40k 7th Edition release 24th may - All info in 1st post, psychic power cards added (5/21)

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.

**Lockark**

pretre wrote:
40k Radio wrote:Ok, it seems a nasty rumor is making its way around the interwebs. Many forums are saying 40k 7th is switching over to % based lists. We are here to 100% confirm that is not happening.

We have always told you guys the truth about everything in the past 12 months. Our source has been spot on with everything from release schedules to what each army will have.

So please rest easy knowing that force org will still be in the game.

These are facts, not rumors from your trusted source for insider 40k news, not rumors.

That's to bad. I had hope for a change that meant not haveing to spam the same unit to win.

**ClockworkZion**

azreal13 wrote:
I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

I recall a lot of unhappy people online when 8th dropped because of the percentage things and it going into a slow death after that. Maybe my conclusion is a wrong but I'm drawing from what limited data I have.

**Azreal13**

ClockworkZion wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

I recall a lot of unhappy people online when 8th dropped because of the percentage things and it going into a slow death after that. Maybe my conclusion is a wrong but I'm drawing from what limited data I have.

The issue there, as you point out, is that Internet criticism to real life action ratios are likely very low. My own personal observation is that in the 90s, not every 40K player had a fantasy army, but many did, and most games played were 40K and FB was not rare, but was unusual enough to be mildly surprising. Fast forward a couple of decades and it looks very similar.

**Stus67**

Had a good laugh at people thinking 40K would go with percentages.

**Azreal13**

Stus67 wrote:
Had a good laugh at people thinking 40K would go with percentages.

Did you?

How jolly.

Where's your post before 40K Radio's quote sayin as much, so it doesn't look like you're being some sort of Internet smart arse?

**Sledgehammer**

so if this % thing goes through should i give up on my army?

im planning on only using vendettas/valkyries, sentinals, veterans/stormtroopers, and heavy weapons teams.

i will not be using any transports except the valkyrie/vendetta, and will have no true heavy support in the form of tanks. Instead im going to rely on hwt, sentinels, and vendettas to give me my firepower while my infantry decimate their infantry.

since i will not have any heavy support and my "heavy support" is coming from fast attack choices am i screwed?

**Stus67**

azreal13 wrote:
Stus67 wrote:
Had a good laugh at people thinking 40K would go with percentages.

Did you?

How jolly.

Where's your post before 40K Radio's quote sayin as much, so it doesn't look like you're being some sort of Internet smart arse?

A post of me laughing? I don't usually make a habit of randomly interjecting on forums with lol's between debate. I heard of the rumor earlier today at my local GW because the tau kid was stuttering on about it. Speaking of though the manager sent back all of his copies of 6th Edition and showed us the poster they sent him.

**alphaecho**

Percentages were so 2nd Ed.

Weren't IG the first ones to break from that with an early version of FOC?

One Leman Russ/ Basilisk/ Hellhound/ Ogryn squad etc per Infantry Squad.

**Azreal13**

Stus67 wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Stus67 wrote:
Had a good laugh at people thinking 40K would go with percentages.

Did you?

How jolly.

Where's your post before 40K Radio's quote sayin as much, so it doesn't look like you're being some sort of Internet smart arse?

A post of me laughing? I don't usually make a habit of randomly interjecting on forums with lol's between debate. I heard of the rumor earlier today at my local GW because the tau kid was stuttering on about it. Speaking of though the manager sent back all of his copies of 6th Edition and showed us the poster they sent him.

No, a post of your skepticism prior to the best thing we have to a confirmation before the event, so you don't look like my auntie, who claimed to be psychic, exclaiming "I knew that would happen, I had a feeling!" After stuff occurred, only with more Internet smug guy added.

**Kanluwen**

Sledgehammer wrote:
so if this % thing goes through should i give up on my army?

im planning on only using vendettas/valkyries, sentinals, veterans/stormtroopers, and heavy weapons teams.

i will not be using any transports except the valkyrie/vendetta, and will have no true heavy support in the form of tanks. Instead im going to rely on hwt, sentinels, and vendettas to give me my firepower while my infantry decimate their infantry.

since i will not have any heavy support and my "heavy support" is coming from fast attack choices am i screwed?

Your army would not be valid in any case if you take no Infantry Platoons, since they are the only way to have Heavy Weapons Teams.

**Wayniac**

FWIW one of Faeit212's "best sources for rumors" supposedly says that percentages IS a thing. Although I'd be more inclined to trust 40k radio given their track record, as this whole "sideboard" thing sounds like pure trolling.

via a must remain anonymous source on Faeit 212
FoC removed, percentages added.

Players have a "sideboard" of up to X number of selections (2-5, bracketed on points, so 1k or less games you have 2 sideboards, at 3k+ you have 5).

Sideboards can't be more than 25% of the total, or can be none at all.

They are referred to as "Secondary Detachments."

They are used for anything from allies to just additional things from your own codex.

If they are allies, then they require an HQ and a troop, and are still bound by the 25% of total.

Both players are expected to have sideboards.

Sideboarding is now a part of the game, done before deployment but in order of turn priority. So the person going first, picks their sideboard first after learning what race their opponent is playing, and seeing 75% of their army (and the available sideboards).

The person going second then picks their sideboard, after their opponent has selected, but before either side deploys.
----------------------------
Other tweeks include assaulting as a form of sweeping advance/consolidation.

The option to flee, in response to being charged (after overwatching) but there is the potential to be swept and the unit charging can (if they have the movement and sweep you) just hit a different unit provided it's in the same rough direction as the unit they swept.

The main thing I wanted to touch on is sideboards, % based army building, battle brothers being removed and units being able to lock themselves into combat to combat, but simultaneously enemy generals having another tool to avoid combat to counter act this.

**Azreal13**

alphaecho wrote:
Percentages were so 2nd Ed.

Yeah, but then so were conversion beamers, melee weapon profiles, overwatch....

**Kanluwen**

Faeit212 is like BOLS...not worth really listening to.

**ClockworkZion**

Sledgehammer wrote:
so if this % thing goes through should i give up on my army?

im planning on only using vendettas/valkyries, sentinals, veterans/stormtroopers, and heavy weapons teams.

i will not be using any transports except the valkyrie/vendetta, and will have no true heavy support in the form of tanks. Instead im going to rely on hwt, sentinels, and vendettas to give me my firepower while my infantry decimate their infantry.

since i will not have any heavy support and my "heavy support" is coming from fast attack choices am i screwed?

From the looks of things we just had a heavy hitter on the rumors front just take % out back and shoot it, so I wouldn't worry about % all that much.

**Azreal13**

Kanluwen wrote:
Faeit212 is like BOLS...not worth really listening to.

Faeit is like advertising, about half of it is worth listening to, but nobody knows which half.

**ClockworkZion**

azreal13 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Faeit212 is like BOLS...not worth really listening to.

Faeit is like advertising, about half of it is worth listening to, but nobody knows which half.

Agreed. BoLS is 90% click baiting and generic/vague "rumors". At least Natfka is willing to actual post stuff that is actually specific.

**Wayniac**

ClockworkZion wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Faeit212 is like BOLS...not worth really listening to.

Faeit is like advertising, about half of it is worth listening to, but nobody knows which half.

Agreed. BoLS is 90% click baiting and generic/vague "rumors". At least Natfka is willing to actual post stuff that is actually specific.

BOLS actually reminds me a lot of pro wrestling news sites back in like the late 90s early 2000s; you'd have one guy calling the hotlines and buying the dirtsheets to get the news, and everyone else would steal the news and pass it off as their own, if you were lucky they'd give credit. Plus you'd have the sites with fake rumors/news designed purposely to get you to click on their links to get ad hits. They even have the "ton of banner ads everywhere even when it messes up the design" thing going; all that's missing is the photo gallery with hot women.

**Breotan**

Wait. You get to over watch and flee? So much for helping out assault armies.

**ClockworkZion**

Breotan wrote:
Wait. You get to over watch and flee? So much for helping out assault armies.

I doubt it honestly. Maybe one, but definitely not both at the same time.

**undertow**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Sledgehammer wrote:
so if this % thing goes through should i give up on my army?

im planning on only using vendettas/valkyries, sentinals, veterans/stormtroopers, and heavy weapons teams.

i will not be using any transports except the valkyrie/vendetta, and will have no true heavy support in the form of tanks. Instead im going to rely on hwt, sentinels, and vendettas to give me my firepower while my infantry decimate their infantry.

since i will not have any heavy support and my "heavy support" is coming from fast attack choices am i screwed?

From the looks of things we just had a heavy hitter on the rumors front just take % out back and shoot it, so I wouldn't worry about % all that much.

And there was much rejoicing.

**Jaceevoke**

Sigvatr wrote:
Lockark wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
If %-based slots are true, then brace yourselves for thousands of Annihilation Barges.

I don't have the nercon book, but at 2000 points, how many can you fit into 500 points?

I would also imagen they would have the "no more then 3 duplicated unit" rule from fantsey also.

I hope that there would be. In a regular game of 1850 points, you would be able to fit 5 Annihilation Barges in.

Actually you could fit in even more, due to ally shenanigans, I fit 4 in already at 1850. So at 1850 you could fit in five for the primary detachment and, depending on what percentage the allies, you could easily get two or three more.

Edit - Damn I wished I had read til the end of this thread before I posted -_-

**Wilson**

I'm pretty bummed that percentages arent going ahead. i reckon that would have really helped with making games more enjoyable and tactical .

**Backfire**

azreal13 wrote:

I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

As I see it, decline of WHFB began already in 7th edition and extreme unbalance of army balance (hugely overpowered Chaos Daemons etc). 8th ed just failed to turn things around.
In fact 40k 5th edition seems to have attracted FB players: I get the impression that many people dislike WHFB's complicated comp culture (at least over here) and moved to 40k where things are simpler - and despite everything, 40k meta was better balanced than WHFB.

**Accolade**

Backfire wrote:
azreal13 wrote:

I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

As I see it, decline of WHFB began already in 7th edition and extreme unbalance of army balance (hugely overpowered Chaos Daemons etc). 8th ed just failed to turn things around.
In fact 40k 5th edition seems to have attracted FB players: I get the impression that many people dislike WHFB's complicated comp culture (at least over here) and moved to 40k where things are simpler - and despite everything, 40k meta was better balanced than WHFB.

Is 40k's meta better balanced largely because most armies are some variation of power armor though? Just wondering.

This is intriguing to me though- the thought of this new rulebook release being possibly lackluster has brought me into thinking about giving WHFB a try, but I'd hate to get into a system that is *still* hemorrhaging players.

**Lockark**

Jaceevoke wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Lockark wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
If %-based slots are true, then brace yourselves for thousands of Annihilation Barges.

I don't have the nercon book, but at 2000 points, how many can you fit into 500 points?

I would also imagen they would have the "no more then 3 duplicated unit" rule from fantsey also.

I hope that there would be. In a regular game of 1850 points, you would be able to fit 5 Annihilation Barges in.

Actually you could fit in even more, due to ally shenanigans, I fit 4 in already at 1850. So at 1850 you could fit in five for the primary detachment and, depending on what percentage the allies, you could easily get two or three more.

That wasn't how the rumor for the detachment part worked.

allied heavy support, Fast attack, elite, ect also ate into the % cap for thows slots from the main army.

The idea for haveing a allied deathcment witht he same army was "side boarding", and being able to have a part of your army that can be swaped out for when super heavies show up, or when your faceing a green tide.

But dosen't matter much, now that 40kradio has said the rumor was un-true. I kinda figured any from the mere mentioned of a "side board" concept in 40k. It seemed like such a huge change of heart for a company that made a point of makeing a edition for the purpose of pissing off tournment players.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Accolade wrote:
Backfire wrote:
azreal13 wrote:

I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

As I see it, decline of WHFB began already in 7th edition and extreme unbalance of army balance (hugely overpowered Chaos Daemons etc). 8th ed just failed to turn things around.
In fact 40k 5th edition seems to have attracted FB players: I get the impression that many people dislike WHFB's complicated comp culture (at least over here) and moved to 40k where things are simpler - and despite everything, 40k meta was better balanced than WHFB.

Is 40k's meta better balanced largely because most armies are some variation of power armor though? Just wondering.

This is intriguing to me though- the thought of this new rulebook release being possibly lackluster has brought me into thinking about giving WHFB a try, but I'd hate to get into a system that is *still* hemorrhaging players.

As a player that went from 40k to fantsey, I've found 8th ed fantsey the most fun of any fantsey edition. I also found it the easiest to teach people how to play.

THE PROBLEM with WHFB is the coast for a army/getting people started.

funny enough GW's new website features helps show the issue with WHFB.
Core units
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer?N=102351+4294966823&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl&view=table

the newest plastic core boxs, are number $60-$50 for a box of ten. FOR CORE UNITS.

You also see the "less-in-the-box-idus" that 40k has been suffering from. But it's worse in fantsey because you need more of them.

**gorgon**

ClockworkZion wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

I recall a lot of unhappy people online when 8th dropped because of the percentage things and it going into a slow death after that. Maybe my conclusion is a wrong but I'm drawing from what limited data I have.

My impression was that rules changes to the actual game, such as random charge length, steadfast, etc. were more of a factor for some of the disgruntlement among vets.

**ClockworkZion**

gorgon wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

I recall a lot of unhappy people online when 8th dropped because of the percentage things and it going into a slow death after that. Maybe my conclusion is a wrong but I'm drawing from what limited data I have.

My impression was that rules changes to the actual game, such as random charge length, steadfast, etc. were more of a factor for some of the disgruntlement among vets.

Their random charge lengths are buffed by movement values unlike the 40k version so it's not as bad, but Steadfast did hurt cav and skirmish armies.

Having armies become illegal and needing to go out and buy 2-3 more core boxes to make a legal list again was a big deal breaker from what I recall.

**Lockark**

gorgon wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I disagree with you about it hurting Fantasy though, I think you're seeing a correlation without a causation there - WHFB has been the poor relative to 40K since forever, and I suspect that percentages failed to turn that around, rather than made it worse.

I recall a lot of unhappy people online when 8th dropped because of the percentage things and it going into a slow death after that. Maybe my conclusion is a wrong but I'm drawing from what limited data I have.

My impression was that rules changes to the actual game, such as random charge length, steadfast, etc. were more of a factor for some of the disgruntlement among vets.

I too have alwys heard more vets complain more about that then the % system.

Calvery being nerfed was the other big one when 8th 1st came out, but you heare it less now that the newer books have lowered the price for calvery units to reflext this. But it's still a throne in some vet's side since calvery isn't the hard hitting elite unit it use to be.

**Samurai_Eduh**

Iwas doubtful about percentages and 40k Radio coming out against it makes it even more unlikely.

I was in doubt because if you look in the Tempestus book, formations now have thier own FOC symbol (for exampleL HQ is a skull, Troops are an arrow, etc). This says to me that formations will now be a slot on the FOC like fortifications or LOW in Horus Heresy.

**streetsamurai**

pretre wrote:
40k Radio wrote:Ok, it seems a nasty rumor is making its way around the interwebs. Many forums are saying 40k 7th is switching over to % based lists. We are here to 100% confirm that is not happening.

We have always told you guys the truth about everything in the past 12 months. Our source has been spot on with everything from release schedules to what each army will have.

.

Not you have not, I'm still waiting for that commissar squad