Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xerics wrote:

 Smokeydubbs wrote:

 Orock wrote:

Well slap my ass and call me Susie. So ML 3 Psykers can, I'm assuming, spawn a squad of something every turn.

So I should spam my farseers and watch demons roll onto the field to assist me?

If I can do the same with my Sorcerers.

At least I'll have my daemon hordes assisting me like I did in 2nd and 3rd.

But yeah I need to see the rest of the rules to make a decision.

My new 1850 point list.

16 Level 3 Chaos Sorcerers.

20 Cultist for them to camp in.

Profit!

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 Orock wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.

this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition

Its not just scoring with vehicles on the last turn. Its also running out into the open to get a better shot, or ignoring closer dangerous enemy units to instead focus on a farther away unit on an object, etc. There are a whole host of suicidal things you can do if you go last. There must be a nice solution to this problem, probably involving a more integrated turn structure. The solution is definitely not barring vehicles from scoring.

Unfortunately its not vehicles scoring/contesting that cause this problem.

Its that only the last turn of the game matters for objectives that causes this problem.

Gonna wait for the book to be hand.

I sat out 6th because I didn't like where the game had gone. Just about everything I've heard about 7th already has me convinced I'll be sitting it out, too.

Blatantly egregious gak like Unbound armies and the "everyone can now summon daemons (so go buy lots of daemons)!" cash grab make me actively want to not support GW, and I've honestly never felt that level of antipathy for the company before.

Actually paying attention to the rumors and updates makes me sorta optimistic about this update:

The bonuses for Battle-Forged armies vs Unbound seems OK (not that my gaming group runs super cheesy stuck anyway), the rumored Psychic phase hearkens to WFB (where it initially spun-off from), and it seems we might actually get a definition on the exact nature of Formations (as they are forced into 6th with no restrictions, it will be intriguing as to what they do).

I can't wait until 7th edition comes out, and we go from millions of threads talking about whether incomplete bits and pieces of rumors about 7th edition are good or bad and can actually start talking about whether or not 7th edition is good or bad.

I gonna have to wait. Devil's in the details with quite a bit of the stuff we're hearing about. I'm somewhere between pessimistically hopeful and optimistically skeptical.

As with every update there are good points and bad points. Even if its a new codex or rule set.

Im just hoping its not boring like the imperial guard codex was. If its not boring I will be happy.

But its at the point I just expect both good and bad to come from it.

I do however, love the idea of a more Fantasy style Magic phase. Now I dont have to sit and watch Farseers throw their buffs out unopposed.

My opinion on 7th Ed 40k? I stopped playing 40k when the X-Wing Miniatures Game hit the scene and the 7th Edition of the 40k rules will not change that. I'd rather play a game where I can get 2-3 games done in the same time it takes to play one game of 40k.

 Seaward wrote:
I sat out 6th because I didn't like where the game had gone. Just about everything I've heard about 7th already has me convinced I'll be sitting it out, too.

Blatantly egregious gak like Unbound armies and the "everyone can now summon daemons (so go buy lots of daemons)!" cash grab make me actively want to not support GW, and I've honestly never felt that level of antipathy for the company before.

While I can understand that you say you sat out the edition because you didn't like the direction, how can you say you really have a solid opinion one way or the other on the way the game turned out? I mean when 6th first came out I remember how everyone was crying that flyers were the worst thing to ever happen to the game, and now they are more of an annoyance than a game changer.

5th edition had vehicle spam and just plain bad wound allocation

6th has assault nerfed too much and deathstars

7th will undoubtably have its downfalls, but that doesn't mean its the end of the game. While you don't see the appeal of something like unbound, doesn't mean its terrible either. I know I for one am going to go out and build a Word Bearers list right off the bat and summon me some daemons, and then run a list with nothing but Khorne berzerkers and see if I can flood an opponent in red power armor! Did GW need to add the rule? No, we could easily have just said "Hey, I want to do this for this game" and it would have been fine, but I also think it's cool that they are making it a viable option and giving us some rules to work with, even if they are going to need some homebrew love. And for those of you who are going to respond with "Have fun playing against a heldrake spam list!" well all I can say is, no. I won't play against a list like that. Simple as that. And if you think tournaments will allow lists like that then... where have you been?

My only negative for right now is the time-table. I feel like they crammed the entire lifespan of an edition into 2 years. I feel like we are just now getting rules down just right, and they are changing again. I hope next edition sticks around a bit longer.

 Lobukia wrote:
I gonna have to wait. Devil's in the details with quite a bit of the stuff we're hearing about. I'm somewhere between pessimistically hopeful and optimistically skeptical.

I feel ya there.

Crossing my mental fingers, hoping GW will have realized some of its mistakes.

Probability and historical evidence, however...

 Orock wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.

this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition

Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.

That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Orock wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.

this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition

Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.

That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.

Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.

 Selym wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Orock wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.

this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition

Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.

That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.

Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.

This works even better with Serpents which are a bit faster.

I think we'll see a move towards tank-heavy lists.

Razorback spam will be back.

 TNT925 wrote:
While I can understand that you say you sat out the edition because you didn't like the direction, how can you say you really have a solid opinion one way or the other on the way the game turned out? I mean when 6th first came out I remember how everyone was crying that flyers were the worst thing to ever happen to the game, and now they are more of an annoyance than a game changer.

It's not at all difficult to follow the 40K meta despite not playing 40K, at least if you've played 40K before. As soon as I saw Allies, I said, "Hmm, this seems like it'll be overpowered. It'll be overpowered because they want to sell models to people who already have armies." That turned out to be absolutely true. And nothing I saw from any of the codices in subsequent releases suggested that they'd resolved their biggest issue - writing rules to sell models instead of writing rules to make a fun, balanced game - and so there was no reason to hop back aboard the party bus.

It's possible that GW's business model wouldn't work if they wrote decent rules without trying to force the player into paying to win. But my consumer model is to wait until they feth their method up enough to accidentally put out some halfway-workable rules that aren't naked cash grabs, and then jump in for that edition.

7th will undoubtably have its downfalls, but that doesn't mean its the end of the game. While you don't see the appeal of something like unbound, doesn't mean its terrible either. I know I for one am going to go out and build a Word Bearers list right off the bat and summon me some daemons, and then run a list with nothing but Khorne berzerkers and see if I can flood an opponent in red power armor! Did GW need to add the rule? No, we could easily have just said "Hey, I want to do this for this game" and it would have been fine, but I also think it's cool that they are making it a viable option and giving us some rules to work with, even if they are going to need some homebrew love. And for those of you who are going to respond with "Have fun playing against a heldrake spam list!" well all I can say is, no. I won't play against a list like that. Simple as that. And if you think tournaments will allow lists like that then... where have you been?

You're basically the type of guy GW relies on to make these harebrained schemes of theirs work. And there's nothing wrong with that. If you like where they're going with the game, then by all means, keep playing it.

I don't. The background fluff is basically the only thing keeping me even remotely invested in 40K at the moment, and they're furthering their long tradition of gutting their own fluff with 7th Edition. When Grey Knights are summoning Bloodthirsters, they've lost me. Simple as that.

And they've lost my spend on their tertiary product lines, too. Black Library's going to force their guys to gak out crappy novels involving said Grey Knights summoning said Bloodthirsters, so even the pure fluff stuff I won't be able to enjoy anymore.

 TNT925 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I sat out 6th because I didn't like where the game had gone. Just about everything I've heard about 7th already has me convinced I'll be sitting it out, too.

Blatantly egregious gak like Unbound armies and the "everyone can now summon daemons (so go buy lots of daemons)!" cash grab make me actively want to not support GW, and I've honestly never felt that level of antipathy for the company before.

While I can understand that you say you sat out the edition because you didn't like the direction, how can you say you really have a solid opinion one way or the other on the way the game turned out? I mean when 6th first came out I remember how everyone was crying that flyers were the worst thing to ever happen to the game, and now they are more of an annoyance than a game changer.

5th edition had vehicle spam and just plain bad wound allocation

6th has assault nerfed too much and deathstars

7th will undoubtably have its downfalls, but that doesn't mean its the end of the game. While you don't see the appeal of something like unbound, doesn't mean its terrible either. I know I for one am going to go out and build a Word Bearers list right off the bat and summon me some daemons, and then run a list with nothing but Khorne berzerkers and see if I can flood an opponent in red power armor! Did GW need to add the rule? No, we could easily have just said "Hey, I want to do this for this game" and it would have been fine, but I also think it's cool that they are making it a viable option and giving us some rules to work with, even if they are going to need some homebrew love. And for those of you who are going to respond with "Have fun playing against a heldrake spam list!" well all I can say is, no. I won't play against a list like that. Simple as that. And if you think tournaments will allow lists like that then... where have you been?

My only negative for right now is the time-table. I feel like they crammed the entire lifespan of an edition into 2 years. I feel like we are just now getting rules down just right, and they are changing again. I hope next edition sticks around a bit longer.

Actually flyers are still pretty terrifying. It's just the top meta lists have all the answers for them.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Orock wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.

this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition

Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.

That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.

Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.

This works even better with Serpents which are a bit faster.

I think we'll see a move towards tank-heavy lists.

Razorback spam will be back.

I've never seen the end of it, 'back spam is my meta. Strong even in 6th.

 Selym wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Orock wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Although I am for vehicular scoring, the one issue that it brings is the ability of for the player with the last turn to just zoom their vehicles around and snatch things up, free of reprisals. This is more of an issue with the turn structure of the game, and not vehicles.

this problem was otherwise known as 5th edition

Indeed, this was an issue in the 5th edition and it will now come back.

That's not the only case where GW is changing rules forth and back.

Looks like Mech IG will get yet another boost - all those chimeras... Just waiting out of LoS, 12" from an objective, ready to contest/claim.

This works even better with Serpents which are a bit faster.

I think we'll see a move towards tank-heavy lists.

Razorback spam will be back.

I've never seen the end of it, 'back spam is my meta. Strong even in 6th.

What kind of army/chapter do you play?

I think that BA with fast Razorbacks will be quite competitive.

 wuestenfux wrote:

What kind of army/chapter do you play?

I think that BA with fast Razorbacks will be quite competitive.

I play Chaos :C

I end up against two UM forces and one BA force. The BA player also has an ork army, and one UM player also has Tau.

All armies except the tau are parking lots, and the tau are being all skyfire in my face.

EDIT: Moving on to IG though, and I've got a Vendetta, 3 Russes, 2 mechvets with autocannons and a couple of HQ's. They'll be allying in Be'lakor and a heldrake. Suck it, loyalist bitches.

 Selym wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

What kind of army/chapter do you play?

I think that BA with fast Razorbacks will be quite competitive.

I play Chaos :C

I end up against two UM forces and one BA force. The BA player also has an ork army, and one UM player also has Tau.

All armies except the tau are parking lots, and the tau are being all skyfire in my face.

EDIT: Moving on to IG though, and I've got a Vendetta, 3 Russes, 2 mechvets with autocannons and a couple of HQ's. They'll be allying in Be'lakor and a heldrake. Suck it, loyalist bitches.

And then they show up with Elysian Drop troopers and you're back to crying.

I don't like Unbound, nor do I think scoring vehicles are necessary.

However, I'm liking everything else so far, and I doubt anyone around here will play Unbound lists... and if they do I'll choose not to play them or go 'what the heck' and enjoy the challenge.

Most Unbound lists people have made so far look terrible, and I love everyone saying 'All-Drake lists will be OP as hell'
Yes, Heldrakes are powerful but they are flyers, and more than 2 makes it hard to not suicide them, yay collisions!

So, yes, so far I'm liking how 7th edition looks. No doubt when it is released and I have the whole picture I'll dislike it and go back to steering clear of 40k as much as possible.

Davor wrote:


It says that? I missed that part. At least they make it official that you can have done in the first place. Sadly I see why "Proof" is needed. Now only if GW will make a stance on FW now.

They do , they turn more or less every game in to a game with FW . the short rule book blurp has it in bold text that before every game you have to talk decide which FoC your using . Every game is going to have to either start with hours of talking , what is going to be legal for the game or people will have this one way of playing and god help you if you would like to play the game different.

All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.

Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.

Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.

 Sigvatr wrote:
All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.

Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.

Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.

On the other hand scoring vehicles pleases my Necron wall of Av13 lists.

 Kain wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.

Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.

Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.

On the other hand scoring vehicles pleases my Necron wall of Av13 lists.

:C

There aren't enough MC's or lascannons in my collection.

That is nothing . Scyths bought for troops are troops , now that is a late game super scoring model.

Makumba wrote:
That is nothing . Scyths bought for troops are troops , now that is a late game super scoring model.

All hail Matteus Wardius, king of the necrons, writer of the 7th ed codex, and your spiritual liege...

 Kain wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
All changes look good so far. This positive first impression, however, gets ruined by the introduction of Unfun and the related lack of FOC and thus massive balance problems stemming from it.

Remove or ban Unfun and it might go into a good direction.

Scoring vehicles hopefully doesn't happen as it would be another huge step in the wrong direction.

On the other hand scoring vehicles pleases my Necron wall of Av13 lists.

I got one myself. It's just lame to basically sit on an objective with GA or, seriously, capture an objective with a NS...

 Selym wrote:

SOMEONE has said this about every single addition/change to 40k for the last 5 years.

FTFY. There's a man holding a repent now sign for every day of the year somewhere.