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.

Can't wait to sacrifice Eldrad to a Keeper of Secrets summoning.

TOTALLY GOING TO BE WORTH IT.

The biggest flaws in 40k will remain whatever changes are made to the core rules since 40k has always been a codex centric game. some units will be more powerful than others, alternating turns will still remain and the game will remain overburdened by special rules that break other rules and have massive inconsistencies in relative power level between the armies.
Arguably the imbalance between armies is a moot point when you play a narrative game among friends, and this is the area GW seem to be pushing the game. Tournaments will likely respond to 'unbound' armies by simply excluding them from the tournament format like has been done in a lot of cases with Lords of War.

Whether the changes affect PUG's remains to be seen, and i can see most groups reaching a consensus on what is, and isn't allowed in a TAC list. But i can also see a lot of people continuing to play 40k even if 7th ed turns out to be the massive mess i'm expecting it to be. despite the ground other systems are taking from GW, 40k still remains the most played system in my area. I will continue to encourage people to play other systems, since i started playing Infinity i've managed to turn a few people to it, and ive hijacked a few games nights by taking the copy of Heroquest my missus bought me for my birthday to them.
i usually take one or more alternative games to these events to show that 40k isn't the only game on the market, nor the best one. Frag, Flux and a touch of evil have all gone down very well indeed!

However, if my personal collection is anything to go by, those with 40k armies tend to have large ones, its still easier to find a 40k game than almost any other system, and 40k has the brand recognition advantage over most other games.

I won't be buying any more figures from GW, i 'may' get stuff from ebay in small amounts, and i wont be buying the new rulebook. i will probably still be forced to play unless there is a massive shift in opinion, and i will still encourage others to try different systems, however i don't think it matters if 40k is better or worse in the slightest

 WarOne wrote:
Can't wait to sacrifice Eldrad to a Keeper of Secrets summoning.

TOTALLY GOING TO BE WORTH IT.

JUST AS NOT AS PLANNED OF JUST AS NOT AS PLANNED!

So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.

Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.

...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.

So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.

How about "We know nothing, because none of us have seen the rulebook." Why isn't that a poll question?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
How about "We know nothing, because none of us have seen the rulebook." Why isn't that a poll question?

Do you like what you have seen so far for 7th edition 40k?

Not sure if I like the changes.

We'll see more tanks and Daemons all the way. GW is going to prepare for this by filling their stock appropriately.

Going on what we have seen so far...

I am pleased that the Unbound armies are optional, as I think they will be wildly unbalanced.

The new Psychic phase is probably going to be a major pain in the arse if you don’t particularly like Space Magic or else your army doesn’t have any or has relatively limited amounts of it. For example, my two armies are Tau and Tyranids. Tau naturally don’t have any Psychics so the whole phase will be a waste of time. Tyranids do have Psychics but they are all about ordinary shooting attacks (Zoanthropes) or affecting your own army, so dealing with these is going to be a hassle and nuisance. So that bit is a downer for me.

Allies needed revision which apparently they are getting. I didn’t want Allies at all in 6th, and my apprehension was proved correct by their serious unbalancing effects, so it is good to see this being mitigated but I fear the new “factions” rules will give the Imperium a lot of advantages in allying while making life more difficult for most of the Xenos, thereby simply moving the point of unbalance. However we can just agree to play without Allies.

The Objective Cards will probably be all right. Not exactly a major leap forwards in game design but probably harmless.

Most of the rest of it is the usual tinkering with bits and bobs like changes to Jinking and Consolidation moves. This sort of stuff happens every edition and just changes the unbalance in the meta as people get the new “ubber” tactics worked out in a month or two. Then we see some more changes from new codexes being unbalanced.

Apparently D weapons are being dialled down. I never wanted them in the game anyway, so this may make them playable or it may not -- I shall have to wait and see.

Nothing is being done to change the turn sequence fundamentals that would make the game a lot more fun and playable quite easily. Disappointing but predictable.


Overall I think 7th edition will be slightly better than 6th but slightly worse than 4th and 5th.

The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.

The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.

Could you please elaborate this a bit further?

niv-mizzet wrote:
So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.

Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.

...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.

So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.

If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.

I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.

Im excited!

Makumba wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.

Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.

...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.

So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.

If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.

I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.

Or CSM.

One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.

Makumba wrote:

I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.

I hope for the "Dwarf" method. Dwarfs in WHFB do not have any wizards on their own but in return, get superior magic defense. Free army-wide Adamantium Will maybe.

 Selym wrote:

Makumba wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.

Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.

...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.

So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.

If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.

I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.

Or CSM.

One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.

Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Makumba wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.

Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.

...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.

So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.

If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.

I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.

Or CSM.

One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.

Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.

Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.

Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?

 Selym wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Makumba wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.

Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.

...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.

So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.

If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.

I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.

Or CSM.

One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.

Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.

Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.

I am not sure what you mean. The HQ slots in your primary detachment are not used up by ally HQ choices. We are talking about a chaos space marines primary detachment, right?

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 Selym wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Makumba wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
So I voted yes, because I like changes, and I play BA, so it's not like things can get much worse for my army.

Then I saw the spoiler of the daemonology power table, and the "stacks with all the things" +1 invuln power to daemons.

...And I facepalmed. My impression of the GW rules designers is slipping from incompetent drunks to misanthropic recluses that actively HATE all of us.

So pretend there's one less yes vote, and one more no vote. Better to be hanging off a breaking branch above a river full of crocodiles, than to actually be in the river with the crocodiles.

If you cast grimore first and then the corrupted ground you will get realy low invs.
But it is going to be interesting to have 1-2 divination in my AM and 1-2 with demonology for supprise counters.

I wonder how GW plans to balance factions that don't have psykers or have bad psykers like tau , sob , necron or orks.

Or CSM.

One of our powers has to be from a god table. And they all suck a$$.

Who you kidding? Chaos Sorcerors are great. You don't have to give them a mark.

Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.

I am not sure what you mean. The HQ slots in your primary detachment are not used up by ally HQ choices. We are talking about a chaos space marines primary detachment, right?

Eh. I always end up thinking of the CSM as an allied detachment - it's the only way I can get it to work. And it ends up being Be'lakor, troop tax and a heldrake.

 slowthar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.

Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?

I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.

Bunch of new stuff from the WD recently, to give a better picture. Thank god chumping meelee monsters is out.

ALSO no new starter set. They are pulling the old ones and packaging them with a "trials set" of rules, that DO NOT give you the whole rule set you need to play with. So you would HAVE to buy yet another 85 dollar book set. Im changing to no.

Also for those who haven't seen it yet.

And pics of what the set will look like.

 Selym wrote:



Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.

Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.

Makumba wrote:

 Selym wrote:



Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.

Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.

Some people want to win without resorting to unseemly methods for the uncivilized.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.

Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?

I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.

I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.

Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?

I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.

I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.

That's what they have Ebay for.

 Kain wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Selym wrote:



Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.

Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.

Some people want to win without resorting to unseemly methods for the uncivilized.

How is it "uncivilised" when demon primary armies can do the same without going unbound ?

Makumba wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Selym wrote:



Yeah, but they still take up the HQ slot that really should be used for allying with daemons, given the state of the dex overall.

Then play unbound . Basic sorc is what 65-100pts, you could easily take 3-4 in a 1750 list. With familiars to re-roll dice. Ally in some heralds and horrors and you could be dominating the psychic phase.

Some people want to win without resorting to unseemly methods for the uncivilized.

How is it "uncivilised" when demon primary armies can do the same without going unbound ?

Daemon, not demon.

Unbound is ridiculously dumb and not to be taken seriously, between a bunch of Imperial only allied detachments, formations, dual FOC (even if cowards try to avert it with 1999+1 games), and allies, the FOC is already enough of a joke. Let's not dig the grave for it just yet.

But a demon army can take the 4-5 casters and do the same summoning as the unbound csm one . In fact it is better , because demon kin don't suffer from the perils on all doubles while casting malific . they can also cycle through HQs , better , because they already start with a grimoire on the table , while the csm player has to summon it first.

If playing csm unbound or with ally demons is as you said uncivilised , then playing demons should be banned. Because they can do the same , and get all the perks from having a warforged armies .

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The best news that the book is being split into three parts which is a huge improvement. I look forwards to buying just the rulebook and not the fluff and art books as it will be a lot cheaper. Much of my resentment towards 6th edition is caused by the very high prices of the rulebooks.

Are you sure about that? From what I had read, yes, they're going to be physically three different books, but they're going to be sold collectively as a set for $80. Maybe your source is more up to date than mine? Or are you assuming getting just one of the three from eBay?

I assume GW will sell the rulebook separately.

I think that's optimistic. They know an awful lot of people would buy only the rules, and they're not going to let you get ahold of 7E rules more cheaply than they did 6E.

I shall go into the GW and ask for the rules separately. If they don't sell them I will not buy the full set, and ask the manager to mention this to head office. Hopefully other people will do the same.