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.

KommissarKarl wrote:
(...)
Except there are plenty of cases in the fluff of loyalist psykers summoning deamons, either because they've turned or they think it'd help defeat chaos.

That´s the problem. It is quite the contrary indeed: there are none.

I am not talking about a radical Inquisitor or a random Librarian. I am talking about a Farseer or a known loyal Chapter. And it is not summoning a Daemon, it is doing it and then commanding them to battle with the rest of the army being OK with it. And what about the Imperial Guard? A random psyker of the IG summoning Daemons and the Commissars saying 'ok no problem, they will help us in battle; it is not that if I don´t kill you on the spot we are all gonna be killed either way because Daemons are such a horrific moral threat that the Imperium blows up entire worlds if there is even a small risk of someone knowing that they physically exist'.

So no. Feel free to prove me wrong be quoting a single place where a Farseer or a force with Sisters or GK invoked a Greater Daemon and they all fight together like good friends. Or an IG psyker summoning Daemons in battle (and commanding them) with Comissars around.

I dare you.

The worst part being, of course, that it is quite possible that the Black Library is releasing some books on the matter, to make it 'part of the setting'. So I guess eventually you will be right. But not now.

If you're complaining about a loyal, by-the-book librarian summoning demons, then complain about the player who's summoning, not the rules that allow you to do so.

That´s another completely different question. It is a decision the player is taking. I am ok with that. I don´t think the player should be blamed for fielding what he likes.

But if the player says 'no I am not [a power-gamer | someone who really likes the Daemon models | insane | someone who finds the look of pain in fluffy players´ eyes both deligthful and arousing | insert random reason], I do believe this is totally ok with the setting', then he is justifying himself quite badly, and I would politely point out that no, it is not 'fluffy', he is just butchering the background.

The 40k rules also allow a loyalist Space Marine chapter to fight and destroy a unit of Grey Knights, does that mean GW doesn't care about the fluff too?

Space Marines vs Grey Knights? This is not against the fluff. Quite the contrary. There are many examples of the Grey Knights been sent to destroy a Chapter, for things like 'there is a small chance of this people using Chaos'. It happens. In this setting 'there is only war'. There is always a reason to fight against someone. On the other side, justifying alliances is far harder.

You know, one of the better things of this background is that it is so massive that most things are possible. You really need to push it really, really hard to get to the 'no way this can happen' point.

The truth is out there. Every year the crowds playing this game get smaller. If any veteran player is pumped for this edition, it's most likely because they've been on a ten year hiatus and feel the nostalgic pull of the game again, not because the edition would be in any way good. Almost every edition has been inferior to its predecessor.

Honestly i prefer it over 6th so far. The only thing that outside a tournament really grinds my gears is the Jink change but i can live with it, its not a total neuter to the rule it just less effective. I dont play tournaments, this game was not intended to be a competitive sport so i will not play it as such, and all my friends at the FLGS are the same way (minus one wraithknight spammer).

Psyker phase seems a little.....lacking imo but i have never used psykers (weirdboyz do NOT count.... lol) so its hard for me to judge it. By throwing some practice dice though, hmm kinda nasty in the risky department lol.

New warlord traits are something to die for....wait that cancels the effect NEVERMIND lol. Seriously though, in the 6th ed ones my tau really didnt care about any of them aside the "rerolls of 1 within objective" and my orks only wanted the Challenge VP bonus one, or Outflank if i had bikerboss around. Now, holy CRAP all 3 branches bring 3-4 traits that my boss would LOVE to get lol. Fearless + IWND? o god yes YES! lol.

 da001 wrote:


@Klerych: sorry but there is absolutely no way you can justify Farseers or loyal Librarians summoning Daemons and using them as if they were part of the same army. We are not talking about a psyker being devoured by a Daemon and then the Daemon materializing and killing everything. This is a formerly loyal psyker who summon Daemons, which in 99% of the cases means dooming the entire world, and then the Daemons obey his orders and the rest of the army is OK with that. It is the ultimate heresy, the definite step towards damnation. And the rest of the army does nothing? And how did the loyal Librarian learn how to control Daemons? Does he have an entire section about Daemons in the Librarium or is he a natural who hear demonic voices since he is a child?

Did you miss the part about recently corrupted / fresh renegade Chapter or ignored it on purpose? I just brought up ideas to justify it fluff-wise. If you really can't think of any example of anyone summoning daemons, then okay, let me list first few that come to my mind:

- fresh Renegade Chapter played using Codex: Space Marines because as mentioned earlier - CSM can't really pull off renegades from recent times and mostly focus on whatever spills from the Eye of Terror. As mentioned - think Blood Ravens from DoW2;

- desperate Librarian not wanting his brethren to die and condemning his soul to oblivion to save them and turn the odds against enemy forces. He will be branded a traitor and the company will be brought before the Inquisition, but they might survive if they win;

-Planetary defense forces ran by corrupt Governor whose sorcerer advisor(primaris psyker) summons daemons to show him the might of the Ruinous Powers they are going to serve to release themselves from the imperial chains and his men are too scared to make a move against them. That, or they're slowly getting corrupted too. Basically prelude to full-fledged separatist treachery;

-During a routine patrol someone found a presumably archeotech artifact that turned out to be some prototype machine with warp affinity as it activated during the battle and started spawning Daemons, but surprisingly that artifact allowed him to control them. Fluff-wise he'll most likely be set ablaze by Ordo Hereticus and his company will be decimated, but then again that happens to almost every company that had contact with Daemons or Grey Knights, so nothing new here;

See, not that hard.

 da001 wrote:
And your Dark Angels are now Chaos Space Marines?

I am fairly sure there are enough hints that some of DA successor chapters' are of questionable loyalty. Either that or, ding, ding, ding, ding, you could play them as the Fallen and tah-dah!

 da001 wrote:
In which sense is this a victory?

It doesn't have to be a well-thought plan to win the war. It might be a one-timer scenario, fluffy idea for a short story. It doesn't have to work in the long run! You can even end the victorious battle with your friend with "Despite the victory, there was no joy among the men - having condemned their souls in the eyes of the Emperor they knew that it won't be long before Black Ships arrive to cleanse them with holy flames of His righteous retribution."

 da001 wrote:
How do you forge a narrative about that?

Just like that. Again - just because you don't have the imagination to think of a narrative for something, it doesn't mean there's none. Think about it.

 da001 wrote:
And Grey Knights can do it too. They can get some IG psykers as allies and fight side by side with Daemons.

Even that can be justified through a narrative. From something as simple as "a guy had warp outburst, lol; termination imminent right after the battle" to an idea that GK worked with a radical Malleus inquisitor that deemed it the only way to achieve victory. AND BAM. Justified! I don't remember anyone bitching about Daemon Hosts in GK armies.

 da001 wrote:
I understand the 'do not do it if you think it is not correct' argument, but trying to justify this butchering of the setting by saying that this is something that may occur in the setting... no way. It makes no sense. If you play because you like the background, this rule is badly damaging the game.

I just proved that it can be plausible if you're smart enough to make up a believable story. See - you can run a Renegade Chapter in Codex: Space Marines. You can run traitor Guard using Astra Militarum Codex. Hell, even a Farseer summoning daemons as he and his force went mad from, say, nearby Warp Storm eruption. That's pretty far-fetched, but it's no worse than most the gak GW puts in their Codexes or writers put in Black Library books.

Long story short - don't be narrow-minded. People smart enough can make it work with enough imagination and it is in no way fluff-breaking. Of course if someone claims his SM force to be 110% loyalist then of course it's bad and unfluffy to summon daemons(say, for gaming advantage), but it's just him playing it the way he wants as he doesn't care about fluff. GW gave possibility for both the fluffmongers AND casuals to play the way they want. If someone decides to deliberately dismiss it as something bad, it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the rule, but with that person.

Edit: cleaned it up a bit.

Seeing as how this rule of loyalists summoning deamons won't draw in new players but is chasing off veterans, I'm going to say it's a bad rule.

 Klerych wrote:
(...)

Ok I officially give up.

1) You made some really good points.
2) I am yet to see how the rule is worded.

I am not sold anyway. The part that really disturbs me is not the summoning thing, it is
a) the psyker is controlling the Daemon, and
b) the rest of the army is OK with that. Particularly when there are Commissars, Sisters, Templars, GK or similar around. The setting is full of uncompromising zealots. Imagine a Sister with a flamer and an ally summoning Daemons nearby in your narrative.

About Daemonhosts in Inquisition armies (and GK): the Daemonhosts were radical-only right until Ward´s 5th edition Codex. Quote from the 3rd edition Codex: "If Daemonhosts are chosen the Inquisitor in charge is branded a Radical and may not include Grey Knights in his force." There was a LOT of bitching about the 5th edition GK Codex, I am surprised you mentioned it. By the way, the rule I just quoted is an example of fluffy-friendly rule. You want Daemons? -> No GK for you. And there is more! The 3rd edition Codex also included a rule called "Daemonic Infestation" to provide BALANCE (gasp!) for any 'GK vs Daemons' match.
Look:
^This is how you make a game balanced and narrative-friendly.


Oh and a little something: as awesome as the background of the Black Ships is, doing an Exterminatus is not part of their job. Their main function is to collect the Tithe, they are like the delivery guy from Telepizza for the Emperor, bringing him yummy things to eat.

Pumped? No.

But I'm not rage-quitting either, so you can calm down, OP.

Individually, I'm fairly content with most of the new rules. Same as was mentioned in the OP, the most ludicrous BS will be calmly ignored. I like the D-weapon nerf, as that means if someone wants to use their Revenant or whatever, I won't just tell them to sod off. Most of the small changes are fine, some are even great, and I even accept the ones that hurt me without it being too big of a deal.

There are, however, a few very negative aspects with 7th. And I don't mean the two year lifespan of 6th, or the price increases or whatever. I don't care about that.

The biggest negative for me is the longer games and increased amount of bookkeeping. I'm not against the psychic phase, per se, but I think it's implemented rather poorly and will just add to the bloat of dice rolling you have to go through just to keep the game progressing. I love the idea of the new missions, but again, I think they are poorly implemented.

Another serious drawback is the increasing fragmentation of the player base. WAAC players, competitive players, casual players, and FAAC players. I try to be critical of my own nostalgia, but I'm fairly sure I can remember a time when there were just players. You would show up at the shop, or the club, or your mom's basement with your army. And then you'd play a game. No problemo. Imbalance issues were restricted to "don't bring a cheesy list" and unlike now cheesy lists were not a massive grey area. If you played Eldar, you didn't bring a 30-man Seer Council. Sorted. Everyone's happy.

Now, in reality, for me, that's not a super big issue. I play at a club, and there's mostly a tacit understanding of where the line goes. But then again, new players is not really something that happens anymore. But consider that conversation with a new guy: "Oh, you can't bring 8 Riptides, even though the rules allow it, because that would be a dick move." For those of us who have been sucked so far into GW's alternative reality that makes perfect sense, but to a normal person it's absurd. It would be like telling a new chess player that the Yugoslav attack is a really good tactic, but if he tries it everyone will hate him and think of him as TFG who ruins people's fun. What?

Then there are the more general balance issues which are still going strong. You like Blood Angels? Hah. Joke's on you. Against half the room, you'll have lousy games no matter how much they have intentionally crippled their own armies.

And, finally, because I'm an old fogey. As time goes on, I like allies less and less. Armies don't really look like armies anymore. They look like incoherent motley groups of dudes who just met at a Whetherspoon's and decided to go out for a romp. Even as a tournament-minded player, it still annoys me. I might like the competitive aspect of 40k, but I'm in 40k because it's 40k, not because it's any old game.


But yeah. Could be worse, I guess.

 da001 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
(...)
Except there are plenty of cases in the fluff of loyalist psykers summoning deamons, either because they've turned or they think it'd help defeat chaos.

That´s the problem. It is quite the contrary indeed: there are none.

I am not talking about a radical Inquisitor or a random Librarian. I am talking about a Farseer or a known loyal Chapter. And it is not summoning a Daemon, it is doing it and then commanding them to battle with the rest of the army being OK with it. And what about the Imperial Guard? A random psyker of the IG summoning Daemons and the Commissars saying 'ok no problem, they will help us in battle; it is not that if I don´t kill you on the spot we are all gonna be killed either way because Daemons are such a horrific moral threat that the Imperium blows up entire worlds if there is even a small risk of someone knowing that they physically exist'.

You're picking two random examples from a possible list of *hundreds* of possible combinations. It has been explained to you why it does not break the fluff, and examples have been presented of a loyalist marine chapter summoning demons - the blood ravens in DOW - as well as and number of inquisitors I could mention.

You are taking the "omg imperium hate demons" thing far too seriously. The vast majority of imperial citizens - even higher ups like planetory lords - have no idea what demons are, and the fact that there's a branch of the Imperium dedicated to fighting demons probably doesn't mean much to them as the Grey Knights are just as unknown as demons are.

 Thud wrote:
"Oh, you can't bring 8 Riptides, even though the rules allow it, because that would be a dick move." For those of us who have been sucked so far into GW's alternative reality that makes perfect sense, but to a normal person it's absurd. It would be like telling a new chess player that the Yugoslav attack is a really good tactic, but if he tries it everyone will hate him and think of him as TFG who ruins people's fun. What?

Thank you for that one, you made my day


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@KommissarKarl: ok point taken. Fair enough. I answered to Klerych above and the answer applies to your words too.

Also, something posted in another thread makes me think I need to wait until I read the entire Rulebook with care: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/595699.page#6861371

KommissarKarl wrote:

 da001 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
(...)

You are taking the "omg imperium hate demons" thing far too seriously. The vast majority of imperial citizens - even higher ups like planetory lords - have no idea what demons are, and the fact that there's a branch of the Imperium dedicated to fighting demons probably doesn't mean much to them as the Grey Knights are just as unknown as demons are.

I don't think you're taking it seriously enough. If a loyalist sees another loyalist summon a demon, they're going to purge them without question.

 MWHistorian wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 da001 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
(...)

You are taking the "omg imperium hate demons" thing far too seriously. The vast majority of imperial citizens - even higher ups like planetory lords - have no idea what demons are, and the fact that there's a branch of the Imperium dedicated to fighting demons probably doesn't mean much to them as the Grey Knights are just as unknown as demons are.

I don't think you're taking it seriously enough. If a loyalist sees another loyalist summon a demon, they're going to purge them without question.

The logical conclusion being that whoever saw them summoning a demon presumably knows that a demon is and is themselves heretical, no? Why would a heretic execute another heretic for treason?

The fluff is also littered with demons tricking imperials into thinking that they're benevolent spirits or even imperial saints - do you think a space marine commander would execute a librarian for summon a living effigy of the emperor?

As a 'veteran player' I'm having horrible 2nd edition flashbacks with GW bringing back the psychic phase.
It added a substantial amount of time to games with a superfluous, cumbersome phase. Integrating it with the shooting phase was intuitive, and people who didn't care to play with psychers didn't miss out.

Every edition I become increasingly convinced that GW isn't looking for ways to improve, only ways to make the game "feel fresh", no matter how inane and counterproductive the changes may be.
For example, I don't know of anybody who thought the Allies Matrix was a step in the right direction. Yet now we have GW moving further in that direction with "Just take whatever you want! Everything allies with everything!" This is destroying the atmosphere of the game as well as the entire background... If every race is cool hanging out with all the other races, then why would they be compelled to fight? They all seem to be getting remarkably tolerant of one another.

On top of this, the game has been gradually reverting back to 2nd edition's needless over-complexity and "Win-Button" abilities.

It's as if the more fans ask for solid rules and tournament balance, the more GW makes ambiguous rules and ignores the beloved tournament scene.

 Therion wrote:
The truth is out there. Every year the crowds playing this game get smaller. If any veteran player is pumped for this edition, it's most likely because they've been on a ten year hiatus and feel the nostalgic pull of the game again, not because the edition would be in any way good. Almost every edition has been inferior to its predecessor.

Yeah, 3rd was awesome, 4th was worse and 6th was horrible.

Oh dang, except that's not true. 3rd was an unbalanced piece of crap, 4th was a little better but soulless, and 6th, minus one codex, actually worked really well. It's just the fact that 2++ stacking existed and that it was a 2 year cycle instead of a 4year one that will be a black mark against 6th.

 da001 wrote:

Ok I officially give up.

1) You made some really good points.
2) I am yet to see how the rule is worded.

I am.. surprised. Most Dakkites would just blindly oppose me without even trying to understand my reasoning, stuck too far in their narrow vision. You restored my faith in the community. I'm sorry if my post turned out offensive - never intended that and only noticed that I might've sounded a bit douchy even though I didn't want to. I guess that my style of writing is a bit too.. serious making me sound like I'm mad or something.

 da001 wrote:
I am not sold anyway. The part that really disturbs me is not the summoning thing, it is
a) the psyker is controlling the Daemon, and
b) the rest of the army is OK with that. Particularly when there are Commissars, Sisters, Templars, GK or similar around. The setting is full of uncompromising zealots. Imagine a Sister with a flamer and an ally summoning Daemons nearby in your narrative.

Well, that's really, really hard to justify and in my book it is a bit too close to "too cheesy to find it justified unless someone provides very extreme and well-thought scenario for that to happen". At least I think that summoned Daemons will still be meant to be run with Codex: Daemons, which still makes those summoned allies a "Come The Apocalypse" allies choice, somewhat impairing loyalist units when they're near the Daemons. But yeah, while I could excuse the Commissars to be traitor overseers(bonus points for using the Tetchvar model from Dark Vengeance and converting him to wear a Commissar hat!), Sisters and Templars should be ticked off as a big "no no" for daemonology psykers just as the latter can't even take regular Libbies in their detachment. GK might still be somewhat explained to be 'forced' into cooperation with a radical inq. Even if a bit of a stretch, it can be considered plausible just like butchering Sisters in the GK fluff. x)

 da001 wrote:
^This is how you make a game balanced and narrative-friendly.

Totally agree. I guess GW's main crime here is that they expect players to sort it out if they want or just comply if they don't care. It'd take some extra effort for GW to make all those little 'conditions' for various stuff working together on the table and we know they're too lazy to do so! Fortunately I don't have to care that much because in my FLGS most people like fluffy lists and narratives(most come from RPG) and any WAAC TFG is either toned down to our level of 'fun play between reasonable, mature people' or just ignored, so he has to look somewhere else.

 da001 wrote:
Oh and a little something: as awesome as the background of the Black Ships is, doing an Exterminatus is not part of their job. Their main function is to collect the Tithe, they are like the delivery guy from Telepizza for the Emperor, bringing him yummy things to eat.

Well, yeah, kinda used that example more figuratively, but they sometimes were said to be used as the "official" envoys of the Inquisition when they wanted to make sure that everything is going smooth on planets that caught it's eye.

I'll give it a few weeks to see how things shake out.

 Klerych wrote:

 da001 wrote:

Ok I officially give up.

1) You made some really good points.
2) I am yet to see how the rule is worded.

I am.. surprised. Most Dakkites would just blindly oppose me without even trying to understand my reasoning, stuck too far in their narrow vision. You restored my faith in the community.

It was a trap you fool!
Truth is, I feigned my defeat only for taking over the control of the discussion! I am the only one holding the truth in this forum!
Bwahahaha!!!!

Yeah I meet people like that all the time. To be fair, it was a combination of your post and this one (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/595699.page#6861371) that changed my mind. I really need to get more information before rending judgement on this matter. It doesn´t sound that bad if it is given as a tool to create very specific scenarios, some of which you described.

I'm sorry if my post turned out offensive - never intended that and only noticed that I might've sounded a bit douchy even though I didn't want to. I guess that my style of writing is a bit too.. serious making me sound like I'm mad or something.
(...)

Not at all! I always think people seem angrier on the Internet that they actually are.

 Lobukia wrote:
Not flame bait... seriously. After adding the house rule "2 detachments max, LoW/Fortifications need to have substitute points incase opponent doesn't want to deal with them, Battle forged only, only primary detachment units and allied troops score" I think I'm good. My club won't bat an eye at that restriction and after we get over that this is a really good edition.

I love the objective placement, psychic, jink, allocation, and scoring changes. Cover tweaks are better, Str D is better, Vehicle damage is much better as are Walker, MC special rules. The change to night fight is huge (for good), I'm good with the FMC changes (like them in fact).

Don't like:
Too much battle bro-fisting
Can't assault out of stationary vehicle... that's about it

Don't mean to sound dismissive, but what's all the troubles gents? I've read every stinking post in the News Rumors threads and most here, and I'm just not seeing any problems once you get over the FoC issues. The rage quitters and edition banners just seem to be generating nerd-rage white noise. Seriously, look at the armies I play (sig). The ones I run the most are Daemons/CSM allies (lots of FMC), SM varieties, Guard. I play against/with a ton of Tau, Cron, Eldar, Nids. I don't see any of these getting overtly nerfed.

All in all this a fairly subtle and needed edition change. I don't see these rules as complex (not at all). Come on. I think a deep breath, a moment of mature calm reflection, and taking a step back is needed for the DakkaDakka community as a whole. IMO 6th was the best edition yet (played at least a little of all, owned models since the RT days) and in 7th I see only improvements if you have a club of even barely socially aware, reasonable people. If you don't why would you play there anyway?

If you've looked at my posts, I'm hardly a glass half full guy or a GW apologist (those epic, morons), but I'm a big enough man to give the rules a fair shake and it looks good to me.

I am a vet about same time as you in the hobby/game. I decided to preorder it and the cards... though i really like bolt action right now... i am curious as to how the rules might be changed with the new edition and I have been listening to the things i like to hear. I think the psychic phase simular to wfb in setup (i know the current magic phase in that game is said to be OP) is a good thing in that I like the simularities because i play both games... as i get older its a pain in butt for me trying to not confuse rule sets . I also like how the book is seperate from the other sections so its not a massive bible to read thru while gaming... and dont have to skip over fluff and pictures to find rules. That is all i can say at the moment because mine wont be here probably til tuesday...

That said I am training a new player, and were on hold til get 7th edition book and read up on it as i rather teach him current game... so that sort of makes me pumped... my brother is a little less excited about 40k.. he is pumped up about his new wfb empire army... but i am sure after i read some rules to him he probably buy a book and probably get some Imperial Knights etc lol.

The assumption that GW intended for SM dexes to be used for recently turned chaos marines seems flawed given the combination of there being a chaos codex, unbound lists, and GW purposefully not making IG battle brothers with chaos to represent renegade guard.

- "You can use the SM codex to represent the very rare fringe cases where a recently turned SM summoning daemons might be be fluffy, despite the rules still allowing them to ally with GKs and what not, and despite being able to do so already adequately with the CSM 'dex or with unbound lists."
- "No you cannot use the IG codex to represent the very common renegade guard despite not having a viable alternative." (Outdated FW lists are not a viable alternative due to "omg no FW!!" etc)

It reeks of poor design.

Some book reading under my belt now:

So here's our house rules. Short sweet, simple, probably change later.

1 detachment for each 1k points being played (only 1 Lord of War, period)
Battle forged only
Warp Charge limit of 15 per turn
Malefic powers can each be activated only once per player per game
2+ saves rerolls are 4+

Now that's done, we're all pretty excited and ready to go. I think, with minimal effort, best edition yet.

PS: Gdub is ran by idiots shooting holes into a sinking ship, but we have a blast and am willing to put minimal effort into fixing the game to keep our great times rolling.

To answer the title question, I have never looked upon a release with so little anticipation before...

There are two types of players that play 40k.

There are those that like a strategy game and there are those that enjoy exploits/listbuilding.

7th ed being a blatant cash grab only appeals to those players that enjoy exploits/listing. There will no longer be strategy in the game. Its all bout building exploits.

In the past there was a bit of balance between the 2 styles of play. 4th ed was the best edition at achieving the balance between the two types of players.

Jervis Jhonson took over as lead rules designer for 5th ed. He has slowly led the game to favor the exploit style of play. 7th is he crowning achievement of incompetence. Skip this edition, send a message to finally fire this useless ass clown.

curran12 wrote:
But in all, I exalt this because this whole 7th thing is showing the worst side of Dakka. There are legitimate questions and concerns, but they are drowned out by histrionics and nonsense yelling without any kind of complete picture to react on.

What's the other side?

 da001 wrote:

 Leth wrote:
loving it, cant wait to put the maelstrom missions through their paces

Also chariots got super buffed so I would not worry about wanting to play them. Seriously read the shooting allocation and then get back to me.

"O your shot can hurt my armor, I will take it on my 2+/3++ character, if not it is on my chariot" Seriously really the new chariot rules, they are CRAZY.

Interesting... I will check it up. Some Daemon Chariots may see some action.


@Klerych: sorry but there is absolutely no way you can justify Farseers or loyal Librarians summoning Daemons and using them as if they were part of the same army. We are not talking about a psyker being devoured by a Daemon and then the Daemon materializing and killing everything. This is a formerly loyal psyker who summon Daemons, which in 99% of the cases means dooming the entire world, and then the Daemons obey his orders and the rest of the army is OK with that. It is the ultimate heresy, the definite step towards damnation. And the rest of the army does nothing? And how did the loyal Librarian learn how to control Daemons? Does he have an entire section about Daemons in the Librarium or is he a natural who hear demonic voices since he is a child?

Also... what´s the point? You stopped the Orks so now the Doors of Hell are open and the entire planet is devoured by Daemons or doomed by Exterminatus? And your Dark Angels are now Chaos Space Marines? In which sense is this a victory? How do you forge a narrative about that?

And Grey Knights can do it too. They can get some IG psykers as allies and fight side by side with Daemons.

I understand the 'do not do it if you think it is not correct' argument, but trying to justify this butchering of the setting by saying that this is something that may occur in the setting... no way. It makes no sense. If you play because you like the background, this rule is badly damaging the game.

You know we should have a rule if anyone summons a Daemon that really shouldn't be able to, then another battle quickly happens. That lone psyker or the unit it is with that agrees with it has to face an Inquisition to battle them. If the Inquisition player wins, that person who had the mins summon a daemon has to give up his minis to that person then.

how many times are they going to remicrowave and sprinkle pepper and parsley onto that gakky old rotting food?

it appears to be the same old repackaging typical of GW.

if they ever decide to rip apart their game and start rebuilding it from the ground up it might be worth taking a look at.

A legit, Battle-Forged Daemons list can summon an extra 1000 points' worth of models onto the table by turn 3.

The inherent design flaws, bad decisions, and yes, blatant attempts to get everyone to adopt a pay-to-win approach to a tabletop strategy game are only going to get worse as the codices are released.

 Lobukia wrote:
How cute, I'm calling the rage quitters, rage quitters.... cause they're in a rage... and quitting... all over Dakka, everywhere (and we know they'll mostly be back in 6 months).

I'm not rage quitting, because I honestly don't see the point getting that emotionally unstable over a hobby.

I wouldn't even say I'm quitting. My Tyranids are still there, and even get a bit of painting done to them occasionally.

I will not, however, be buying the new edition or any other Games Workshop products, aside from possibly paint for the forseeable future. It's just not the game I used to like, and not a game I want to support while it's in this form.

Not rage quitting, more "meh" quitting. Game is too bloated, takes too long, and requires too much fixing by the playerbase. It therefore isn't worth the ridiculous price tag. But I'm not angry, just a little exasperated and disappointed.

But hey. My models don't cease to exist because I'm a bit fed up of the current edition. I intend looking into other systems that I can use for my models (if I have to negotiate with my opponent, it may as well be for a ruleset I actually enjoy) and waiting to see if GW actually release anything decent in the coming months. If they release a nice new starter, I'll probably pick it up.

 Da Boss wrote:
Not rage quitting, more "meh" quitting. Game is too bloated, takes too long, and requires too much fixing by the playerbase.

Much the same. Once upon a time I was heavily into 40K , I would play 3+ games a week and spent far too much of my limited means on toy soldiers. When 3rd was released I didn't like the rules much and I liked the direction that the game had taken even less but I persevered for a year or two until I left university and moved away from my gaming group. I have tried every subsequent edition simply because it is relatively easy to find games, I still have substantial armies and I still like the core concept of 40k but they have never been games that I have actively sought out. Initially 6th was a reasonable (for GW) ruleset but now its a horrible, bloated mess of 'toy' units and hopelessly broken armies so yet again I have cut my losses.

7th sounds horrible, especially from a fluff perspective. 6th ed's ally rules were extremely badly put together but the new 'unbound' lists sound 10 times worse. Its very possible that I will finally walk away from tabletop 40k after over 2 decades because GW can't be arsed to make a good ruleset.

 Lobukia wrote:
Some book reading under my belt now:

So here's our house rules. Short sweet, simple, probably change later.

1 detachment for each 1k points being played (only 1 Lord of War, period)
Battle forged only
Warp Charge limit of 15 per turn
Malefic powers can each be activated only once per player per game
2+ saves rerolls are 4+

Now that's done, we're all pretty excited and ready to go. I think, with minimal effort, best edition yet.

PS: Gdub is ran by idiots shooting holes into a sinking ship, but we have a blast and am willing to put minimal effort into fixing the game to keep our great times rolling.

A bit steep IMHO, but certainly better than other proposed houserules i saw. What do you think about self allying? Especially for nids.
One thing i would add is "Dedicated transports cannot gain the Objective secure" rule.

I don't like the possibility of screwing 1' charges. If you say that the possibility is 1/36 - i'd say that this will happen every 3-d game to me. And the problem with assault-oriented forces that if you screw a charge - you're most likely loosing a game. Cause charges allready happen once per game with a squad of footslogas at best and they are VERY important. Yep, i don't like this 2d6 - 2.

Other than that...probably strange shooting sequence for different weapons firing not-simultaniously. It's gona screw guyz with low-ranged weapons being unable to fire at all sometimes just cause you got to decide if you want to shoot a melta or rapid fire bolters at 12'.

Yep, and obviously daemons summoning daemons summoning daemons is not a good game design as it is right now. Spammable and annoying. Not every army can alpha-strike your summoners turn one.