy on the fly.
The best combat leaders aren't the ones in the field, sat there complaining because things aren't going by the book, they're getting shot - the best ones are the ones who can swiftly analyse the situation and know what to do. If you can't adapt to the situation then boohoo to you.
Then again, I really enjoy using the armageddon deadly weather chart thing. I actually find it quite funny if a tornado swallows up one of my squad - I like that challenge of suddenly having to adapt to something I wasn't expecting. maybe thats just me. Its all about forging them narratives baby!!!!
adamsouza wrote: Even having sold off most of my collections, I'm still sitting on Space marine, Imperial Guard, Ork, Eldar, and Necron armies.
While I am not overjoyed by a new edition, it's basically one more book to pick up to keep up with the edition change.
I am a tiny bit saddened as I was going to dump my 6E rulebooks on Ebay a couple months back, and now that I have procrastinated their resale value has diminished.
I kind of saw this coming. Got rid of my three very large WHFB (High Elf, Empire and Chaos) armies and five of my 40k armies (Tyranids, Necrons, Tau, Chaos and IG/AM) starting about 5 weeks ago. Have ten LOTR-SBG armies up now and half of them moved quickly on Buy It Now with the other half all having bids on them. Have made more than $4k so far, so I am happy with that. Still have a massive collection of Eldar and a very sizable Space Marine collection that I am considering divesting - but I will hold off for a bit.
As for the recent increase on ebay of armies, for those still playing it is both a good and bad sign. Good because you can pick up a lot of good minis cheap (which doesn't help GW any) and bad because it means a lot of players are finally calling it quits (which doesn't help GW any). Can we all see something in the pattern here that it doesn't help GW any. What do you think that is going to happen as a result in the near future - continued 50%-75% price hikes (like with the Scions) to get those left playing to make up the revenue for the massive outflux of customers happening.
The only good news from this, for me personally, is that the non-stop rapid price increases from GW have made it so I have been selling my armies for much more than I originally paid for them. So, not so bad I guess. But I feel it is time to get out while you still can. I personally believe within two years GW is going to have a massive collapse the same way TSR did in their final years (going from $40 million in revenue to out of business almost overnight). Once that happens, no one will be able to get a great price for their armies - so I am gettin' while the getting' is good.
Hmm so it sounds like tanks are going to be at least a little tougher? That may just keep me in the game since vehicles are the main draw of 40k for me. Maybe some iron hands land raider plus techmarine shenanigans for fun
I wonder if it's worth getting the digital version over the book
based on the $25 difference alone? I've got a fair sized tablet... say, in which format are the non-itunes e-versions of GW's books? Do I have to go through any crap to use it on both a tablet and a PC?
I'm somewhat inclined to sell off my marines infantry and sub in infantry from another game I like, in case people around here give up 40k. The vehicles would easily become terrain, but I'm not particularly attached to the space marine aesthetic anyway.
TheKbob wrote: I like how people comment on ignoring others that obviously don't share they same viewpoint as their own.
Because that's a productive means of discussion; don't like what someone has to say? Ignore it.
Always find that hilarious. Granted, some negativity right now is based upon half truths of rules. On the other hand, the most of the negativity is obviously weighted towards the facts of the last 6-12 months which can sour anyone with a rational viewpoint of their hobby versus a more "blinders" approach.
Hope we get FAQs ASAP because that's going to be super telling or not how much I want to further invest in playing 40k. The mere fact we've gone a year plus without them for what is feeling like a half step in editions is discomforting.
I do, in fact, like some of the changes as they seem to be actual attempts at balance. However, an $85 price tag for what would be errata in other games (or at least an open beta before a major edition change) is dirty.
Well, as a person that has a large space marine force (who didn't buy the new codex), a large Imperial Guard force (didn't buy the codex) and an awesome Ork force I have been horribly disappointed with the the direction for over a year. This was the last gasp that GW had to get my custom back. The leaked rules don't seem to have improved the issues that I had with 6th ed in general but has shifted them to a different place.
The psyker rules seem like an excuse to get folks to buy a new codex and models that they previously weren't buying. I have no interest in summoning a daemon nor playing against an army of heads/tails space elves that summon daemons.
An extra phase...nope.
I don't like the vehicle rules...at all.
I didn't like the rules for terrain in general from 6th and from what I see in 7th, they are no better.
INVISIBILITY????? Feth that!
Random traits, random powers, random objectives.. No thanks. I already play Orks and didn't need you to put random in my random so I can random when I random.
The end times truly have come and it's obvious that Chaos won.
(About your first point, I made a critique earlier about such behavior with a reference to cognitive dissonance, it was deleted. So let's try to keep direct stuff to a minimum.)
(About your first point, I made a critique earlier about such behavior with a reference to cognitive dissonance, it was deleted. So let's try to keep direct stuff to a minimum.)
The thread gets spring cleaning, I'm okay with this.
I'm just hoping YMDC will be a fanciful grounds of "I told you so" and "nu-uh" for this weekend as we all rib and joke that all the major concerns are now made irrelevant (like searchlight) or answered (like questions I posted a few posts ago).
I really want me some FAQs. Even if I keep playing 6E, the FAQs for 7E would guide answers to how things were meant to be, so to speak.
Man, being able to take multiple detachments is incredibly stupid.... I was just messing with builds from some of my books, and its so easy to make lists that are unfun for your opponent. Here is a tame list ( still idiotic) from one book.
CSM:
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
4 Nurgle Spawn
4 Nurgle spawn
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
1848
Basically put 2 lords and 2 sorcerers in each unit of spawn and fish for invisibility while the cultists are in reserve. Each unit has 6 rolls to fish for invisibilty and the army generates at least 13 power dice, way more then enough to get that spell off on each big unit.
This took me 10 minutes and isn't even that nasty when you consider what else can be done to improve it. (like dropping a pair of claws for melta bombs on every character) How will playing lists like this be remotely fun. Pretty sure this just opened deathstar 40k up to every single codex out their. Heck even nids can spam primes into a one massive unit. And these are the "bad" armies!
Red Corsair wrote: Man, being able to take multiple detachments is incredibly stupid.... I was just messing with builds from some of my books, and its so easy to make lists that are unfun for your opponent. Here is a tame list ( still idiotic) from one book.
CSM:
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
4 Nurgle Spawn
4 Nurgle spawn
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
1848
Basically put 2 lords and 2 sorcerers in each unit of spawn and fish for invisibility while the cultists are in reserve. Each unit has 6 rolls to fish for invisibilty and the army generates at least 13 power dice, way more then enough to get that spell off on each big unit.
This took me 10 minutes and isn't even that nasty when you consider what else can be done to improve it. (like dropping a pair of claws for melta bombs on every character) How will playing lists like this be remotely fun. Pretty sure this just opened deathstar 40k up to every single codex out their. Heck even nids can spam primes into a one massive unit. And these are the "bad" armies!
Let them. Players will play what is fun and wins, not some Boring spamfest
Red Corsair wrote: Man, being able to take multiple detachments is incredibly stupid.... I was just messing with builds from some of my books, and its so easy to make lists that are unfun for your opponent. Here is a tame list ( still idiotic) from one book.
CSM:
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
4 Nurgle Spawn
4 Nurgle spawn
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
1848
Basically put 2 lords and 2 sorcerers in each unit of spawn and fish for invisibility while the cultists are in reserve. Each unit has 6 rolls to fish for invisibilty and the army generates at least 13 power dice, way more then enough to get that spell off on each big unit.
This took me 10 minutes and isn't even that nasty when you consider what else can be done to improve it. (like dropping a pair of claws for melta bombs on every character) How will playing lists like this be remotely fun. Pretty sure this just opened deathstar 40k up to every single codex out their. Heck even nids can spam primes into a one massive unit. And these are the "bad" armies!
Being able to break the game is nothing new, and really I don't see anyone getting a list like that past their opponents. No one will care how legal your list if it comes of as you being a prick afterall.
I wonder if it's worth getting the digital version over the book
based on the $25 difference alone? I've got a fair sized tablet... say, in which format are the non-itunes e-versions of GW's books? Do I have to go through any crap to use it on both a tablet and a PC?
I use Calibre (a e-book reading program that is free http://calibre-ebook.com/. You get that and download the rulebook and just import it to calibre like you would a song in itunes and now you can look at it on your pc and print what ever you like. You shouldn't need anything other than the e-book to read it on your tablet.
Red Corsair wrote: Man, being able to take multiple detachments is incredibly stupid.... I was just messing with builds from some of my books, and its so easy to make lists that are unfun for your opponent. Here is a tame list ( still idiotic) from one book.
CSM:
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
4 Nurgle Spawn
4 Nurgle spawn
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
1848
Basically put 2 lords and 2 sorcerers in each unit of spawn and fish for invisibility while the cultists are in reserve. Each unit has 6 rolls to fish for invisibility and the army generates at least 13 power dice, way more then enough to get that spell off on each big unit.
This took me 10 minutes and isn't even that nasty when you consider what else can be done to improve it. (like dropping a pair of claws for melta bombs on every character) How will playing lists like this be remotely fun. Pretty sure this just opened deathstar 40k up to every single codex out their. Heck even nids can spam primes into a one massive unit. And these are the "bad" armies!
Things like this seam allot worse on paper than in reality. I think people will also be surprised at how many perils tests the psykers will get now there is a much higher chance. Even if I can't dispel and your psykers never peril I will still just MSU spam and win on objectives, you only have two decent unit's the rest of them fall to a stiff breeze.
Your nids example player is also just going to tar pit you with 30 gaunts.
And I'm dissapointed at the lack of GK stuff on ebay, apparently no one making a run to quit played them.
That's why it's imperative the rules hinder the damage of said TFGs.
So said every other game company in the world of tabletop gaming, RPGs, video games, board games, etc. Just not GW. They say play with everything but an implied "Oh, not those things. We never intended that!"
GrimDork wrote: Thanks portugus, actually already have that (barely used it) so sounds like I'd be good.
Welcome. Haha yeah same here, I printed it out and haven't used the PC version since.
cheesy list
Just be an old sport and let the other player know you are bringing a cheesy spam list. So he can either make an equally cheesy list or find someone else to play. I wouldn't care so much if you told me before hand but if you spring it on me as I'm laying out a fluffy list on the table, that is one less person you'll be playing against in the future.
GrimDork wrote: Thanks portugus, actually already have that (barely used it) so sounds like I'd be good.
Welcome. Haha yeah same here, I printed it out and haven't used the PC version since.
cheesy list
Just be an old sport and let the other player know you are bringing a cheesy spam list. So he can either make an equally cheesy list or find someone else to play. I wouldn't care so much if you told me before hand but if you spring it on me as I'm laying out a fluffy list on the table, that is one less person you'll be playing against in the future.
Exactly what i proposed to do to my group. Before we meet we will say if we bring a fluffy list, a classic single foc list or a cheesy/spamy/all hell lists.
Red Corsair wrote: Man, being able to take multiple detachments is incredibly stupid.... I was just messing with builds from some of my books, and its so easy to make lists that are unfun for your opponent. Here is a tame list ( still idiotic) from one book.
CSM:
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
4 Nurgle Spawn
4 Nurgle spawn
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
1848
Basically put 2 lords and 2 sorcerers in each unit of spawn and fish for invisibility while the cultists are in reserve. Each unit has 6 rolls to fish for invisibilty and the army generates at least 13 power dice, way more then enough to get that spell off on each big unit.
This took me 10 minutes and isn't even that nasty when you consider what else can be done to improve it. (like dropping a pair of claws for melta bombs on every character) How will playing lists like this be remotely fun. Pretty sure this just opened deathstar 40k up to every single codex out their. Heck even nids can spam primes into a one massive unit. And these are the "bad" armies!
Being able to break the game is nothing new, and really I don't see anyone getting a list like that past their opponents. No one will care how legal your list if it comes of as you being a prick afterall.
Say what? Your posts are making less sense by the minute. That list is legal, same as any stupid cron air spam was when 6th first hit. Good luck telling people they can bring multiple detachments but only if they aren't "pricks" by your standards.
And I'm dissapointed at the lack of GK stuff on ebay, apparently no one making a run to quit played them.
That's why it's imperative the rules hinder the damage of said TFGs.
So said every other game company in the world of tabletop gaming, RPGs, video games, board games, etc. Just not GW. They say play with everything but an implied "Oh, not those things. We never intended that!"
Any more good leaks lately?
Exactly! I hate when people act like game damaging rules design is on the players that abuse the holes. Seriously, it took all but 10 seconds looking at the new invisibility and combined arms detachment rules for most sane gamers to see the holes. How this gak gets past design is boggling.
bodazoka wrote: Things like this seam allot worse on paper than in reality. I think people will also be surprised at how many perils tests the psykers will get now there is a much higher chance. Even if I can't dispel and your psykers never peril I will still just MSU spam and win on objectives, you only have two decent unit's the rest of them fall to a stiff breeze.
Your nids example player is also just going to tar pit you with 30 gaunts.
We're just getting started on silly lists. Give 3 months of tournaments where people build 'battleforged' armies and I think we'll find some very odd/powerful lists emerge which combine cheap HQ's with powerful elites, heavy support or troops.
Bringing up MSU spam is an interesting point. Did you consider that double/triple/quintuple FOC's are an effective way to MSU? Just getting around annoying things like squadron rules / unit sizes: why take a squadron of 3 Leman Russ tanks when you can take 3 squadrons of 1? 5 piranhas in 1 squadron becomes 5 individual piranhas, a much more challenging prospect to kill. Why take 2 units of 3 broadsides when you can take 6 individual ones?
Invisibility is going to be massive, go-to, purple-sun of 40k. 'Invisistars' will be one of the new power lists. It doesn't take that many dice to cast (6 to cast reliably, eg 1 ML psyker should be able to do it), but denying it will be very unlikely. Invisible Beast-star, invisible draigo-wing or invisible Imperial Knights.
As with any 40k list, its easy in a vacuum to say 'oh I could totally take that down with my X (MSU/Melta/Lance/Pskyer) spam army. But would you actually be fielding that X spam army yourself in a tournament?
At tournaments today, people are fielding the seer/beast/ovesa-stars and winning. These people aren't 'rare'/ You can bet that those same people will be showing up with whatever power-list emerges in the next few weeks. And unfortunately if you want to play a semi-competitive tournament, you simply don't have the option to choose not to play a person.
Red Corsair wrote: Say what? Your posts are making less sense by the minute. That list is legal, same as any stupid cron air spam was when 6th first hit. Good luck telling people they can bring multiple detachments but only if they aren't "pricks" by your standards.
Then try reading them in English.
The issue isn't how legal the list is, it's if you're opponent will want to play that list. How many people didn't get games with CronAir, or any kind of abuse of Riptides again? Last I heard the answer was "a lot".
Let them. Players will play what is fun and wins, not some Boring spamfest
The players in my FLGS would dissapoint you.
Leading factor in why I don't play at the FLGS often.
I feel sad for you. That really bites.
I know tournaments will adopt a set format and comp the game.
I just also know those same types of players will cheese out no matter what system. Hamstringing the non-cheese players with restrictions further hampers their chances of beating TFGs in games.
the thing is, most people don't play these extreme lists that they post because they lack the models to do so. Often it's just a case of what can be done. Those guys that play the lists that make you cringe often would make you cringe with whatever they played. Not because the list they play is bad, just that they are TFG and will always be a ass to play. So does it really matter?
And I'm dissapointed at the lack of GK stuff on ebay, apparently no one making a run to quit played them.
Your telling me, I play DKOK(been out of stock so their prices are ridiculously high now), FW Nurgle marines, and space marines. Sure there are plenty of space marines but rarely do they go for a significant bargain. Even then with all the new FW releases I just look at them and say "Nope I need me some FW instead" Reached the quality over quantity point in my life.
I don't think it matters, it would be like being worried because Bob can bring his chainsaw to work. Will he? No, very few people bring chainsaws to work. And the ones that do you should be able to spot by the plaid or blood they are wearing.
portugus wrote: I don't think it matters, it would be like being worried because Bob can bring his chainsaw to work. Will he? No, very few people bring chainsaws to work. And the ones that do you should be able to spot by the plaid or blood they are wearing.
It's against the rules to bring a chainsaw where I work.
And bad analogies are bad.
Games are about rules. Good rules make for a good game. Let's move past these basic facts 'o life. Please, someone dispense some more goodness.
And I'm dissapointed at the lack of GK stuff on ebay, apparently no one making a run to quit played them.
That's why it's imperative the rules hinder the damage of said TFGs.
So said every other game company in the world of tabletop gaming, RPGs, video games, board games, etc. Just not GW. They say play with everything but an implied "Oh, not those things. We never intended that!"
Any more good leaks lately?
Leaks are probably done for now, the book is out tomorrow.
I know my FLGS has a stack of them waiting for pickup
portugus wrote: I don't think it matters, it would be like being worried because Bob can bring his chainsaw to work. Will he? No, very few people bring chainsaws to work. And the ones that do you should be able to spot by the plaid or blood they are wearing.
I guess you don't work outdoors or in a physical profession. I also guess you don't play in an area where the meta has been completely taken over by hard core tournament types.
If one of my coworkers brought his chainsaw to work or even a rifle, no one would care. Neither thing would be the most dangerous tool available.
The same with these cracked out builds.
Edit: Actually people would care if the chainsaw or rifle made an appearance, everyone would want to check them out, give them a heft, check the action, etc. but no one would be concerned.
TheKbob wrote: Please, someone dispense some more goodness.
Here's everything I've gathered up so far as summary (some duplicate info ahead, sorry):
From /tg/:
Spoiler:
warlord traits are:
Skilled fighter:
1. the warlord has the counter attack special rule.
2. the warlord has the furious charge special rule.
3. the warlord hase the outflank special rule.
4. the warlord gains 1 victory point for each charactermodell he kills in a challenge.
5. the warlord has the feel no pain special rule.
6.the warlord has the fearless and it will not die special rule.
Skilled Leader:
1. all allied units within 12" can use the warlords LD.
2. all enemys within 12" of the warlord have to use the lowest LD.
3.the warlord and all friendly units within 12" of the warlord have the move through cover special rule.
4. the warlord and all friendly units within 12" add +1" on run and assault moves.
5. the warlord and all friendly units within 12" reroll failed to hit rolls of 1 in the shooting phase.
6. the warlord and all friendly units within 12" reroll failed to hit rolls of 1 in the assault phase.
Skilled Tactican:
1.as long as your warlord is alive you can discard 2 mission objectives per turn instead of 1.
2. one use only: declare at the end of one of your turns. if you declare the warlord trait your enemy has to discard one random mission objective of his.
3.obtain a additional mission objective at the start of your first turn.
4. when declaring mission objectives in your first turn you can select to discard up to all your mission objectives and draw new ones.
5.as long as your warlord is alive you can reroll the victory point result that you get for each mission objective archived.
6. for all tactical secured tactical mission objectives x (x is 1-6) you archive you gain a additional victory point.
From Natfka:
Spoiler:
Perils of the Warp
1. Dragged into the Warp: Psyker takes a leadership test, if passed suffers 1 wound or glancing hit no saves.if failed he is removed as a casualty and his unit takes d6 S6 AP1 hits. The hits come from the psyker for allocation
2. Mental Purge: Psyker suffers 1 wound/glancing hit no saves. randomly select one power from the psyker. its lost for the rest of the game.
3. Power Drain: Psyker suffers 1 wound/glancing hit no saves. if its the psychic phase, both players lose d3 warp charge points
4. Psychic Backlash: Psyker suffers 1 wound/glancing hit no saves.
5. Empyric Feedback: Psyker takes a leadership test. if failed Psyker suffers 1 wound/glancing hit no saves. If passed no effect.
6. Warp Surge Psyker takes a leadership test. if failed Psyker suffers 1 wound/glancing hit no saves. If passed psyker gains a 3+ invul, fleshbane, armour bane, and smash until the next friendly psychic phase.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
No more Double Force Org at 2k points.
When making a Battle Froged army, you can have as many force orgs as you want. So at 1k points, if you want 3 ICs, you'd just need 6 troops (divided evenly) to still count as "bound" in order to maintain your Objective Secured rule, etc.
Being able to ally with yourself is just an extension of this, because it lets you alternatively take a 3rd HQ, needing only 1 troop for his allied detachment.
This is relevant, why?
Many new things will specify "This model's detachment" in the near future. Unbound armies do not have detachments, even though they are one entity. So some wargear, or special rules won't work in unbound, rewarding use of the forge organization chart as a bonus, more so than a punishment to unbound (I'm sure some people will just see this as a negative, and not the positive as is the nature of the internet).
Most Warlord traits won't specify detachment, and will still apply globally to the army (or based on range, etc as it is now).
This is also a subtle way to affect formations, which count as their own detachment outside of the Force Organization chart. While an army may remain "bound" despite exceeding certain limits via an additional Formation, the Formation represents and operates as a self contained entity.
This will also limit ally shenanigans somewhat as allies are their own detachment.
Essentially: A bound army can have any number of detachments now, one must be listed as primary (from which your Warlord is drawn, so no taking multiple detachments and picking a Warlord based on scenario or opponent). Detachments must still follow the Force Organization chart, be they a normal army or allied detachment, or must be formations.
Unbound armies throw this out, and you just have all your models in one big mishmash, don't count as a detachment for rules that specify "this detachment" and just pick a warlord out of all the possible HQs. This freedom comes at the cost of objective secured and the rerolled warlord trait, and potentially other things down the line specific to codexes.
A hint as to what that very last line means? Imagine your HQ getting bonuses if the compulsory troops chosen for his detachment are a specific unit, or elites allowed to be taken as compulsory troops only in their detachment.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212 This was unexpected, take a look at these.
Shrine of Aquila
Terrain Type: Ruins
the ruins are difficult terrain and all models inside receive a 4+ cover save regardless if they are 25% obscured.
Rules: Armies of the Imperium can re-roll failed morale checks if any models in their unit are inside the ruin. Any others get Hatred (armies of the imperium)
Manufactorum
Terrain Type: Ruins
the ruins are difficult terrain and all models inside receive a 4+ cover save regardless if they are 25% obscured.
Rules: Models in the Manufactorum that are firing weapons that have the "gets hot" rule, can re-roll failed saves from wounds inflicted with the Gets Hot rule.
From MarkyMark here on Dakka:
Spoiler:
So got the book. Will jot down the things I notice
There is now a start of turn which is specfically before movement
Mastery level governs how many spells you can attempt to cast per psyhic phase as well as how many spells you generate. Psykers that take all their spells from one table know the sig spell. So lvl 1';s will know the sig and another random spell but you can only cast 1.
Psykers can know the same spells (which is a big difference form fantasy)
Perils table is pretty much take a wound with no saves of any kind, plus another feature, the rumours are true for these (on 1 you do a ld test, pass you take a wound, fail removed from play).
Something chew just asked, it is indeed correct IC's cannot join units that contain MCs or vehicles....
snap shots are bs1 still
Overwatch is still as it is now, no test to do it, no penatly for doing it
Charging through terrain is -2 to distance rolled and still int1
Multi assault. Still the same up to this point
A charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contat with a unegaged model in primary target (think thats different?)
The wording for jet pack thrust move is still the same, in that it describes the jet pack unit. Cannot find anything to explain what a jet pack unit is....
FMC's cannot charge is they have changed flight mode that turn.
swooping is 12 to 24 still, 90degree turn before it moves, still run 2d6, grounding is still on a 1 or 2 and suffering a wound has to test end of phase but if grounded can charge.
Flyers now, if immobilsed crash and burn on a 1 or 2,
Ignoring the rest of the vehicle section for now (yes super heavies are in)
Excess wounds are indeed transferred to the unit from challenges
Ignoring terrain for now
Deployements are still the same
'Night fighting is just everyone has stealth
FMCS, zooming flyers or units in them are not scoring, claimed buildings are SCORING LOL With reserves, I am struggling to find how much you can reserve, it doesnt actually say!
force weapons are now acitvated in the psyhic phase, one test for the unit
Dedicated transports can now infiltrate
IC's cannot infiltate with a unit unless he has infiltrate as well
Jink is 4+ but can only fire snap shots until end of their next turn
You need a 6 to hit for precision shot,
ignores cover is no cover saves against wounds pens or glances
power weapons are the same
Psyhic powers
Iron arm doesnt give EW anymore,
enfeeble is minus 1 str and toughness treats all terrain as difficult
Endurance is warp charge 2, targets friendly unit, they gain EW, FNP 4+ and relentless wow
rest are pretty much the same, the numbers have changed though (i.e endurance is now 5)
Prescience is wc2 now, 12inch range gives re roll to hit still
Foreboding is the same
Forewarning is the same
perfect timing is the same
Pre cog is the same
Misfortune, is different, all attacks that target that unit have the rending special rule... wow
Scriers gaze is you can now re roll the reserves roll outflank and mysterious objective
Daemonology we all know from leaks
santic no 6 is vortex of doom, str d small blast
pyro is still crap
Telekinesis, no gate....
replaced with levitation
targets the psyker he may move 12inches... they then cannot charge
psyhic malestrom is no 6, wc3, str 10 ap1 large blast barrage
Telepathy
Dominate the same
mental fort, the same
terrify, -1 ld, treats all units as having fear, and must take moral check end of phase, no longer removes fearless
Shourding, new power, gives pskyer and all units within 6 shrouded
Invis, all units targetting the unit with it cast on can only snap shot at it
Hallicunation, the same?
Something chew just asked, it is indeed correct IC's cannot join units that contain MCs or vehicles....
Ok then d weapons.
1 nothing happens
2 -5, vehicles suffer penerating hit which causes d3 HP's
Models suffer auto wound and d3 wounds
6 vehicles, pen hit, d6+6 HP's
Models, auto wound d6+6 wounds, no saves of any kind
To deny the witch, you need to nullify all fo the warp charge points that were successfully harnessed by the pysker when he passed his test
So if I cast a power and roll 5 4+ you need to deny 5 times.
To make a deny the witch, select one of your units that was the target of the enemys psyhic power. You will then need to expand a number of warp charges, declare how many you will spend and remove them from your pool and roll them, apply any of the following
Additions are:
The target unit contains pysker (inc piliot brotherhood etc)
ML greater then the pysker manifesting the power
Adamanitum will
To deny the witch on a blessing, or something which doesnt target one of your units, it is a stright 6 needed, no modifers
RE: Changes to Jump Infantry: No its one or the other (move or assault), no jink
no unit can attempt to manifest the same power more then once per phase. So no having say screamer council or seer council spam the same power to draw your DTW dice out.
Nothing capping re rollable saves.
Checked again and the powers you have access to are in the dex's, no mention in the book of who has access to what bar the malefic and santic tables,
Vector strikes and smash as per the rumours, one vector only on ground targets, ap2 no cover at str. Smash is always ap2 but if you smash dbl str and re roll armour pen
Ally rules are pretty much the same,come the apoc cannot deploy with 12 but then treated as DA's after.one eye open rule still in there
[RE: # of dice you can use to manifest a psychic power]: No limit on how many dice.
Do glances still cause automatic HP loss?
Yes.
You now deduct all HP's lost then roll on the damage table, this sounds like you can glance a vehicle to death before you roll on the table.
Soul blaze is awesome in 6th, killing off those last few kroot or pinging more wounds on guard is worth it., it is still the same for 7th
Only scout cannot charge game turn 1, inflitrate cannot charge their first turn, couldnt see any other restrictions.
Any ability to charge out of a stationary transport vehicle?
Only if it is assault vehicle
[RE: Vector Strikes]I answered that, only one vector strike on ground targets, otherwise d3
Yes you can peril and die and power still works (unless it targets psyker) you can peril and fail to cast the power.
Ok, so the banshees in raider, if its a DT you cannot deploy in there, the restriction that only units that bought the DT can deploy in there is still there. But yes BB's can embark on allied transports.
Hollismason. No if you peril you resolve the perils stright away, the sequence is this.
Select psyker and power
Delcare target
Take pyshic test (this is where you can peril)
Deny the witch
Resolve power.
So if you peril and die you wont get the chance to resolve the power.
Here is the quote from page 24 for the pyshic powers
No unit can attempt to manifest the same psyhic power more then once per phase
&
Under pysker and psychic power (in the sequence table)
..... select a psyhic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this psychic phase.
Also, conjured units are scoring unless otherwise noted.
Skilled rider and hit and run are the same. (skilled rider still adds +1 to jink save only).
Ok, think this will cover the conjured units and allies: The allies matrix shows the levels of alliance between units that have different factions in the same army.
No cannot assault from outflank and can only assault if its a assault vehicle (already answered).
Reading it again, it does look like you can reserve as much as you like. There is now a distincation between rolling for reserves and moving them on. You roll for reserves start of turn then you must move your reserves on first.
Did any of the special rules change?
Too many to go through dude. Yes some have changed (the rumoured ones vector jink etc).
DT can infilitrate I think i said, but only if the unit inside has infiltrate.
Yes jink is 4+.
It looks like he can start in reserve in a non DT
Fnp is 5+
detachments have been answered, can take as many as look as you meet the miniumum requirements (1 hq 2 troops)
Smash has been answered, 1 attack dbl str re roll to pen.
DT's in troop selection has been answered
Shrouded is +2 to cover save still
The mastery (getting sig for free) is for every psyker
Yes you can still default to primiars
Are you able to use a Consolidation move to move into base contact with an enemy?
No
A glance takes off a HP, does a Pen take off 2 HP?
1HP
NF [Night Fight] gives everyone stealth, no mention of ranges so thats a big change.
Barrage is the same except all wounds from mutliple barrage comes from the first shot only.
Wound allocation from shooting has changed as per the rumours
Jink, you have to declare before rolls to hit are made, you can still assault after but can only snap shot
IF using allies, they CANNOT have the same faction as those in your primary detachment, so no ally with yourself by the looks.
models in ruins are 4+ if you can see them fully or not, still 4+
area terrain is basically diffcult terrain still, but you have to be 25% obsurced to get a 5+ cover save
then you get to use the rules for it from battlefield terrain section, you get a 5+ for standing in it LOL but it does say composition, Citadel wood....
There is no area terrain so no bonus for going to ground in what was once area terrain
basically GTG is flat +1 always.
You will have to agree with your opponent if the base counts as the ruin or not.. If you are in a ruin say 2nd floor but not 25% cover you still get the ruin cover save.
Also not sure if its been mentioned above, but theres no fortifications in there, no bastion skyshield etc. It does say there are other publications etc which leads me to believe that is how they plan to keep stronghold assault from having no sales at all.
Setting up the game:
Mission
deployment
terrain (or Citadel terrain as the BRB calls it)
Netural Forts
Objectives
Sides
First deployment, forts are now deployed as any other model in your army
Sieze
From Warseer:
Spoiler:
Terrain has seen some tweaking. There is no Area Terrain, for instance. Each kind of purchasable terrain kit that GW sells has its own unique rules. Moonscape craters, for instance, provide only a 6+ cover, and are -not- difficult ground! In general, -moving- through difficult terrain is entirely unchanged. Assaulting through it takes 2 off your highest roll, but is otherwise the same. The generic Mysterious Terrain table is a thing of the past, but future Terrain kits may be released that have the Mysterious Terrain rule attached them... in such instances, they will have their own unique tables. The Crashed Aquila Lander kit, for instance, has a table unique to it.
Cover, by and large, is unchanged. Focus Fire, as a rule, is no more; and cover saves are granted on a model by model basis. Is it in cover (25% obscured?) from the shooters POV? If so, then yes, you get a cover save. If not, then no. The exceptions to this are clearly defined. Ruins, always grant cover if you are -inside- them, regardless if you're physically obscured or not. Same for Twisted Copses (citadel wood) and Craters.
+1 cover save for vehicles if you can see a part of the vehicle, (therefore allowing you to shoot it) but you can't see the facing of the vehicle that you lay in arc of is still in, just as it was before. The rumor that vehicles could not claim cover from Infantry was a falsehood; however Vehicles are the exception to the above "if you're -in it- you get cover" rule associated with Ruins, woods, and craters. They must still be 25% obscured to claim cover.
Vehicle Wreckage (0 hull points) is, you leave the vehicle in place. It is now Difficult Terrain. Unless otherwise noted, a model taking cover behind Difficult Terrain gets a 5+ cover save. Explodes results, on the other hand, to not instruct you to place a crater. You simply explode, and remove the model (after resolving the explosion effects)
Ruins, and the overall -absence- of "Area Terrain" do not provide you with a +2 cover for going to ground within them. They are difficult, they provide 4+ cover for those inside, regardless if they are 25% obscured. Nothing more. Now...the specific Ruins...Basilica Administratum, Sanctum Imperialis, Shrine of the Aquila....they are the exact same...but each have their own unique special rule. You and your opponent may choose to ignore these rules.
The datasheet rules in Stronghold Assault for each piece of terrain is used for those pieces. Defense Lines and Barricades, in general, provide a 4+ cover. Defense Lines (aegis and wall of martyrs) provide +2 to cover if you go to ground behind them/within them...so there is still plenty of 2+ cover. Walls, barricades, and defense lines you are behind (in contact of) count you as being in contact with an enemy who charges them. (i.e. that enemy need not charge all the way to your models, just the barricade they are hiding behind)
I can find no reference to a limit on how many units may be held in Reserves.
Nightfighting has been simplified to be an option that either player can invoke in a mission where that rule is used. If neither does so, there is no Night Fighting. If one does, it is rolled for only on game turn 1. On a 4+ -everything- has Stealth. Simple...no?
Each piece of purchasable Citadel Terrain has its own unique rules. Sanctum Imperialis, for instance, or Moonscape, or "Twisted Copse" as they call the Woods. Shrine of the Aquila...all have unique rules.
Also, there are no longer any guidelines on restrictions or maximums for amount of terrain on a battlefield, or how to deploy it. It is left up to player preference and agreement. (which I vastly prefer)
Factions is a term that refers to what most players are accustomed to calling "Race" or sometimes more vaguely, "Army"; but is perhaps better interpreted as "Codex". Imperials is -not- a Faction. Adepta Sororitas, Astra Militarum, Imperial Knights, and each type of loyal Space Marine are all individual Factions; for instance.
The only time this is of particular import is when you are building a Battleforged Army; as your "Combined Arms Detachment" (what we recognize as the standard FOC) must consist of units only from a single Faction (codex)... or, alternatively, -no- Faction. (an option that I suspect will become available somewhere down the line) Savvy?
Furthermore, your "Allied Detachment" (which is identical to what we know already) must include units only from a single Faction, and that this Faction must be a different one from your "Primary Detachment".
All in all, it looks as though Combined Arms Detachment, and Allied Detachment are the -only- detachments so far...but that there will be others...and they will have their own, unique, FOCs. They will also have their own requirements and Command Benefits. Some Detachments, for instance, may have the requirement of needing to consist of units taken solely from the Orks Faction...
Formations, consequently, are also Detachments, but of a very special kind. Formations, consequently, are the -only- kind of Detachment that an Unbound army may take.
Lastly, with regards to Factions, is that each Codex Supplement is specifically the -same- Faction as the Codex that it is a Supplement for. Codex: Clan Raukan -is- the same Faction as the Space Marines Faction. Codex: Iyanden is the same Faction as the Eldar Faction. So yeah, you can't have an Allied Detachment of Crimson Slaughter to your Primary Detachment of Chaos Space Marines...but you really don't need to...you can take a Crimson Slaughter Combined Arms Detachment instead.
[USRs]Some have been altered for simplicity. Split Fire and Counter Attack, for instance, no longer require the Ld test they did before. Most are identical, but some have been tweaked. Rampage, for instance, no longer grants any benefit in the case of a Disordered Charge. The best change is that most of the rules are very clearly written, with regards to how they interact with one another, obscure rules, and special situations. Most of the USRs are entirely self-contained, and do not require that you reference other sections of the book to decipher them. Precisions Shots is now a USR, rather than an addendum attached to the Character section. Vector Strike is 1 hit, or d3 against things high in the air. All in all, nothing ground breakingly different.
Soulblaze is unchanged.
Deepstriking vehicles count as moving Combat Speed, rather than Cruising.
Walkers have Hammer of Wrath, and neither they, nor Monstrous Creatures, nor anyone else have a forbiddance on climbing up levels of ruins...at least not that I have found.
Turn is start of your turn, movement, psychic, shooting, assault, end of turn.
Turn still refers to player turn.
True Line of Sight still exists.
Unit coherency is 2" as per normal; 6" vertically.
has MC and multitrackers change for the purpose of shooting at shooting phase or overwatch
The wording is the same "in shooting phase"
Psykers can know more than their mastery level of powers ONLY if stated otherwise. Otherwise number is as per mastery level.
What are the basic rules for casting psychic powers? (Is it 4+ per die and need "successes" equal to the spell's WC, as rumored?) Is there any limit on power dice or dispel dice per turn?
4+ per die; need X successes where X is WC level
D6+masterys for power; D6 for dispel (each D6 is =)
How do Snap Shots function?
BS1
Can units consolidate into new combats? If so, how exactly does it work?
No
Psychic focus – generate all powers from one discipline (even one power); gain primars. If you gain another power from another discipline, lose psychic focus. Powers not part of a discipline do not count against this.
Chaos psychic focus – mark of chaos or being a daemon of a particular chaos god = auto primaris of that god in addition to others.
Powers generated beofre game and done openly. YOu choose the order generated.
Same as before – choose a discipline, roll a D6.
Generating warp charges – player turn rolls a D6; each player gains D6 warp charges. Player turn adds all mastery levels of psychic units (this includes!!!!!!! psychic pilot and brotherhood of psykers).
Attempt to manifest psychic powers until warp charge pool is 0. Cannot ATTEMPT to manifest same power twice.
Delcare a target and make a psy test followed by a deny the witch.
two or more 6s = perils.
Cannot psy power target a unit in a transport.
Taking psy test – declare how many warp charges you are spending and then remove from pool. Roll a number of D6 equal to points expended and for each 4+, you get one Warp charge point. If total is greater than or equal to the cost for the power, the psy test is successful.
Deny the witch is essentially the same (6+, +1 for being a psyker, +1 for higher mastery level, 1+ Adamtin will) but must equal or exceed the number of successful warp charges.
You can nullify blessings and conjurations; same process but without bonuses.
Psy hoods allow the wearer if within 12" to attempt to nullify the power as normal. Can only be used inside a vehicle if against vehicle.
All armies can generate from Daemonolgy except Tyranids. [Zion's Note: And non-psyker armies obviously]
GK can generate Santic as normal but none from Malefic. Other psy on Santic = perils on any doubles.
Daemon rule psykers can manifest Malefic as any other but not from Santic. Other psy = perils on any doubles.
Perils – roll D6; randomly applied for units with brotherhood.
1) ld test; pass = 1 wound/ glance with no saves of any kind; failed – removed from play and unit suffers D6 S6 AP1 hits (wound allocation from psyker
2) 1 wound / glance no save; randomly select one power and power is lost
3) 1 wound / glance no save; if currently psy phase roll D3 – number of warp charges lost from both players pool
4) 1 wound / glance no save
5) Ld test; suffers 1 wound / glance if failed; if passed – no ill effects
6) ld test; fail = 1 wound / glance; pass = 3+ invul, fleshbane, armourbane, smash until next friendly psy phase
weapons are fired individually within unit
BS6+ still works as before
Snap shot BS can be modified but only if rule states can modify snap shot BS
WOund allocation is the same – closest to closest.
25% is still cover percentage needed [Zion's Translation: Models need to be at least 25% obscured to claim cover?]
no changes to weapon types that i can see
Cannot declare charges against unreachable units or units it cannot see.
Overwatch is the same.
2D6 still for charge distance.
-2" for charging through terrain
You CANNOT consolidate into combat. Same as before.
Morale appears the same.
Unit types the same
FMCs:
-Deployment same. CANNOT charge the turn you change flight modes.
-If suffered one or more unsaved wounds during a phase; must take grounding test. 3+ all good, 1-2 as normal.
-You can be grounded and then charge the next turn.
All garg creatures have stomp and unstoppable.
Vehicle movement is the same as is combat speed and cruising speed. Stationary = all weapons. Combat = one plus snap shots; Crusising = all snap
Ordnance firing from vehicle = all others snap shots.
Glancing counts as 1 wound and pen as 2 wounds for combat results
Emarking / disembarking is the same.
Transports bought for units count as their respective FoC
CHANGE – damage results of shaken/stunned/imob/weapon destroyed = Ld test for embarked passengers, if failed can only snap shot
Jink – declare before to hit rolls are made, all models gain a 4+ cover save but can only snap shot (during next shooting phase)
Cannot charge from stationary vehicles
Dozer blades +1 to AV WHEN RAMMING
Wounds from challenge carry over but the challenge remains ongoing until end of combat phase.
USRs:
[*] Acute senses – same
[*] AWill – same
[*] ATSKNF – no more extra 3" on regroug
[*] Assault vehicle – can assult from vehicle unless it arrived from reserve that turn
[*] Armourbane – roll additional D6 for armor pen
[*] Blasts – same with apoc crap thrown in
[*] Blind – failed I; WS/BS1 until end of their next turn
[*] Brotherhood – covered
[*] Bulky / Very / Extremely – 2/3/5 for transport capacity
[*] Barrage – same
[*] Deep Strike – same
[*] Concussive – I1 if hit by this until end of next assault phase
[*] Counter-attack – same
[*] Crusader – 2 dice for run, pick one; +D3 for sweeping advance
[*] Daemon – 5+ invul and fear
[*] D-weapon – 1 = nothing; 2-5 = pen hit with D3 HP; D3 wounds; 6 = pen hit D6+6 HP or wounds – no saves only from 6
[*] EW – immune to instant death
[*] Fear – Ld test; if failed WS1 for remainder of fight sub-phase
[*] Fearless – same
[*] FNP – 5+ same
[*] Fleet – same
[*] Fleshbane – Same
[*] Gets Hot – same
[*] Force – psy power as discussed
[*] Furious Charge – +1S; no if disorderd charge
[*] Graviation – same as SM book
[*] Hammer of Wrath – models strength
[*] Hatred – same
[*] Haywire – same
[*] H&R – same
[*] Ignores cover – Same
[*] Instant death – same
[*] Independent Characters – WAIT FOR IT - cannot join infiltrate units if it does not have it. thanks for answering half the question. dicks however this to me identifies that an IC can confer it to a unit since they restricted only ICs joining if they do not have it; cannot join MCs [*] Infiltrate – same (as is outflank)
[*] Interceptor – same but nothing to help shooting at ground targets
[*] IWND – same
[*] Jink – discussed already
[*] Lance – vehicle armour values count as max of 12
[*] Master-crafted – same
[*] Mighty Bulwark – same
[*] Melta – says against vehicle but otherwise same (im noting this as armourbane says armor values; not vehicle armour values)
[*] Missile Lock – reroll to hit rolls when one use only weapons; D6" scatter instead of 2D6" for one use only
[*] Monster Hunter – same
[*] Move trhough Cover – not slowed by charging through difficult terrain; Tyranids REJOICE; auto pass dangerous
[*] Night Vision – ignore Night Fight
[*] Pinning – one or more from a weapon once firing unit has finished (one per unit)
[*] Poisoned – same
[*] PotMS – cannot be used if flat out or smoke lauchers used
[*] Precision Shot – same
[*] Preferred Enemy – same
[*] Psy Pilot – discussed
[*] Psyker – discussed
[*] Rage – +2 on charge
[*] Rampage – +D3 in fight subphase if outnumbered in combat; cannot gain if disorderd charge
[*] Relentless – same
[*] Rending – same
[*] Repel the enemy – charge on turn disembarked from building
[*] Sentry Defense System – can auot fire with weapons even if unoocupied
[*] Shred – re-roll failed to wounds
[*] SHrouded – +2 cover
[*] Skilled Rider – +1 cover to Jink, ignore dangerous
[*] SKyfire – normal BS against air; snap against ground
[*] S&P – same
[*] Smash – all attacks AP2 and can choose to replace with 1 Smash attack at double strength and can re-roll armor pen
[*] Sniper – same
[*] Scout – same looks like
[*] Soul Blaze – same
[*] Specialist Weapon – same
[*] Split Fire – no ld check required
[*] Stealth – +1 cover
[*] Strafing run – same
[*] Strikedown – same
[*] Stubborn – Same
[*] Superosnic – same
[*] Swarms – same
[*] Tank Hunters – against vehicles
[*] Templates – looks same
[*] Torrent – same
[*] Twinlined- same
[*] Twohanded – no +1A
[*] Unwiedly – I1 unless MC/Walker
[*] Vector Dance – second pivot
[*] Vector Strike – 1 hit unless FMC or Flyer. AP2 at strength and random allocation. Ignores cover. counts as shooting a weapon but not against a target (i.e. can shoot another waepon at a different target)
[*] Vortex – looks same
[*] Zealout – looks same.
Any change to 2+ rerolls.
No.
In the psychic section do conjured units have a rule saying they don’t score?
No.
Do MC still get cover for a foot in terrain?
No – area terrain no longer exists.
Is fearless the same in close combat or did it revert to 5th?
Same as 6th
Could you enlighten us on desperate allies and scoring. Are DA scoring ? Are tropps from DA super-scoring ?
No restrictions on scoring for any allies. yes they get objective secured.
Allies:
Battle Bros – benefit from warlord trait; ICs can join; "friendly units" for psy powers, abilities, etc.; can use special abilities to repair vehicles; can use modifiers and re-rolls on reserve rolls; can embark on each other's transports
Allies of Con – treated as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, attacked or targeted; cannot move within 1" of each other; no warlord, no IC joining, and basically none of the above stuff but are impacted by that effect enemy models.
Desperate – same as AOC plus if within 6" roll a D6, on a 1 they do nothing
Come the Apoc – same as Desperate but cannot deploy within 12" of each other.
No restrictions on scoring for any allies. yes they get objective secured.
Warlord Traits:
Warlord traits –
Tactical; 1) while alive, can discard up to 2 active tactical objectives (TO) instead of 1
2) one use only, end of your turn, opponent randomly selects TO and discards
3) generate one additional TO first turn
4) redraw all TO on first turn if you want
5) while alive, re-roll VP awarded for TO 6) +1 VP for objective secured TO by Warlord
Command –
1) 12" use of warlord Ld 2) 12" use of lowest Ld for enemies
3) 12" move through cover
4) +1" for run and charge within 12"
5) 12" bubble of shooting re-roll 1s to hit (suck it tau – this is permanent)
6) same as above but for assault
Personal –
1) Counter attack
2) Furious charge
3) outflank
4) 1VP for characters slain in combat
5) FNP 6) Fearless and IWND
Strategic –
1) stealth ruins + move through cover
2) choose for night attack and all models in your army have night vision
3) warlord + 3 units (non-vehicle) have infiltrate
4) +1 to seize and re-roll reserves if warlord alive
5) -1 to opponents reserves
6) first enemy turn, 3 enemy units take a pinning check
Under psychic powers conjuration is there anything that says conjured units can’t score?
No.
Under psychic powers does it say a unit can only attemp a psychic power once per phase? ie multiple IC can’t atttempt to cast the same power if they are in a unit.
Yes-UNIT
Under vehicles is there anything saying vehicles can’t score?
No.
Objectives deployed before table halves decided.
Who deploys first chooses who goes first or second after deployment.
How about close combat weapons? Power axes, mauls etc…
Same
Can you still move and fire rapid fire at full range?
Yes
Have sweeping advances changed?
No
Does fearless have the old no retreat rule again?
No
Has ATSKNF changed much?
No
Maelstrom of war missions are missions based upon Tactical Objectives.
Also can the "defending" player use his mastery levels to generate "dispel dice"?
No
Normal missions do NOT uses Tactical objectives.
When do you get your cards for Maelstorm missions? Before or after table sides/Deployment?
Beginning of turns.
Roll a D66 – consult table; can never roll the same one twice.
what does glancing hit actually do now?
Take a HP
Was the declaring jink for flyers or all skimmer and bikes. If so then serpent and bikes have lost some shine
Anything with the Jink rule – so skimers, bikse, flyers.
Can fliers still choose to shoot ground targets at regular BS?
Yes – choose skyfire or not.
What about Mixed Wounds and Fast Dice, does it still allow you to roll saves one at a time because there is different saves and/or a character?
Same as before.
What is the strength of the explosion of an open-topped vehicles for the passenger? (Was 3 in 5th ed gone to 4 in 6th ed)
4
Craters = 6+ no matter what; 4+ if GtG in craters.
Do weapons that have the Get Hot USR still cause a loss of HPs on vehicles on a 4+?
Loses HP on a 1,2,3
STOP – Misread something; EACH player adds their Mastery Levels each psy phase; so you get D6+ML for dispel as well. Apologies this was wrong before when I said you only got D6.
Any changes to walkers?
None that i saw
Is moving through difficult terrain in the movement phase 2d6 pick highest (as before) or -2" (as with charging)?
2d6
Does an Open-Topped Vehicle still add +1 to the Vehicle Penetration table? (Hadn't seen it on the VP table part. Asking just in case).
Yes.
"In some Army List Entries, a Psyker will have one or more specific psychic powers listed – where this is the case, it will be clearly stated. These Psykers always start the game with those psychic powers. Otherwise, a Pysker generates random psychic powers from amongst the psychic disciplines known to him."
Brotherhood and Pilot can manifest unless they have a specific power.
How D weapons work now?
6 only ignores invul/cover
From Seandrake on Dakka:
Spoiler:
Psykers embarked on a transport cannot manifest any other kind of power than witchfire
So the burning chariot is fixed. Riders always count as stationary when firing weapons.
Riders CANNOT disembark from the chariot.
IF either rider or chariot is killed both are removed from play.
When shooting at chariots keep the number of successful hits that have been caused, keep the dice in different wound pools based on str and ap basically.
The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool to the rider OR the chariot of the cloest model in the unit, if more then one pool the attacking player decides what pool to resolve first,
Chariots can be locked in combat, Chariots fight like infantry models, and can sweeping advance, pile in console etc (unless stunned)
In CC against a chariot decide if attacking chariot or rider, model by model basis, always by the riders WS though. You use the chariots FA though
Hammer of wrath from chariot is d6str 6 ap- can re roll charge distance as well!, rider has fearless and relentless and can fire overwatch but not with a weapon on the chariot.
Difficult terrain gives 5+ [MarkyMark Adds: "Only if 25% cover by it."]
From GoonBandito:
Spoiler:
1) There is a "Locked in Combat" section in the Assault Phase section. It clearly says "If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat". It then goes on to say that you cannot fire overwatch if charged if you are locked in combat.
2) The section for Independent Chars quite clearly says that special rules are not conferred from the Independent Char to the Unit or vice versa unless specified in the rule itself (it gives the example of the stubborn rule). It also specifically says that Independant Chars without the Infiltrate rule cannot join a unit that does have Infiltrate. However the Infiltrate rule itself says "Units that contain at least one model with this rule...". Short answer - Independent Char with Infiltrate can join a non-Infiltrate unit and make the Unit (and any Ded. Transports) deploy as Infiltrators.
3) All Super Heavy Vehicles have the Move Through Cover special rule (3D6, pick highest). Super Walkers can walk 12" in the movement phase, but otherwise follow all the movement rules for Normal Walkers. Super Heavy Walkers also cannot Overwatch
Conjured units arrive via Deep Strike within the power's range. This means they are subject to scatter, mishaps and no charging the turn they arrive as per the normal Deep Strike rules.
Conjured Psykers generate their powers as soon as they are conjured (also applies to any other random powers/abilities). Conjured Psykers cannot cast conjuration powers on the turn they are conjured.
Conjured Units are scoring, unless otherwise noted.
If the conjured unit is from Codex: Chaos Demons, and that unit has the option of Character, Icon of Chaos or Instrument of Chaos upgrades, it may take any of those upgrades for free, providing you have the model.
Deep Strike table is the same. If they mishap into ongoing reserves, they deep strike anywhere on the board when they arrive.
Dangerous Terrain is the same as before (armour or invulns)
Assault Grenades are the same. Defensive Grenades are different: you can throw a Defensive Grenade as a 8", S1, AP-, Assault1, Blast, Blind. Defensive Grenades also don't give Stealth for being within 8" of a shooting attack anymore. Melta Bombs are also listed as being able to be used against Buildings and Gun Emplacements, as well as Vehicles and MC.
Also not sure if its been mentioned above, but theres no fortifications in there, no bastion skyshield etc. It does say there are other publications etc which leads me to believe that is how they plan to keep stronghold assault from having no sales at all.
So in other words, if you want to use a fortifcation you need SHA.....
MarkyMark wrote: Also not sure if its been mentioned above, but theres no fortifications in there, no bastion skyshield etc. It does say there are other publications etc which leads me to believe that is how they plan to keep stronghold assault from having no sales at all.
So in other words, if you want to use a fortifcation you need SHA.....
Odd. Kirby claimed there was terrain stuff in there, but skipped over it. I'm not saying that -you're- wrong, just that someone is wrong.
portugus wrote: I don't think it matters, it would be like being worried because Bob can bring his chainsaw to work. Will he? No, very few people bring chainsaws to work. And the ones that do you should be able to spot by the plaid or blood they are wearing.
I guess you don't work outdoors or in a physical profession. I also guess you don't play in an area where the meta has been completely taken over by hard core tournament types.
If one of my coworkers brought his chainsaw to work or even a rifle, no one would care. Neither thing would be the most dangerous tool available.
The same with these cracked out builds.
Edit: Actually people would care if the chainsaw or rifle made an appearance, everyone would want to check them out, give them a heft, check the action, etc. but no one would be concerned.
Right the military isn't a physical profession I forgot, you only get kicked out if you fail a physical test. Yes you are right that I don't play in an area taken over by hard core tournament types, you say that like it's a bad thing. It's funny you agree with me in the most insulting way. Let me rephrase more simply without my bad analogy for you. I said it doesn't matter because very few people are going to bring that kind of list and if you're not new to the gaming club you would know who is bringing it so you can either play or avoid playing them. Now being the smart guy that you are you should know I am not everywhere at once playing games so you should know that you would have to take into account your gaming area and my gaming area possibly being different.
"Neither thing would be the most dangerous tool available. " is it a rifle that shoots chainsaws?
portugus wrote: I don't think it matters, it would be like being worried because Bob can bring his chainsaw to work. Will he? No, very few people bring chainsaws to work. And the ones that do you should be able to spot by the plaid or blood they are wearing.
It's against the rules to bring a chainsaw where I work.
And bad analogies are bad.
Games are about rules. Good rules make for a good game. Let's move past these basic facts 'o life. Please, someone dispense some more goodness.
My post says he can, so in this analogy it works. Re-read my post. I'm saying if suddenly people can bring chainsaws to work will a bunch of people start doing it? I'm saying no they won't.
MarkyMark wrote: Also not sure if its been mentioned above, but theres no fortifications in there, no bastion skyshield etc. It does say there are other publications etc which leads me to believe that is how they plan to keep stronghold assault from having no sales at all.
So in other words, if you want to use a fortifcation you need SHA.....
Odd. Kirby claimed there was terrain stuff in there, but skipped over it. I'm not saying that -you're- wrong, just that someone is wrong.
Added.
There is terrain stuff in there, the crashed aquilla lander, Citadel trees etc, but no fortifications.
My post says he can, so in this analogy it works. Re-read my post. I'm saying if suddenly people can bring chainsaws to work will a bunch of people start doing it? I'm saying no they won't.
Still a terri-bad analogy. I guess my confusion emphasizes that.
MarkyMark wrote: Also not sure if its been mentioned above, but theres no fortifications in there, no bastion skyshield etc. It does say there are other publications etc which leads me to believe that is how they plan to keep stronghold assault from having no sales at all.
So in other words, if you want to use a fortifcation you need SHA.....
Odd. Kirby claimed there was terrain stuff in there, but skipped over it. I'm not saying that -you're- wrong, just that someone is wrong.
Added.
There is terrain stuff in there, the crashed aquilla lander, Citadel trees etc, but no fortifications.
Marky, would you have time to address my questions?
Spoiler:
I'm curious about something in specific, did they address the issue of the poor wording about when you were locked in combat versus firing overwatch? The old rules left an interpretation that you could be assaulted successfully, but still overwatch a separate unit in the same phase.
Sounds like Infilcheating will still be a thing, or is that 100% A-Okay in the rules now? Infilcheating being attaching an IC with the infiltrate special rule to a unit that doesn't have it and infiltrating.
Did they happen to clarify what super heavy walkers do when they move through terrain? Do they really just roll 2d6 and take the highest?
My post says he can, so in this analogy it works. Re-read my post. I'm saying if suddenly people can bring chainsaws to work will a bunch of people start doing it? I'm saying no they won't.
Still a terri-bad analogy. I guess my confusion emphasizes that.
I sometimes forget the time difference between Hawaii and the rest of the world. I gotta remember how late it is for you mainlanders right now :p
I am curious about your questions too though, I hope they fix the wording.
Marky, would you have time to address my questions?
Spoiler:
I'm curious about something in specific, did they address the issue of the poor wording about when you were locked in combat versus firing overwatch? The old rules left an interpretation that you could be assaulted successfully, but still overwatch a separate unit in the same phase.
Sounds like Infilcheating will still be a thing, or is that 100% A-Okay in the rules now? Infilcheating being attaching an IC with the infiltrate special rule to a unit that doesn't have it and infiltrating.
Did they happen to clarify what super heavy walkers do when they move through terrain? Do they really just roll 2d6 and take the highest?
Not Marky, or step on his toes or anything but I have also picked up the book
1) There is a "Locked in Combat" section in the Assault Phase section. It clearly says "If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat". It then goes on to say that you cannot fire overwatch if charged if you are locked in combat.
2) The section for Independent Chars quite clearly says that special rules are not conferred from the Independent Char to the Unit or vice versa unless specified in the rule itself (it gives the example of the stubborn rule). It also specifically says that Independant Chars without the Infiltrate rule cannot join a unit that does have Infiltrate. However the Infiltrate rule itself says "Units that contain at least one model with this rule...". Short answer - Independent Char with Infiltrate can join a non-Infiltrate unit and make the Unit (and any Ded. Transports) deploy as Infiltrators.
3) All Super Heavy Vehicles have the Move Through Cover special rule (3D6, pick highest). Super Walkers can walk 12" in the movement phase, but otherwise follow all the movement rules for Normal Walkers. Super Heavy Walkers also cannot Overwatch
Independent Char with Infiltrate can join a non-Infiltrate unit and make the Unit (and any Ded. Transports) deploy as Infiltrators.
So Illic can infiltrate wraithblades/guard while disregarding distance requirements legally now? HELL YEAH!
^nobody read that. it's top secret.^
Actually, nothing has changed from 6th edition. The wording for Independent Characters and Special Rules and for the Infiltrate Special Rule itself are identical in each version. The only addition to 7th is an extra caveat that non-Infiltrate Independent Characters cannot join Units that do have Infiltrate.
Regardless - Illic only gets Infiltrate as part of his Walker of the Hidden Path special rule. Independent Characters do not confer special rules onto the unit they join. The part that lets him deploy anywhere, regardless of range restrictions, is part of the Walker of the Hidden Path rule. Which does not get conferred to the unit he's joined. Infiltrators cannot be set up closer than 12" to an enemy. Ergo, the only model in the unit that can deploy without range restrictions is Illic.
Marky, would you have time to address my questions?
Spoiler:
I'm curious about something in specific, did they address the issue of the poor wording about when you were locked in combat versus firing overwatch? The old rules left an interpretation that you could be assaulted successfully, but still overwatch a separate unit in the same phase.
Sounds like Infilcheating will still be a thing, or is that 100% A-Okay in the rules now? Infilcheating being attaching an IC with the infiltrate special rule to a unit that doesn't have it and infiltrating.
Did they happen to clarify what super heavy walkers do when they move through terrain? Do they really just roll 2d6 and take the highest?
Not Marky, or step on his toes or anything but I have also picked up the book
1) There is a "Locked in Combat" section in the Assault Phase section. It clearly says "If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat". It then goes on to say that you cannot fire overwatch if charged if you are locked in combat.
2) The section for Independent Chars quite clearly says that special rules are not conferred from the Independent Char to the Unit or vice versa unless specified in the rule itself (it gives the example of the stubborn rule). It also specifically says that Independant Chars without the Infiltrate rule cannot join a unit that does have Infiltrate. However the Infiltrate rule itself says "Units that contain at least one model with this rule...". Short answer - Independent Char with Infiltrate can join a non-Infiltrate unit and make the Unit (and any Ded. Transports) deploy as Infiltrators.
3) All Super Heavy Vehicles have the Move Through Cover special rule (3D6, pick highest). Super Walkers can walk 12" in the movement phase, but otherwise follow all the movement rules for Normal Walkers. Super Heavy Walkers also cannot Overwatch
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this regarding summoning (the devil is in the detail as always):
Conjured units arrive via Deep Strike within the power's range. This means they are subject to scatter, mishaps and no charging the turn they arrive as per the normal Deep Strike rules.
Conjured Psykers generate their powers as soon as they are conjured (also applies to any other random powers/abilities). Conjured Psykers cannot cast conjuration powers on the turn they are conjured.
Conjured Units are scoring, unless otherwise noted.
If the conjured unit is from Codex: Chaos Demons, and that unit has the option of Character, Icon of Chaos or Instrument of Chaos upgrades, it may take any of those upgrades for free, providing you have the model.
GoonBandito wrote: Not sure if anyone has mentioned this regarding summoning (the devil is in the detail as always):
Conjured units arrive via Deep Strike within the power's range. This means they are subject to scatter, mishaps and no charging the turn they arrive as per the normal Deep Strike rules..
Do we know if the deepstrike table is the same? It may be a silly question but if they mishap and go into ongoing reserves do they deepstrike within the range of the psyker's new current position or position when the spell was cast?
So if you want to use any existing fortification, I have to pick up Stronghold assault?!? Well played GW, well played. So I guess that book is fully legit now? I guess it is, if anyone wants to use any fortification at all. Though WTF, are we supposed to use for void shields?
GoonBandito wrote: Not sure if anyone has mentioned this regarding summoning (the devil is in the detail as always):
Conjured units arrive via Deep Strike within the power's range. This means they are subject to scatter, mishaps and no charging the turn they arrive as per the normal Deep Strike rules.
Conjured Psykers generate their powers as soon as they are conjured (also applies to any other random powers/abilities). Conjured Psykers cannot cast conjuration powers on the turn they are conjured.
Conjured Units are scoring, unless otherwise noted.
If the conjured unit is from Codex: Chaos Demons, and that unit has the option of Character, Icon of Chaos or Instrument of Chaos upgrades, it may take any of those upgrades for free, providing you have the model.
It was never laid out that specifically before. Added.
GoonBandito wrote: Not sure if anyone has mentioned this regarding summoning (the devil is in the detail as always):
Conjured units arrive via Deep Strike within the power's range. This means they are subject to scatter, mishaps and no charging the turn they arrive as per the normal Deep Strike rules..
Do we know if the deepstrike table is the same? It may be a silly question but if they mishap and go into ongoing reserves do they deepstrike within the range of the psyker's new current position or position when the spell was cast?
Deep Strike table is the same. If they mishap into ongoing reserves, they deep strike anywhere on the board when they arrive.
Dangerous Terrain is the same as before (armour or invulns)
When do the 7th ed Ebooks release for download? it says the 24th? but is that in like 9 hours the 24th? (west coast oz) or do i have to wait another 8 for it to be UK midnight? or open of business 24th in london? i cant remember as iv not pre-ordered an Ibook from them before
I menitioned most the those daemon rules earlier, mainly in response to questions and maybe not all on dakka but its good to have a clear post like that
I have started doing the psyhic powers, not so important as they are all over the net as well but here it is so far
Spoiler:
Biomancy
Primaris
Smite. WC1. 18" range rest the same
Iron Arm. WC1. Still targets the pysker, plus d3 str and tou plus No Eternal warrior from it.
Enfeeble. WC1. Reduces str AND toughness by 1. Treats all terrain as DT Life Leech. WC1. 18" range, can only gain ONE wound back and only if target is within 6 inches.
Warp Speed. WC1. Now is a flat +3 to int attacks and fleet.
Endurance. WC2. Gives Eternal warrior, Feel no pain 4+ and relentless
Haemorrhage. WC2. 18" range, target does 2 toughnes tests or suffer wound no armour/cover save if model is killed (not wounded) it jumps to another model in the unit, who does 1 toughness test.
So the star of that IMO is Endurance, 4+ FNP (standard is still 5+) AND EW for a unit, nids now must be gutted! (tyranid warriors I am looking at you!).
Divination
Prescience/ WC2. Same bar the warp charges
Foreboding. WC1. Same.
Forewarning. WC1. Same
Perfect timing. WC1. Same
Precongnition. WC1. Same
Misfortune. WC2. No longer makes your opponent re roll successful saves. It targets a single enemy unit, and all attacks against that unit gain Rending. Wow.
Scriers Gaze. WC2. Increased the casting value. Now it just lets you re roll the reserve roll, or outflank roll, or mysterious objective roll. Has a effect on tactical objectives as well. It is frankly a big nerf.
So yes prescience is still there, abliet with a higher casting value, misfortune was always one of my favorites but now rending, for everything shooting that unit, wow. As rends are auto wounds it means you can shoot any str weapon at it (bolter fire then WK down!). Or a unit with large amount of CC attacks now become rending. In theory I am not sure if its better or worse then Misfortune, I guess it depends on what your army can take advantage of it better.
Daemonolgy.
Santic
Banishment. WC1. Reduce the daemon invul save by 1 to min of 6+.
Gate of Infinity. WC1. Same really.
Hammerhand. WC1. +2 str for unit.
Sanctuary. WC1. +1 invul save for unit.
Purge Soul. WC1. Focused witchfire, roll d6 add your ld for you and target does the same, whatever you beat him by is auto wound with no armour/cover saves allowed.
Cleansing Flame. WC2. Nova, 9inch range, str5 ap4 assault 2d6 ignores cover.
Vortex of Doom. WC3. 12inch range, str D, ap1, blast, vortex.
So gate is now not in telekensis but in here, it is a Grey Knight set of powers really isnt it.
Malefic.
Summoning. WC3. Creates unit of 10 of your choice from daemon troops. Or 5 Seekers/fleshhounds 3 flamers or nurglings.
Cursed Earth. WC1. 12inch bubble, +1 to daemon invul save.
Dark Flame. WC1. Template, str4 ap5 torrent.
Infernal Gaze. WC1. Beam 18" range, str 3 ap4, armour and flesh bane.
Sacrifice. WC1. Creates a herald of your choice. Comes with 30pts of options from the codex Daemons.
Incursion. WC3. Creates unit of 3 bloodcrushers, 3 screamers, 3 plague drones or 3 fiends.
Possession. WC3. Creates a Greater Daemon, if cast the psyker gets removed from play. If you fail to cast the power you suffer perils of the warp as well.
Pyromancy
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also this was asked before but I didnt answer it
Mission
deployment
terrain (or Citadel terrain as the BRB calls it)
Forts
Objectives
Sides
First turn
Sieze
jspyd3rx wrote: So if you want to use any existing fortification, I have to pick up Stronghold assault?!? Well played GW, well played. So I guess that book is fully legit now? I guess it is, if anyone wants to use any fortification at all. Though WTF, are we supposed to use for void shields?
dracpanzer wrote: Is there anything in the rules that may have fixed the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch? They seemed to have misplaced the FAQ...
From MarkyMark earlier:
MarkyMark wrote:
So the burning chariot is fixed. Riders always count as stationary when firing weapons.
Riders CANNOT disembark from the chariot.
IF either rider or chariot is killed both are removed from play.
When shooting at chariots keep the number of successful hits that have been caused, keep the dice in different wound pools based on str and ap basically.
The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool to the rider OR the chariot of the cloest model in the unit, if more then one pool the attacking player decides what pool to resolve first,
Chariots can be locked in combat, Chariots fight like infantry models, and can sweeping advance, pile in console etc (unless stunned)
In CC against a chariot decide if attacking chariot or rider, model by model basis, always by the riders WS though. You use the chariots FA though
Hammer of wrath from chariot is d6str 6 ap- can re roll charge distance as well!, rider has fearless and relentless and can fire overwatch but not with a weapon on the chariot.
dracpanzer wrote: Is there anything in the rules that may have fixed the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch? They seemed to have misplaced the FAQ...
From MarkyMark earlier:
MarkyMark wrote:
So the burning chariot is fixed. Riders always count as stationary when firing weapons.
Riders CANNOT disembark from the chariot.
IF either rider or chariot is killed both are removed from play.
When shooting at chariots keep the number of successful hits that have been caused, keep the dice in different wound pools based on str and ap basically.
The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool to the rider OR the chariot of the cloest model in the unit, if more then one pool the attacking player decides what pool to resolve first,
Chariots can be locked in combat, Chariots fight like infantry models, and can sweeping advance, pile in console etc (unless stunned)
In CC against a chariot decide if attacking chariot or rider, model by model basis, always by the riders WS though. You use the chariots FA though
Hammer of wrath from chariot is d6str 6 ap- can re roll charge distance as well!, rider has fearless and relentless and can fire overwatch but not with a weapon on the chariot.
Aren't Necron CCB classed as Chariots?
If so... MEGA NERF, but at the same time... AV 13 in CC for the rider.
Mission
deployment
terrain (or Citadel terrain as the BRB calls it)
Forts
Objectives
Sides
First turn
Sieze
I don't know if this is any different to the way the game currently is/is supposed to be... but it this saying that in 7th, if I take a 650pt Aquilla Strongpoint, I must place it on the table before I know what table side I get???
Grounding checks only happening once per phase, and D weapons only ignoring invulnerable saves etc. on a 6, the Tzeentch Daemon Prince Aetaos'rau'keres seems like a pretty tough world beater. How do you kill him? With little help he's a 2++ re-rollable invulnerable save Flying Gargantuan. He's a scoring unit, and a super psyker that can generate spells from the new rulebook. He can't be killed now, and he will kill everything.
The good thing is of course adding him to an Unbound list, so you don't worry about puny units like troop choices, and just go all the way hardcore stuff. He cashes in at rough 1K pts only, so you have plenty left for support. Don't limit yourself to 1 codex either.
Right, the normal objective missions (big guns, scoruging, crusade)
terrain
Forts
Objectives
deployment type
sides
First turn
I do read it as forts are done before table sides. In the deploy armies it talks about upgrades for forts, they are placed same time as your army is (comms relay etc).
dracpanzer wrote: Is there anything in the rules that may have fixed the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch? They seemed to have misplaced the FAQ...
From MarkyMark earlier:
MarkyMark wrote:
So the burning chariot is fixed. Riders always count as stationary when firing weapons.
Riders CANNOT disembark from the chariot.
IF either rider or chariot is killed both are removed from play.
When shooting at chariots keep the number of successful hits that have been caused, keep the dice in different wound pools based on str and ap basically.
The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool to the rider OR the chariot of the cloest model in the unit, if more then one pool the attacking player decides what pool to resolve first,
Chariots can be locked in combat, Chariots fight like infantry models, and can sweeping advance, pile in console etc (unless stunned)
In CC against a chariot decide if attacking chariot or rider, model by model basis, always by the riders WS though. You use the chariots FA though
Hammer of wrath from chariot is d6str 6 ap- can re roll charge distance as well!, rider has fearless and relentless and can fire overwatch but not with a weapon on the chariot.
Aren't Necron CCB classed as Chariots?
If so... MEGA NERF, but at the same time... AV 13 in CC for the rider.
Why a nerf? You can now redirect lascannon hits (or similar) to your Overlord with a 3++. And the CCB now has a 4++ by default. It still isn't viable - not at all, with stuff like Sentry Pylons around that are SO MUCH BETTER. You can, however, indirectly "disembark" via Everliving. But then again, 180 points at the very least for a CCB? Nah. Sentry Pyloooooons!
dracpanzer wrote: Is there anything in the rules that may have fixed the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch? They seemed to have misplaced the FAQ...
From MarkyMark earlier:
MarkyMark wrote:
So the burning chariot is fixed. Riders always count as stationary when firing weapons.
Riders CANNOT disembark from the chariot.
IF either rider or chariot is killed both are removed from play.
When shooting at chariots keep the number of successful hits that have been caused, keep the dice in different wound pools based on str and ap basically.
The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool to the rider OR the chariot of the cloest model in the unit, if more then one pool the attacking player decides what pool to resolve first,
Chariots can be locked in combat, Chariots fight like infantry models, and can sweeping advance, pile in console etc (unless stunned)
In CC against a chariot decide if attacking chariot or rider, model by model basis, always by the riders WS though. You use the chariots FA though
Hammer of wrath from chariot is d6str 6 ap- can re roll charge distance as well!, rider has fearless and relentless and can fire overwatch but not with a weapon on the chariot.
Aren't Necron CCB classed as Chariots?
If so... MEGA NERF, but at the same time... AV 13 in CC for the rider.
Why a nerf? You can now redirect lascannon hits (or similar) to your Overlord with a 3++. And the CCB now has a 4++ by default. It still isn't viable - not at all, with stuff like Sentry Pylons around that are SO MUCH BETTER. You can, however, indirectly "disembark" via Everliving. But then again, 180 points at the very least for a CCB? Nah. Sentry Pyloooooons!
You can't impact, shoot then disembark to assault. That was the staple of the CCB. At those points though, I can't see many running it now.
war walker will be back with bright lance (threat all as AV12, 6 shots at AP2 -> everything will be jinking -> BS1 next turn), scoring with 36" + battle focus, 5+ inv
There is a new Tzeentch player in my meta. He runs a Starscream list and it's just a PITA.
Has 7th made Mono Tzeentch Daemons any better?
If it has, the local meta is in trouble as he has won mini tourneys every week for the last 8-9 weeks.
Feel free to PM me and I will help you out in regards to beating screamers. But they have had a nerf and bonus in 7th, the nerf is they cannot shoot flickering fire more then once per psychic phase from the same unit, the plus's are, they can now turbo boost after the psychic phase, they can now pretty much control the psychic phases, they have more ways to get 2++.
There is a new Tzeentch player in my meta. He runs a Starscream list and it's just a PITA.
Has 7th made Mono Tzeentch Daemons any better?
If it has, the local meta is in trouble as he has won mini tourneys every week for the last 8-9 weeks.
Feel free to PM me and I will help you out in regards to beating screamers. But they have had a nerf and bonus in 7th, the nerf is they cannot shoot flickering fire more then once per psychic phase from the same unit, the plus's are, they can now turbo boost after the psychic phase, they can now pretty much control the psychic phases, they have more ways to get 2++.
Thanks for the offer dude. I'm just hovering ATM with deciding on what army to collect (tried Marines and GK and don't like the way they play).
Hang on... So the 2++ is going to be more prevalent, but the main psychic shooting is one per unit?
So no more shooting with the four Heralds?
If so, I think they just got incredibly busted.
Build up the Screamerstar as normal with two heralds, then go to town with a Herald in each Horror unit.
So the Horrors shoot, but not the Heralds. The Heralds add prescience and spawn more dudes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because if that's the case, that's going to be insanely annoying to play against.
I present you the new 7th edition Deathstar: Tigurius + anything. (I know he's already kinda in it with the Centurionstar). Why you ask? Because of the Telepathy power Invisibility. Tigurius can reroll psychic powers, so he has a very high chance getting it. WC2 powers are hard to cast, but he can reroll unsuccessful casts. Invisibility makes anything fire only snapshots at your unit. So no templates or blasts allowed. For one T4, 2+ wound you need 72 Bolter shots. Or 36 shots for a Space Marine.
Devil wrote: war walker will be back with bright lance (threat all as AV12, 6 shots at AP2 -> everything will be jinking -> BS1 next turn), scoring with 36" + battle focus, 5+ inv
And Warp Spiders just got sooo much better. Extremely fast (to score objectives) and can easely kill any vehicle (except Landraiders), Infantry or MCs.
EDIT: If you play Eldar against Screamerstar, just send in your Wraithknight to tie it up all game long. That's how i play it.
I'm not sure if the Heralds will be throwing out Prescience and Summoning guys. Wouldn't you need to focus on Divination exclusively to get Prescience or can you still trade in for it?
From what we've heard, you can't cast the same spell more than once per unit. Thus for Daemons, prescience isn't going to be thrown about all that much - it needs ~6 dice to cast and you don't have enough witchfires to benefit. It would almost always be worth casting a second witchfire or increased WC flames instead.
Mission
deployment
terrain (or Citadel terrain as the BRB calls it)
Forts
Objectives
Sides
First turn
Sieze
So they still did not get it at GW. Paying point's for forts and giving them to the enemy is bad game design. That gets housed everywhere. Again.
More of a case of the person giving the info is not reading it properly and/or not giving the information over properly, Like a lot of the rules I have noiticed floating about the internet. It does go in that order but is says under fortifications that if a fortification is taken as part of an Army list then it is deployed at the same time as the other units in that army. If the fortification is taken as Nuetral, then it is deployed at this step.
Spot on, I didnt fully read all the paragraphs just the headers!, you are indeed spot on.
Mission deployment terrain (or Citadel terrain as the BRB calls it) Netural Forts Objectives Sides First deployment, forts are now deployed as any other model in your army Sieze
MarkyMark wrote: Spot on, I didnt fully read all the paragraphs just the headers!, you are indeed spot on.
Mission
deployment
terrain (or Citadel terrain as the BRB calls it)
Netural Forts
Objectives
Sides
First deployment, forts are now deployed as any other model in your army
Sieze
Mission
deployment
terrain (or Citadel terrain as the BRB calls it)
Forts
Objectives
Sides
First turn
Sieze
So they still did not get it at GW. Paying point's for forts and giving them to the enemy is bad game design. That gets housed everywhere. Again.
More of a case of the person giving the info is not reading it properly and/or not giving the information over properly, Like a lot of the rules I have noiticed floating about the internet. It does go in that order but is says under fortifications that if a fortification is taken as part of an Army list then it is deployed at the same time as the other units in that army. If the fortification is taken as Nuetral, then it is deployed at this step.
Oh, wow. So they learned from their mistake after all?
Can anyone clarify regarding the loss of area terrain? Is this because it is rolled up into the citadel terrain rules e.g. Citadel woods grant 5+ area? Citadel ruins grant 4+?
Wait, if forests, woods, jungles and such aren't listed does this mean that the Tyranid Warlord Trait number 1 Natures bane is now useless... well, more so than it currently is.
stonehorse wrote: Wait, if forests, woods, jungles and such aren't listed does this mean that the Tyranid Warlord Trait number 1 Natures bane is now useless... well, more so than it currently is.
That listing is for "Battlefield Debris", which makes sense to be a different category from "Natural Formations" or whatever they call trees and the like.
Are the rumors about Focus Fire going away accurate? If so, do the new rules state anything about dealing with units that are only partially in cover? How would you resolve shots against a squad with 5 members in cover, and 5 members out of cover?
stonehorse wrote: Wait, if forests, woods, jungles and such aren't listed does this mean that the Tyranid Warlord Trait number 1 Natures bane is now useless... well, more so than it currently is.
That listing is for "Battlefield Debris", which makes sense to be a different category from "Natural Formations" or whatever they call trees and the like.
Phew, thanks for clearing that up. Was a bit worried for a moment there!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any changes to vehicle and unit movement at all? Are jetbikes still able to move 48"?
Any clarification on mixed units e.g. sniper drone units being able to jetpack move?
Thanks
OK finished reading the rules and while I am not totally impressed, I would say that under all the bloat and crap there is a good game struggling to get out.
There are some nice touches like flamers being used for building clearance buy firing through firing points, and torching the ocupents of open topped vehicles.
But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tetrisphreak wrote: So those with the book - how is the formatting? Was splitting the rules off a good thing in terms of portability etc?
The splitting is a double edged sword on the one hand it makes it slightly more practical to carry, but even just the rules is still a hefty hardback book which is bigger than any other systems book which includes fluff and army lists.
But it also shows you how much paper is wasted in the other 2 books printing the same stuff as they always recycle for the main rulebook and what is essentaly a hardback copy of visions.
But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.
Let's call Andy Chambers about that... oh wait. Well, only two years until the next edition!
But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.
Let's call Andy Chambers about that... oh wait. Well, only two years until the next edition!
One year! It will escalate into hyperinflation like Zimbabwe Dollar
SeanDrake wrote: OK finished reading the rules and while I am not totally impressed, I would say that under all the bloat and crap there is a good game struggling to get out.
...
But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.
Yeah, I agree, the rules look a lot more complex, to the point where they might need an overhaul. Just in reading the language in the screencaps, with the different kinds of force organizations... I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.
The overhaul might need to happen to the gaming system itself. Lords of War and Fortifications really change the game, and (since everything is so expensive) it's really not practical for people to keep up with one another's choices. If the models were cheaper, or the rules themselves were structured in a way that puts some constraints around certain choices, it would be different. But it looks like an honest TAAC army costs upwards of $3k these days, for most factions. And man, if someone starts bringing titans, then you are really screwed in the wallet.
While the new rules interest me, I am going to sit this one out and wait to see what happens with that new edition. I am content just with modelling for the moment. TBH, most of the close friends I regularly play with have decided they are done and gone so far as to sell their armies. We just had a poker night instead of heading to the FLGS, there was something satisfying in it's simplicity. Leaves a lot more time for talking to one another instead of dissecting the nuances of rules that are just getting more complex.
I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.
I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.
I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.
I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.
Yeah, and people would cry about rules writing if they just put 'Just build an army and run with it.'
I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.
I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.
I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.
I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.
Or the needs for rules apparently.
Other than, y'know...
No mixing and matching units outside your ally choices, the requirement to actually still use the "unit entries" as they exist, etc.
einlanzer wrote: Any change to grenades? Still 1 per unit when thrown, ect?
Assault Grenades are the same. Defensive Grenades are different: you can throw a Defensive Grenade as a 8", S1, AP-, Assault1, Blast, Blind. Defensive Grenades also don't give Stealth for being within 8" of a shooting attack anymore. Melta Bombs are also listed as being able to be used against Buildings and Gun Emplacements, as well as Vehicles and MC.
Okay, so the new Damage on Passengers is a Ld test on all shaken, stunned, weap destroyed, AND immobilized pens or snap shots... But what about Explosions? Just a pinning test? or is it pinning, and then a Ld for shaken?
The first half sounded alright (till I noticed all the other damage results added...) And no more crater to sit in? Hmmm...
For Shaken/Stunned/Immobilized/Weapon Destroyed the unit inside gets to make a LD test to avoid only taking snapshots. If a transport uses it's Jink Save does the unit inside snapshot also, and do they also get a LD test to avoid it?
So it was said that models in base contact for any reason are locked in combat. Does this possibly mean mawlocs can arrive locked in combat with their terror from the deep rule???
Edit - just saw the Mawloc rule precludes base contact. Never mind.
I'm glad they removed the crater thing from an exploding vehicle. Too many people not putting something down because they were lazy and then later trying to sneak something in an open spot for a cover save because a vehicle was there
I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.
So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.
I remember all the whining a year or two back about the force org chart and how it limited the game. Looks like the whiners got their way and it upset a load of people.
Nem wrote: Didn't people say the same sort of thing with escalation? Then the tournaments they were allowed in they didn't dominate like people thought?
I mean, in the way that tournaments typically forbid escalation, it didn't make much of an impact.
It was the opposite escalation caused a lot of problems and was in general not enjoyed. However I think the changes to D weapons will make it not as much of an issue.
Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?
Anybody have a rundown of all the tactical objectives?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: It was the opposite escalation caused a lot of problems and was in general not enjoyed. However I think the changes to D weapons will make it not as much of an issue.
Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?
D weapons (mostly) allowing saves is a great change.
SeanDrake wrote: OK finished reading the rules and while I am not totally impressed, I would say that under all the bloat and crap there is a good game struggling to get out.
...
But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.
Yeah, I agree, the rules look a lot more complex, to the point where they might need an overhaul. Just in reading the language in the screencaps, with the different kinds of force organizations... I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.
The overhaul might need to happen to the gaming system itself. Lords of War and Fortifications really change the game, and (since everything is so expensive) it's really not practical for people to keep up with one another's choices. If the models were cheaper, or the rules themselves were structured in a way that puts some constraints around certain choices, it would be different. But it looks like an honest TAAC army costs upwards of $3k these days, for most factions. And man, if someone starts bringing titans, then you are really screwed in the wallet.
While the new rules interest me, I am going to sit this one out and wait to see what happens with that new edition. I am content just with modelling for the moment. TBH, most of the close friends I regularly play with have decided they are done and gone so far as to sell their armies. We just had a poker night instead of heading to the FLGS, there was something satisfying in it's simplicity. Leaves a lot more time for talking to one another instead of dissecting the nuances of rules that are just getting more complex.
Well said. I would hazard a guess that a lot of gamers that have left the game (veterans especially) feel this way. I know I do.
I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.
So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.
I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.
Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.
One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.
I would hope at least smaller tournaments will keep it open for a while so we can see exactly how it effects the game rather than taking one look and 'hells no'. While it's easier to build spammy well kitted lists, it's also easier to build a hard counter to each.
This could be a contender for silliest question of the year, but do you have to take allies in 7th?
I've been involved in the hobby since the 1980s and my approach to 40k has always been simple i.e if I want to go guard, I'll go guard. If I want to go Eldar, I'll go Eldar, and so on. But now, it seems to be another horrible mish-mash of stuff. It's probably been pointed out before, but part of the game balance was that every army had its strengths and weaknesses. That was part of the fun for me. Working out how to tactically compensate for those weaknesses.
Nowadays, it seems if your army is lacking in anti-tank, or close combat etc, you can just pick something from somebody else's faction to cover that deficiency, thus defeating the whole purpose of separate factions. I've nothing against armies allying with each other for fun scenarios or whatever, but this seems a step to far.
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde army will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.
Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.
Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.
Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.
Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?
Battle Brothers can repair each other's vehicles, which is nice. I definitely need to get an Enginseer to accompany my Knight now.
You could name him Target heheh. First easy kill of the game.
So in my opinion it looks like 40k Radio got this right too. From what I am seeing the main changes seem to be Psy and Allies right.
Screw that I plan to bring my techmarine double servitor squad with my knights where one techmarine and one master of the forge in a landraider with a unit of servitors both jump out and repair stuff on a two+.
I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.
So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.
I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.
Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.
One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.
I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.
Why not? For "balance"?
Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.
Yes, knights are balanced. Screamer Star could be dealt with. O'Vesa totes won all kinds of tournaments...
If I bring horde orks or endless swarm tyranids vs an imperial knight list, I won't have the tools to take any of my opponents models down. Does this make knights broken and OP? I guess not, but I might feel that way mid game. It's just a bad matchup game, that can occur currently. Players spamming heldrakes can get tabled turn 1 and lose. Riptide spam could feasibly run across centurion grav-spam.
Just a couple examples from the top of my head. And btw locally I've seen O'Vesa star dominate - I was even guilty of using it once and I felt dirty.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This could be a contender for silliest question of the year, but do you have to take allies in 7th?
I've been involved in the hobby since the 1980s and my approach to 40k has always been simple i.e if I want to go guard, I'll go guard. If I want to go Eldar, I'll go Eldar, and so on. But now, it seems to be another horrible mish-mash of stuff. It's probably been pointed out before, but part of the game balance was that every army had its strengths and weaknesses. That was part of the fun for me. Working out how to tactically compensate for those weaknesses.
Nowadays, it seems if your army is lacking in anti-tank, or close combat etc, you can just pick something from somebody else's faction to cover that deficiency, thus defeating the whole purpose of separate factions. I've nothing against armies allying with each other for fun scenarios or whatever, but this seems a step to far.
Or I am barking up the wrong tree here?
Nope, you don't have to take allies. I'm the same as you, if I'm playing Guard then its Guard all the way.
I didn't even take allies in 2nd Ed when you were allowed.
For those who have the rulebook. Who precisely, generates warp charges?
Some people are wondering about the wording and how that interacts with GK's psychic pilot, brotherhood of psykers, or any model who has psychic powers but isn't specifically labeled a 'psyker' beyond that.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.
Why not? For "balance"?
Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.
You are either High on paint fumes, mentally handicapped or you are a mentally handicapped person high on paint fumes, but you are certainly one of those three if you can't understand why TOs and Tournaments want to create a enviroment that is at least marginally balanced so that their players have a good time. A unbalanced game doesn't encourage people to come to tournaments.
This suck it up and pull up your bootstraps argument is terrible and you are a terrible person. If I had a time machine and could travel back in time to kill Hitler or kill myself before I read that I'd kill Hitler, but I would think about it for a really long time before hand.
I think the problem that you run into is that those elite armies that were not heavily impacted by the new rules will continue to be elite and continue to dominate if TOs remove all of the FOC shenanigans because other armies don't have the basic FOC builds capable of standing up to them and will need Unbound or triple BF detachments just to stand a chance.
The new FOC/Unbound rules serve a dual purpose, but sadly, heavily botches one of them. The first (and likely primary) purpose is to allow us fluff-bunnies to field the type of armies we only read about (my first Unbound will be a true Inquisition Death Watch army, with elements from Codex: Inquisition, Grey Knights, Space Marines, and AM/IG!), and I think it succeeds in that purpose. But the second purpose (I think anyway) was to allow the less than elite armies a fighting chance in organized play. Of course, GW's overly optimistic outlook of the hobby tends to cloud over the harsh realities of TFG, who is going to abuse the absolute dog-pee out of the new FOC structure, which in turn is going to make those elite armies even more elite, which is going to lead to TOs making a decision to allow just a basic single FOC with Allied detatchment. Its a slipperly slope to be sure because I can't help but think future codecies will be written with the new FOC in mind (and would explain some of the more recent releases' perceived blandness).
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.
Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.
Several issues about tournaments. First of all, the organizers are usually fronting some serious cash, so they need to get people to attend. Look at Adepticon: "regular 40k" championship had 256 participants; the other one that allowed Escalation had.... 13. TOs will be conservative because they have money on the line.
As for balance, ever heard of the Nirvana fallacy? Just because you, as a TO, can't make 40k perfectly balanced it doesn't mean you shouldn't make it less ridiculous than it is. What TOs will probably need to do is to implement limits that stop the arms race getting out of hand, both for the sake of player who are interested in attending and having a good time without switching armies every five minutes, but also for the tournaments to be actually financially viable. I know, for my sake, I won't be going to any events that have no restrictions. No chance. And I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one. So, does that leave enough players to enable the event to take place? Maybe? Maybe not? Talk is easy, but I'm not the one with thousands of dollars on the line. Are you?
And as for the classic "you haven't even tried it yet!" argument - really? I haven't tried exposing my junk to a cop either. Still feeling fairly certain I'd be arrested if I did.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This could be a contender for silliest question of the year, but do you have to take allies in 7th?
I've been involved in the hobby since the 1980s and my approach to 40k has always been simple i.e if I want to go guard, I'll go guard. If I want to go Eldar, I'll go Eldar, and so on. But now, it seems to be another horrible mish-mash of stuff. It's probably been pointed out before, but part of the game balance was that every army had its strengths and weaknesses. That was part of the fun for me. Working out how to tactically compensate for those weaknesses.
Nowadays, it seems if your army is lacking in anti-tank, or close combat etc, you can just pick something from somebody else's faction to cover that deficiency, thus defeating the whole purpose of separate factions. I've nothing against armies allying with each other for fun scenarios or whatever, but this seems a step to far.
Or I am barking up the wrong tree here?
Nope, you don't have to take allies. I'm the same as you, if I'm playing Guard then its Guard all the way.
I didn't even take allies in 2nd Ed when you were allowed.
Cheers for that. It looks like you and I will be the only people in 40k picking a force from just the one codex!
Hollismason wrote: Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.
Why not? For "balance"?
Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.
Yes, knights are balanced. Screamer Star could be dealt with. O'Vesa totes won all kinds of tournaments...
If I bring horde orks or endless swarm tyranids vs an imperial knight list, I won't have the tools to take any of my opponents models down. Does this make knights broken and OP? I guess not, but I might feel that way mid game. It's just a bad matchup game, that can occur currently. Players spamming heldrakes can get tabled turn 1 and lose. Riptide spam could feasibly run across centurion grav-spam.
Just a couple examples from the top of my head. And btw locally I've seen O'Vesa star dominate - I was even guilty of using it once and I felt dirty.
Horde orks/Nids is a bad matchup for Knights... But opposite to the way you presented. Knights would have a hard time against Horde.
And sure - bad matchup a happen. How does that make those armies "unbalanced"?
I'd rather face O'Vesa star than quite a few other lists.
I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.
So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.
I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.
Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.
One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.
I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.
I completely disagree with this. First, GW did not write the rules for any player groups whatsoever - they wrote them to sell models. No sense convincing ourselves otherwise, all of these changes are geared towards selling more models - not improving the game one single iota. Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.
And that is why 7th edition, even without a lot of games played, is a complete and utter failure. GW has three distinct groups of customers to cater to with the rules and they should be written to cater to all three groups. Supplements should be used to then modify the base game for any one particular group. Every single game company on the market, except GW, write their rulesets with this in mind. But GW wants you to play their game, the way they play it in their isolated own little world in Nottingham which is NOT how the majority play. Pick up games, bar none, are the largest group of players in the GW base. Most likely followed very closely by tournament gamers and then the small casual club gamers. Don't believe me - look at their financials and tell me that isn't the case.
These rules have just added a complete mess to all but the smallest segment of their customer base. You can already see it in the discussions in this very thread the effect it is having in dividing the customer base (just like 4th edition D&D did - and we all know how well that turned out). So, yeah, they did this completely backwards from the way any other company would have done it because they haven't the foggiest clue who their customers are anymore at all and believe anyone will blindly lap up whatever junk they put out at whatever ridiculous price they want to put it out at. Just like TSR did in their last two years before they went completely under.
I will go on record now as saying, I personally believe 7th edition is going to be a very strong nail in GWs coffin. Time will tell.
Realistically I could see something along the lines of "2 detachments max, no lords of war, battle forged only" becoming the accepted format. But then what about allies, especially come the apocalypse?
It becomes a slippery slope - change one rule, change a thousand.
I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.
So who the heck is it designed for? Casual players? Because at this point, it seems a "casual" player needs to exhaustively understand their rules and all the ways they could break the game so that they don't accidentally do so (because they thought the Riptide or Revenant looked cool, for example), and get censured by their opponent for being a dirty WAAC-er.
My guess would be that the largest group of players are those who only play at home with their friends or possibly at a local club with people they know, then pick-up gamers, and lastly tournament players. At least if we're talking globally. Can't imagine there are very many tournament players compared to the other groups, especially if the largest tournaments in the world can't muster more than a couple of hundred participants.
tetrisphreak wrote: Realistically I could see something along the lines of "2 detachments max, no lords of war, battle forged only" becoming the accepted format. But then what about allies, especially come the apocalypse?
What about them? They fit perfectly in what you've described.
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.
Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.
I've seen complaints that Battle Brothers wasnt changed to stop deathstars. But isnt the real problem there Sarthonyx? Perhaps gw is just playing the long con, as let's face it he is likely to be cut when the DE treatment gets here.
tetrisphreak wrote: Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.
Yes they are, you just can't mass autocannons any more and expect to win; got nerfed; got the ban hammer.
_Most_ of the ridiculous stuff got the axe, through Psyker nerfs or allies changes. Having large events limit FoC is no where near the level of crazy we were seeing in 6th.
Edit:
HisDivineShadow wrote: I've seen complaints that Battle Brothers wasnt changed to stop deathstars. But isnt the real problem there Sarthonyx? Perhaps gw is just playing the long con, as let's face it he is likely to be cut when the DE treatment gets here.
He shouldn't be too bad anymore, as you can save all your dispel dice for fortune turn one and dump weight of fire into him. It's less impressive when he's just a T3 terminator.
I completely disagree with this. First, GW did not write the rules for any player groups whatsoever - they wrote them to sell models. No sense convincing ourselves otherwise, all of these changes are geared towards selling more modelsl.
People keep saying this, but it is simply not true. How dose allowing people to play more diverse and less restricted forces sell models? People say this every time a rule is changed, but more often than not its an underpowered unit that gets buffed. This can't be because the unit it underpowered and needs improving, no... Same when overpowered units get a points increase or nurf. Take the valk/vendetta. People complained that GW was screwing them when it was costed as a skimmer with flier rules. I don't believe at all that GW changes rules to drive sales.
Look, I'm no GW patsy (I've been very critical of them in the past, as well as praising the good things they've done)
but the idea that GW has a 'duty' to produce balanced rules is probably the silliest thing I have ever heard on this site.
GW's first duty is to GW. They make rules and products as they see fit, and crucially, if you don't like them, don't buy them. Plenty of rival companies out there that will welcome you with open arms.
I agree with a lot of people's sentiments that GW has made crazy business decisions and crazy design decisions in the last ten years, but a duty to make balanced rules? To use a meangreen stompa phrase, the idea is horse gak!
For the last couple of years, I've been unhappy with GW's direction, so I switched to FOW. I'm tempted to get back into 40k, but we'll wait and see, but I'm under no illusions of what I'd be getting into.
Mymearan wrote: My guess would be that the largest group of players are those who only play at home with their friends or possibly at a local club with people they know, then pick-up gamers, and lastly tournament players. At least if we're talking globally. Can't imagine there are very many tournament players compared to the other groups, especially if the largest tournaments in the world can't muster more than a couple of hundred participants.
No, I think pick up gamers are the largest base without exception. This is evidenced by the fact of GW morphing during the 6th edition period to cater to the casual regular player segment and their financials tanking as a result. Watch a lot of YouTube videos on battle reports and you will see the majority of them are players that brought their armies to a FLGS and whatever other 40k player happened to be there struck up a game.
I can say at my FLGS, at beginning of 6th we had 24-28 players that were like that at our store. Now we have 4 left (me, my son and two friends) that get together at my house occasionally. The other 20+, all long term players (since 2nd or 3rd edition) have sold ALL their GW stuff and moved on to either Bolt Action (the majority of them) or Flames of War.
Now, I know it is not like that everywhere, but that is an example. 4 of us are casual regular players and over 20 were pick up gamers. And know they are all gone. So which group should have been the one GW catered to?
Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.
And that is why 7th edition, even without a lot of games played, is a complete and utter failure. GW has three distinct groups of customers to cater to with the rules and they should be written to cater to all three groups. Supplements should be used to then modify the base game for any one particular group. Every single game company on the market, except GW, write their rulesets with this in mind. But GW wants you to play their game, the way they play it in their isolated own little world in Nottingham which is NOT how the majority play. Pick up games, bar none, are the largest group of players in the GW base. Most likely followed very closely by tournament gamers and then the small casual club gamers. Don't believe me - look at their financials and tell me that isn't the case.
And are the two groups that are almost no existent in other countries, especially the UK where the designers are. There are very few places that have pick up games (I can think of one store, and only two that I have ever been in that have any tables other than GW stores, who have 2 tables at most, and those are mostly demo tables.). The closest we get is clubs, where most of them are more like a large group. Most people are not even aware of the existence of tournaments in my experience.
I'm sorry, but your putting what you have seen on to the rest of the world. Pick up games are not the the largest group by any means IMO and tournament players represent a tiny percentage of the player base. Not sure what the financials tell you about how people are playing.
tetrisphreak wrote: Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.
Yes they are, you just can't mass autocannons any more and expect to win; got nerfed; got the ban hammer.
_Most_ of the ridiculous stuff got the axe, through Psyker nerfs or allies changes. Having large events limit FoC is no where near the level of crazy we were seeing in 6th.
Edit:
HisDivineShadow wrote: I've seen complaints that Battle Brothers wasnt changed to stop deathstars. But isnt the real problem there Sarthonyx? Perhaps gw is just playing the long con, as let's face it he is likely to be cut when the DE treatment gets here.
He shouldn't be too bad anymore, as you can save all your dispel dice for fortune turn one and dump weight of fire into him. It's less impressive when he's just a T3 terminator.
I think your relying on dispel way more than you should, you can only dump an equal amount of dispel dice as those used and in most cases your going to need an equal amount of natural sixes to however many 4+ they rolled.
tetrisphreak wrote: The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde army will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.
Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.
1) There are plenty of ways to prevent OP lists that dominate the game. Most of them involve setting a points cost that is proportionate to the effectiveness, and limiting spam.
2) There is a difference between a 10% chance of winning and a 0% of winning. The New FOC takes 10% lists and make them 0% lists.
3) Right now, I'm less concerned about tournaments, and more concerned about negative feelings coming out of gaming groups and pickup games. Land Raiders are one of the most popular models in my gaming group. If I tell one of the Players who has been running double-land raiders for quite a while that I won't play him if he continues to run 2 Land Raiders, he isn't going to be happy, our group is going to fracture further. Maybe the Salamander player and the Land Raider player will split off and do their own thing. The community suffers when balance is not present.
4) I'm relatively ok with 7th. I hate that they buffed armor at the same time that they reduced the ability of Tyranids to deal with Armor. I think it is stupid that Rhinos are super-scoring, but overall, I'm ok with it. But, if you like to have fun, the unlimited FOC is unplayable unless you pre-negotiate your lists in detail.
5) GW could still pull this out. Imagine that the FAQ's all update points costs to make them equivalent to unit effectiveness. 160 point Annihilation Barges? 280 Point Riptides? 9 Point Genesteelers? If the points costs were correct, FOC wouldn't be so important. Of Course I give this a .00001% chance, but it is possible.
6) As with most things, the Perfect is the enemy of the good. Restricting the FOC to something saner doesn't make it impossible to build OP armies, therefore we should never consider it? No, I think any step that reduces the power of OP armies is a good step. If we can do something to improve our situation we should. If we sit around waiting for a perfect solution we will always have the worst possible world.
7) It isn't rocket science to see that the unlimited FOC is broken. 7th isn't much of a change. The existing double FOC at 2000 points was broken. Now we have unlimited FOC at any point. Why would we assume that it would be less broken?
Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.
And are the two groups that are almost no existent in other countries, especially the UK where the designers are. There are very few places that have pick up games (I can think of one store, and only two that I have ever been in that have any tables other than GW stores, who have 2 tables at most, and those are mostly demo tables.). The closest we get is clubs, where most of them are more like a large group. Most people are not even aware of the existence of tournaments in my experience.
That may be the case, but last period financials showed it to be a consistent drop worldwide in every single region. This happens to coincide with their move to targeting the more casual regular player base.
But, barring that, even in a club environment I bet most players don't have prescheduled games (maybe they do, I don't know), yet now, they have to house rule a good portion of the rules just to get everyone on equal footing so half the players don't show up with "legal" armies that no one will play against because the consider the legal army to be "cheese".
Sorry, but this will, without a doubt, start to divide the 40k player base. You can already see it happening in this thread. When someone builds a legal army under the new rules and someone says I wouldn't play against that cheese. Well, you have an example of how this is already turning into a complete cluster.
I completely disagree with this. First, GW did not write the rules for any player groups whatsoever - they wrote them to sell models. No sense convincing ourselves otherwise, all of these changes are geared towards selling more modelsl.
People keep saying this, but it is simply not true. How dose allowing people to play more diverse and less restricted forces sell models? People say this every time a rule is changed, but more often than not its an underpowered unit that gets buffed. This can't be because the unit it underpowered and needs improving, no... Same when overpowered units get a points increase or nurf. Take the valk/vendetta. People complained that GW was screwing them when it was costed as a skimmer with flier rules. I don't believe at all that GW changes rules to drive sales.
Seriously? The whole reason "underpowered" units exists is because of the rules. Underpowered means no sales. Change rules to OP and you get more sales (see Demons prior to 5th). Nerf bat works in reverse order - "overpowered" units exist because of the rules (and lack of understanding of the game your producing). Overpowered means many sales, thereby given to shiny new units. Once price/saturation point is made, nerf bat comes along and pisses of the masses.
actually no, although I know what you're saying. GW's first duty is to it's shareholders.
This is the problem, GW's first duty is to their customers. Why? Because customers make the company revenue, and more revenue makes the company do well for their shareholders. But I do believe you are correct in that GW views their first responsibility to their shareholders and thus their customers have just become wallets to fleece (which they basically say this in not so many words under their Business Model in Investor relations).
I'd say the double force org being broken thing was specifically due to the Flamer/Screamer combo that was out at the time.
Double force org (well 1.5 force org) has been in effect since the release of the first tau supplement. And outside of Ovesa star it's been fine. And now that that isn't possible I don't see why it isn't completely fine.
Personally I'm hoping that most Tournaments stick to 2 charts per army. Example would be 2 Force Orgs, 1 Force Org and 1 Ally, Force Org and Formation.
Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.
And that is why 7th edition, even without a lot of games played, is a complete and utter failure. GW has three distinct groups of customers to cater to with the rules and they should be written to cater to all three groups. Supplements should be used to then modify the base game for any one particular group. Every single game company on the market, except GW, write their rulesets with this in mind. But GW wants you to play their game, the way they play it in their isolated own little world in Nottingham which is NOT how the majority play. Pick up games, bar none, are the largest group of players in the GW base. Most likely followed very closely by tournament gamers and then the small casual club gamers. Don't believe me - look at their financials and tell me that isn't the case.
And are the two groups that are almost no existent in other countries, especially the UK where the designers are. There are very few places that have pick up games (I can think of one store, and only two that I have ever been in that have any tables other than GW stores, who have 2 tables at most, and those are mostly demo tables.). The closest we get is clubs, where most of them are more like a large group. Most people are not even aware of the existence of tournaments in my experience.
I'm sorry, but your putting what you have seen on to the rest of the world. Pick up games are not the the largest group by any means IMO and tournament players represent a tiny percentage of the player base. Not sure what the financials tell you about how people are playing.
You have it backwards. Pick up games in stores is how the game is played in the vast majority of countries. The prevalence of clubs is strictly a UK phenomenon.
And like Wayshuba said, how can the edition that was specifically tailored to the group that you claim is the biggest one, to the detriment of all others players, have tanked so hard that GW was forced to launch a new edition less than 2 years afterwards?
SeanDrake wrote: <snip>I think your relying on dispel way more than you should, you can only dump an equal amount of dispel dice as those used and in most cases your going to need an equal amount of natural sixes to however many 4+ they rolled.
Was going to say this didn't sound right, but you're the one with the book. Am I misreading or are you saying you can only throw as many dice for DtW as they threw to activate (i.e. enemy psyker throws 3 dice and succeeds in activating prescience I can only throw 3 dice to DtW)?
I love when people say "dont like it dont play it. As if theres not a third option... Do what every other person that has been burned by GW does. Buy second hand and use "counts as" models from other companies that are better quality. At my flgs we will probably play basically a modified 6th without these new foc changes which is basically all that 7th is. And i will continue giving less and less money to GW. As will most of their customers. Stop acting like GW has some sort of power. They have none whatsoever it is a business the customer has the power. Dont believe me? look at the stock prices
I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment
all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.
So it look like we can make armies like this
1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)
2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction
3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction
I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.
So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.
I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.
Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.
One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.
I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.
You are using the term "competitive/tourney" as a pejorative without understanding what it means. When you play a game of 40k you are competitive. Otherwise you wouldn't need rules at all. That way both sides can win, or the narrative could determine the victor.
I play in a game group. There are 10-12 of us. We show up at appointed times, and play games that are not prearranged. My group is pretty fluffy, and we strive to comp ourselves in such a way as to keep all games competitive to a point where the outcome is decided by gameplay, and not list building. We long for a day that GW can write rules so that we don't have to work so hard comping our selves, and we hate the Rock-Paper-Scissor effect of the game that makes it nearly impossible to play in certain ways (e.g. gunline, mech) against players who play in other ways (e.g. walking necrons, hoard 'nids). We value a diversity in play-styles and meta no matter how aggressively GW tries to restrict the usable play-styles. There are players that are left out of my group, because they won't or can't comp themselves, or they insist that power-gaming is the only way to play 40k. I wish those people could join us, but GW's rules don't allow it. That is how I play. That is why I want a FOC that works.
I do know a guy that plays in his garage, and only ever plays against his wife. I doubt they used the old FOC much, and I imagine they won't use the new one much either, but I wouldn't be surprised if they use it a bit more. I think he is the one the FOC was written for.
I would say that the way I play is more common than the way he plays.
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. .
This.
I'm not really a competitive player, but even I can already call it now that Eldar Maelific Daemonology spam to create a greater daemon summoning engine will be the new . Eldrad + Farseer + Warlock council means you can throw dice all day and not really care about perils (ghosthelm) or deny the witch dice from your opponent (unless they are also playing Eldar psyker spam).
Garion wrote: I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment
all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.
So it look like we can make armies like this
1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)
2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction
3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction
One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction
Am I missing something?
I'm not sure this is accurate, otherwise, what is the point of the Allied Detachment? It serves no purpose if can take ANY faction as one of the combined arms detatchment.
Easiest way to reign in all this FOC craziness? Smaller games. You can't field triple detachements or ungodly Unbound forces if you are playing smaller games (although Unbound could still be abused by some armies). Look for the standard points allottment to start shrinking for most tournaments.
einlanzer wrote: Any change to grenades? Still 1 per unit when thrown, ect?
Assault Grenades are the same. Defensive Grenades are different: you can throw a Defensive Grenade as a 8", S1, AP-, Assault1, Blast, Blind. Defensive Grenades also don't give Stealth for being within 8" of a shooting attack anymore. Melta Bombs are also listed as being able to be used against Buildings and Gun Emplacements, as well as Vehicles and MC.
But do Defensive Grenades still hinder +A from charges? Can you use it in overwatch or just in the shooting phase?
Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?
Battle Brothers can repair each other's vehicles, which is nice. I definitely need to get an Enginseer to accompany my Knight now.
Canoptek Spyders have a repair rule, but neither in codex nor in the FAQ says about not being able to repair non-BB vehicles. I assume it can. Does it stands, or AoC and lesser levels of alliance forbid abilities bing used on each other?
Garion wrote: I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment
all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.
So it look like we can make armies like this
1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)
2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction
3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction
One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction
Am I missing something?
I think that now I understand why all the Factions are Battle Brothers with themself: because that is how they can function togheter in the new rules without killing each other...
SeanDrake wrote: <snip>I think your relying on dispel way more than you should, you can only dump an equal amount of dispel dice as those used and in most cases your going to need an equal amount of natural sixes to however many 4+ they rolled.
Was going to say this didn't sound right, but you're the one with the book. Am I misreading or are you saying you can only throw as many dice for DtW as they threw to activate (i.e. enemy psyker throws 3 dice and succeeds in activating prescience I can only throw 3 dice to DtW)?
I also havent found such a limit in print, and havent found any reason I cannot throw all my DtW dice at one spell.
And if you end up with a double post, leave it alone people. The board will automatically trim one. If you edit one you'll lose the info you originally posted.
Garion wrote: I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment
all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.
So it look like we can make armies like this
1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)
2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction
3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction
One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction
Am I missing something?
I'm not sure this is accurate, otherwise, what is the point of the Allied Detachment? It serves no purpose if can take ANY faction as one of the combined arms detatchment.
Easiest way to reign in all this FOC craziness? Smaller games. You can't field triple detachements or ungodly Unbound forces if you are playing smaller games (although Unbound could still be abused by some armies). Look for the standard points allottment to start shrinking for most tournaments.
There is not a link between a Faction and the army or a detachment. The only things that have a faction are the units. The combined arm detachment force you to choose units from a single faction (or no faction). The allied one do the same and add the they must be from a faction different from the faction of the UNITS of the PRIMARY detachments (so I could also have a 4th combined arm detachment from the Dark Eldar faction in my example...)
In a couple of months we could get a all new MamboJambo detachment that force you to choose a unit from the Necron Faction and one from the Grey Knight one ...
The only explanations I have about the allied detacthment are something like this:
- it was there in 6th, let's put it also in 7h
- it's a way to save on the troop tax
- they wanted to put at least 2 type of detacthment in the new book ...
The new ally matrix is what is letting unit from the same faction work well togheter: because now they are BB with themself
SeanDrake wrote: <snip>I think your relying on dispel way more than you should, you can only dump an equal amount of dispel dice as those used and in most cases your going to need an equal amount of natural sixes to however many 4+ they rolled.
Was going to say this didn't sound right, but you're the one with the book. Am I misreading or are you saying you can only throw as many dice for DtW as they threw to activate (i.e. enemy psyker throws 3 dice and succeeds in activating prescience I can only throw 3 dice to DtW)?
I also havent found such a limit in print, and havent found any reason I cannot throw all my DtW dice at one spell.
My apologies you can expend however many charges as you want but I still think it's going to prove more difficult to dispel than people think.
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. .
This.
I'm not really a competitive player, but even I can already call it now that Eldar Maelific Daemonology spam to create a greater daemon summoning engine will be the new . Eldrad + Farseer + Warlock council means you can throw dice all day and not really care about perils (ghosthelm) or deny the witch dice from your opponent (unless they are also playing Eldar psyker spam).
But just make sure you file all the soulstones off your Eldar miniatures first. You know, those things they created because they are so terrified of the daemons in the warp because of what happened in their fall.
Oh, I'm sorry, that's right.... the fluff doesn't matter anymore. Just GW selling more daemon models does...
Realistically I could see something along the lines of "2 detachments max, no lords of war, battle forged only" becoming the accepted format. But then what about allies, especially come the apocalypse?
I think your proposed rule is the one that I'm eyeing right now: 2 Detachments max, 1 combine arms + 1 Ally or formation. Battle Forged only. I'm a little more open to Lords of War.
I will discuss it with the rest of my gaming group, and we will reach a final restriction together.
tetrisphreak wrote: It becomes a slippery slope - change one rule, change a thousand.
This doesn't have to be the case. One house rule that I used in 6th that wasn't in the rule book was that I disclosed the number of flyers I was bringing to every game, and got my opponent's consent. It wasn't in the rule book, but it was a single addition that made our games go better, and both players came out of them feeling better. That is my main motive for any house rule to make the games more fun for both players.
I do think GW has written rules that are sub-standard by any measure. Injecting complication and randomness where none was needed. The vehicle pen table being the most glaring example right now, but the To wound chart is another serious issue, as is the AP system. Since my group is relatively cohesive and starting on 7th together, I plan to propose a few other changes to clean up some of the more egregious issues.
Hulksmash wrote: I'd say the double force org being broken thing was specifically due to the Flamer/Screamer combo that was out at the time.
Double force org (well 1.5 force org) has been in effect since the release of the first tau supplement. And outside of Ovesa star it's been fine. And now that that isn't possible I don't see why it isn't completely fine.
Double Force Org is broken any time a unit is under-costed for what it does. Riptides, Heldrakes, Annihilation Barges, Wraith Knights, Skyrays, etc. I would say that a 4 Riptide list is still unbalanced, even if it isn't Ovesastar.
Also, I would add that at no time did I feel like 1.5 force org added fun to the game. Allies did add something, but forcing Primary + Allies into a single FOC would have made the game more fun for almost everybody in 6th.
A Percentage FOC option would have made the game more fun for almost everybody in 7th. The only one that gets screwed by restrictions like that is TFG, and fluffy players who can ignore it and still get games if they are truly fluffy. (I like Riptides, I want to run 8 in an unbound list is technically fluffy, but isn't going to get many games)
They also put in a rule for when "not all your models can be placed in the deployment zone": you must put then in reserve (or use a bigger table / deploiment zone....)
So I don't think they except the games to shrink much :\
SeanDrake wrote: <snip>I think your relying on dispel way more than you should, you can only dump an equal amount of dispel dice as those used and in most cases your going to need an equal amount of natural sixes to however many 4+ they rolled.
Was going to say this didn't sound right, but you're the one with the book. Am I misreading or are you saying you can only throw as many dice for DtW as they threw to activate (i.e. enemy psyker throws 3 dice and succeeds in activating prescience I can only throw 3 dice to DtW)?
I also havent found such a limit in print, and havent found any reason I cannot throw all my DtW dice at one spell.
My apologies you can expend however many charges as you want but I still think it's going to prove more difficult to dispel than people think.
NP Sean, just had me worried for a sec Also, thanks for all the info you've been sharing
Garion wrote: They also put in a rule for when "not all your models can be placed in the deployment zone": you must put then in reserve (or use a bigger table / deploiment zone....)
So I don't think they except the games to shrink much :\
That also helps if you have a couple of Come the Apocalypse detachments in your army. Having a two foot wide bubble around a unit that is "cannot deploy here" for half your army might really limit your space at times.
jspyd3rx wrote: So I guess that book is fully legit now? I guess it is, if anyone wants to use any fortification at all. Though WTF, are we supposed to use for void shields?
People keep saying this, but it is simply not true. How dose allowing people to play more diverse and less restricted forces sell models?
Assuming that this isn't sarcasm.
Changing the rules from allowing a player only three Terminator squads to allowing them unlimited Terminator squads increases the sales potential of Terminator models. It's true of every single unit. I know that if I were to continue to play I would load up on Grot artillery, Lootas and Shock Attack Gunz. (You can get a crap ton of grots and cannons at 1850! Honestly, it would be obscene and Battle Forged)
Changing the rules from requiring a player to stick to one codex to allowing them to field (essentially) every codex in a game not only increases the sales potential for more models but also more codexes. How many people are going to also purchase a Daemons codex for the first time this weekend? I'm guessing those sales will increase a hundred fold.
What is the significance of the "Type" at the bottom of the mission cards? I notice that the "control objective #" cards fall into a couple of different types.
What is the significance of the "Type" at the bottom of the mission cards? I notice that the "control objective #" cards fall into a couple of different types.
No clue yet. I don't have the book until this afternoon.
Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.
And are the two groups that are almost no existent in other countries, especially the UK where the designers are. There are very few places that have pick up games (I can think of one store, and only two that I have ever been in that have any tables other than GW stores, who have 2 tables at most, and those are mostly demo tables.). The closest we get is clubs, where most of them are more like a large group. Most people are not even aware of the existence of tournaments in my experience.
That may be the case, but last period financials showed it to be a consistent drop worldwide in every single region. This happens to coincide with their move to targeting the more casual regular player base.
But, barring that, even in a club environment I bet most players don't have prescheduled games (maybe they do, I don't know), yet now, they have to house rule a good portion of the rules just to get everyone on equal footing so half the players don't show up with "legal" armies that no one will play against because the consider the legal army to be "cheese".
Sorry, but this will, without a doubt, start to divide the 40k player base. You can already see it happening in this thread. When someone builds a legal army under the new rules and someone says I wouldn't play against that cheese. Well, you have an example of how this is already turning into a complete cluster.
Exactly. I posted an example of a relatively tame list that spammed using the new battle forged detachments and it took less then 5 posts for it to be referred to as a "prick" list by clockworkzion. Who obviously missed the pitch entirely. Like it or not 8 riptide4 lists are perfectly legitimate and legal in battle foerged, so when you say its a cheese list, or WAAC all you are doing is passing judgement on some kids fun and creating a divide.
Also someone noted that these lists won't actually happen due to model restrictions. Seriously? I own enough chaos crap to easily spam 4 Lords and 4 Sorcerers with 80+ cultists and spawn. That was the point in posting a "tame example. Hold on I'll find it and repost it here again.
Here:
CSM:
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Chaos Lord- MoN, Bike, Sigil, Lightning C. P fist
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
Sorcerer- Level 3, Jump pack
4 Nurgle Spawn
4 Nurgle spawn
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
10 Cultists
1848
Basically put 2 lords and 2 sorcerers in each unit of spawn and fish for invisibility while the cultists are in reserve. Each unit has 6 rolls to fish for invisibilty and the army generates at least 13 power dice, way more then enough to get that spell off on each big unit.
Again this isn't even that awesome of a list given what can be done. But what it is, is very spammy, unfun, and extremely easy to build by most collectors.
So my heavy detachment will be iron hands for iwnd land raiders and flyers.
Which chapter would give me the best assault punch to put in them?
Imp fists for objective holders maybe, greykights for some psychic ooompph.
The possibilities are boundless even in a battle forged list
Pin the Riptide and while he's cowering on the ground, kick him in the kidneys a few times.
You use that emoticon way too often.
I'm sorry mom, I didn't realize I was going to have my use of emoticons critiqued today.
I use it when I'm jesting/playfully ribbing someone/not being 100% serious, to convey that I'm posting in a manner that shouldn't be taken seriously. So if I'm using it "too often" it's because I'm in a good mood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Pinning still counts as GtG, so yes broodlords are happy and i feel less idiot for playing 2 stranglewebs.
What is the significance of the "Type" at the bottom of the mission cards? I notice that the "control objective #" cards fall into a couple of different types.
No clue yet. I don't have the book until this afternoon.
Oops, lost track of who in the thread already had the book. (should have mine today too )
Spoletta wrote: Pinning still counts as GtG, so yes broodlords are happy and i feel less idiot for playing 2 stranglewebs.
Sniper Scouts, welcome back to the table.
Where you been, bro? In more Space Marine lists, they never left.
I'm just welcoming my new Librarian to my Draigowing. Draigo has taken a key interest in the abilities of one Tigurius. He's ready to fight daemons now.
Oops, lost track of who in the thread already had the book. (should have mine today too )
Only 1 difference, you cannot randomly reroll an objective you already cleared, so while blasting a unit into oblivion will only give you a VP once per game capturing objective 3 could happen 3 times in the same game with different names.
What is the significance of the "Type" at the bottom of the mission cards? I notice that the "control objective #" cards fall into a couple of different types.
No clue yet. I don't have the book until this afternoon.
SeanDrake wrote: So my heavy detachment will be iron hands for iwnd land raiders and flyers.
Which chapter would give me the best assault punch to put in them?
Imp fists for objective holders maybe, greykights for some psychic ooompph.
The possibilities are boundless even in a battle forged list
Black Templars by the sheer number of people, White Scars because Hit & Run, Sallies to get MC on character's melee weapons.
options:
AM Priests for re-rolling Wounds or Saves
Inquisitors with Psyk-out and Rad grenades (and Scout book! Force/Daemonblades! Divination!)
Any BA/DA libby for Divination and Telepathy, or BA/SW for Div and Bio
Oops, lost track of who in the thread already had the book. (should have mine today too )
Only 1 difference, you cannot randomly reroll an objective you already cleared, so while blasting a unit into oblivion will only give you a VP once per game capturing objective 3 could happen 3 times in the same game with different names.
Don't have the rulebook in hand, but just picked up the psychic and objective cards.
Nothing earth-shattering we haven't seen before. Initial reaction is that the card stock is cheaper and more flimsy than the 6th ed psychic cards, but they're bigger and nicer looking.
Boxes are wrapped heavy hardboard and look nice. I prefer the packaging to the flimsy plastic swing case of last edition.
At this point I'm pretty sure everyone has seen the cards, but I'm happy to answer any questions
I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.
Garion wrote: I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment
all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.
So it look like we can make armies like this
1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)
2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction
3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction
One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction
Am I missing something?
You *are* missing something... Faction != codex. So for your 2nd detachment, you can mix and match from Tau and Farsight, because both books are in the same faction. 3rd detachment can mix and match between CSM and Crimson SLaughter.
ClassicCarraway wrote: I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.
Garion wrote: I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment
all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.
So it look like we can make armies like this
1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)
2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction
3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction
One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction
Am I missing something?
You *are* missing something... Faction != codex. So for your 2nd detachment, you can mix and match from Tau and Farsight, because both books are in the same faction. 3rd detachment can mix and match between CSM and Crimson SLaughter.
etc..
uhm... Tau (codex) and Farsight are in the Tau Faction, CSM (codex) and Crimson are in the CSM Faction so you are basically saying the same thing. Or are you just pointing out that this is even worse than what it look like?
ClassicCarraway wrote: I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.
That rule seems copy pasted.
Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....
ClassicCarraway wrote: I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.
That rule seems copy pasted.
Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....
Well you could now create a custom deployment procedure so create a new one with a "roll to decide how Everliving work" in there
ClassicCarraway wrote: I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.
That rule seems copy pasted.
Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....
Well you could now create a custom deployment procedure so create a new one with a "roll to decide how Everliving work" in there
Whats so annoying is, there seems to be alot of rules where they cleared up any ambiguity from what I'm seeing. This one somehow slipped by them when all they had to do was state if special rules that specifically revive a model could be used or not. I don't supposed they included Reanimation Protocols and Everliving in the USR section (with cleaned up wording)?
ClassicCarraway wrote: I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.
That rule seems copy pasted.
Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....
Well you could now create a custom deployment procedure so create a new one with a "roll to decide how Everliving work" in there
Whats so annoying is, there seems to be alot of rules where they cleared up any ambiguity from what I'm seeing. This one somehow slipped by them when all they had to do was state if special rules that specifically revive a model could be used or not. I don't supposed they included Reanimation Protocols and Everliving in the USR section (with cleaned up wording)?
So not unreasonable to expect it today, or tomorrow at the latest?
I can't help but think that Combined Arms detatchments will be one of the first things FAQed.
I don't think we will get that kind of FAQ soon. If any we will get a typo-related one for the book and the ones for bringing all the codex up to speed with the new edition
You can't impact, shoot then disembark to assault. That was the staple of the CCB. At those points though, I can't see many running it now.
Ah, I gotcha. Well, to be fair, CCB were pretty bad in 6th too and were hardly being used. Necrons have far superior stuff to take out tanks. A CCB was able to take out 1 vehicle and was then immediately blown up if playing against a decent opponent. At at min. 180 pts cost, that's just bad.
This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.
I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?
Jburch wrote: This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.
I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?
Most of the important info (including info for your question, if I'm not mistaken) is in the first post.
Jburch wrote: This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.
I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?
You can roll them from a table and keep track with a pen and paper which ones you've scored.
Jburch wrote: This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.
I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?
They are used in the new 6 "maelstrom of war" missions. But there is a table in the book with all the cards
Jburch wrote: This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.
I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?
Most of the important info (including info for your question, if I'm not mistaken) is in the first post.
But short answer, no.
Actually if you want to play the maelstrom missions you will need the deck, or at least print it from the book.
The fifth mission requires the deck since the objectives are secret.
Automatically Appended Next Post: FNP does not work on D strenght.
. Eldrad + Farseer + Warlock council means you can throw dice all day and not really care about perils (ghosthelm) or deny the witch dice from your opponent (unless they are also playing Eldar psyker spam).
