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.

**unmercifulconker**

Auswin wrote:
My hope is that when we see the rules play out in the book there will really be three ways to form a list.

1. Unbound: This involves both players agreeing to an unbound game. It's the fluffy/weird/forge the narrative stuff GW pushed in their shift towards the "beer and pretzel" crowd.

2. Battle-forged: The standard FoC for all armies. A strict guideline needs to be followed inside of a single codex and if those requirements are met the player gets army-specific buffs.

3. Battle-forged, with allies: Essentially what we have now. Follow the ally matrix, use two or more codices. The tradeoff is that you don't get the army-specific bonuses someone gets for using a single codex army.

The more I think about it the more I believe this is the route. I refuse (yes, perhaps I'm being naive) that GW would cannibalize its own game by intending for one side to follow rules and one do whatever the heck it wants.

Right now in 6th the rage is allied power lists that take advantage of the strongest units from multiple books. Many people don't like that purely from a fluff perspective and/or only want to play their one army. The battle-forged buff helps mitigate this gap.

I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.

Now this, I agree with, a genuine agreement and co-operation to make fun unbound lists I would love.

My greatest fear though is that how often will unbound games be these fun narrative campaigns and will it end up being FOC vs unbound?

**Kosake**

So they made a typo on this promotional poster. In the grim dark news&rumours section of dakka, there can be no peace, only war... not on 24th, but since at least 5.5.2014

**StarTrotter**

unmercifulconker wrote:
I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.

Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.

Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.

Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.

**brochtree**

please god let this psychic phase be a joke if not i think i might give up on 40k. i don't want to play fantasy in space i want to play 40K!

**StarTrotter**

brochtree wrote:
please god let this psychic phase be a joke if not i think i might give up on 40k. i don't want to play fantasy in space i want to play 40K!

Implying 40k wasn't fantasy in space to begin with

. Heck, in older editions there was a psyker phase! So it's more like we are coming full circle but then just jumping the deck as well. I'm really curious to see these faction specific abilities.

**HairySticks**

ausYenLoWang wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
ausYenLoWang wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
A new Rulebook costs £50+ why the feck would I want to pay that every 2 years.

because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment

and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night

£50 is less than one night in a pub? Are the drinks £5 a pint?

The pub is a choice, if I want to play warhammer I have to buy the rulebook. I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.

playing the game is a choice as well. and its never been considered a cheap hobby.

and yeah i mean i was in paddington in london and paying the rough 5 pound a pint, cheapest i found beer in europe etc was 1.5 euro a pint at a club in Prague. thats still 2.5 aus$ so yeah. but a pint here in perth 10$ a pint min so for 10 pints i get a rulebook for 2 years (and i can well drink more than 10 pints).. not too bad. sure it would be great if it was cheaper, i wouldnt complain thats for sure. but here we are at.

so for 2 years its not too bad if this was a year then i would say totally valid. 2 is ok, 4-5 would be great... but i think we are now past that kind of release scedule

Id argue that even with GW extortion this is still a 'cheap hobby' ... I could want to take up motor cross, or maybe snow boarding, rock climbing, or playing the drums, or maybe pc gaming, or countless other hobby & interest type things that cost an absolute fortune to start up and keep going in. GW prices are high for the physical goods on offer, but arguably relatively low for a hobby experience.

**unmercifulconker**

StarTrotter wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.

Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.

Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.

Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.

Oh yeah, no idea why I forgot about them.

Hmmm, ability for only chaos to bind them? Even then it would be unstable?

**Mr Morden**

StarTrotter wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.

Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.

Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.

Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.

in the WD extract on the first page it mentions something about "Daemonspawn" being fine with the Summoned Daemons (although again truthfully Khorne Daemons are not going to be happy with Daemonettes popping up etc) - whether that extends to Traitor Marines and the like ???

**jonolikespie**

HairySticks wrote:

Id argue that even with GW extortion this is still a 'cheap hobby' ... I could want to take up motor cross, or maybe snow boarding, rock climbing, or playing the drums, or maybe pc gaming, or countless other hobby & interest type things that cost an absolute fortune to start up and keep going in. GW prices are high for the physical goods on offer, but arguably relatively low for a hobby experience.

Where this argument falls apart though is that GW is not the hobby.
Comparing GW to other hobbies is all well and good but it's entirely irrelevant when you compare GW to any other company in the same hobby as GW and find that for the cost of the 2 rulebooks absolutely necessary to play a GW game you can buy the rules and a full average sized army for pretty much every other game on the market.

**insaniak**

Auswin wrote:

I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.

Except, as Yakface pointed out a few pages back, if this is the case there would be no point in Battle Forged armies receiving bonuses.

The intention is very clearly for Forged armies to fight against Unbound armies, with the Forged armies receiving some sort of bonus for following the rules.

**unmercifulconker**

Mr Morden wrote:
StarTrotter wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.

Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.

Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.

Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.

in the WD extract on the first page it mentions something about "Daemonspawn" being fine with the Summoned Daemons (although again truthfully Khorne Daemons are not going to be happy with Daemonettes popping up etc) - whether that extends to Traitor Marines and the like ???

Hmm re-read the daemonspawn bit, interesting, perhaps that will include all chaos then?

**bubber**

I'm seriously pissed - I got both escalation & stronghold for Christmas, not long after they were released (IIRC). GW must have known that they would be releasing v7 just 5 months later. Feel very ripped of & will be contact GW to demand a refund.

**xttz**

MRPYM wrote:So whats everyone thoughts on the new psyker rules?

This is the one change I'm cautiously optimistic about. Aside from the single dice roll to generate warp charge it doesn't sound like you're doing anything extra than you are now; it's just all consolidated together instead of being split between movement and shooting phases. It should help to resolve those "oh bollocks it's the shooting phase and I forgot to do a crucial Malediction or Blessing" situations, and make it easier to keep track of warp charges, etc.

It also sounds like they're moving Deny away from a silly random save that all units get, and instead it'll be a tactical trade-off where you can forgo your own psychic powers to block opponent's ones. If armies with lots of cheap psykers can use them to shut down massed Prescience / Fortune, I think that's a good thing.

streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?

Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.

**streamdragon**

xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?

Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.

You're missing the math though. Currently each unit gets ML warp charge to use on powers. So a Zoanthrope gets 2WC and has a 1WC and 2WC power. It can use one or the other, owing to power costs.

In the new system, your entire army gets 1d6 + total ML Warp Charge. So if my army contains just the Zoey, I'm still getting d6+2 WC. So now I'd have enough WC to use both powers.

Naturally this all depends on how the rules actually shake down, and how psychic defense dice work. Still, it might actually make it worthwhile to take Zoanthropes in actual broods now!

**Auswin**

insaniak wrote:
Auswin wrote:

I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.

Except, as Yakface pointed out a few pages back, if this is the case there would be no point in Battle Forged armies receiving bonuses.

The intention is very clearly for Forged armies to fight against Unbound armies, with the Forged armies receiving some sort of bonus for following the rules.

Not if (as I mentioned in my OP) the intention is for them to be a bonus granted to an army using units from entirely within the same codex. In short: No bonuses for taking allies.

I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.

**Dullspork**

MWHistorian wrote:

This is how I feel. I'm not hyperventilating. I'm not a hater. I love 40k, I've been playing it most of my life. The idea that "wanting to win is immature" is ridiculous. It's a competitive strategy game where two people with (close to) equally strength armies, fight it out and the better player wins.
Apparently that's not what 40k is anymore, so if 7th proves to be what it's looking like, then I am out because I want a different kind of game than one where spending the most money is the winning strategy.

I would say that you're technically correct, but I think that the game started out (with Rogue Trader) as more of a narrative game. Obviously somebody would win and somebody would lose, but that wasn't necessarily the primary focus of playing the game. I get the feeling that that style of play is more popular in the UK than it has been in the US and since we're the bigger consumer market the game adjusted to suit us 'merikans.

While I'm not surprised that people seem disappointed by the change to include "unbound" play, I don't see how it changes anything for anybody who isn't interested in that play style. It's not forcing anybody to play that way. It's really just like the Apocalypse rules. You're either playing that way or you aren't. Frankly, a lot of new players play that way anyway until they can build up enough of a collection to even be able to field a proper army. All this does is make the game feel more inclusive in that they no longer have to feel like they're doing something wrong by playing this way.

If Magic: The Gathering can survive with the myriad of different play formats it has (Legacy, Standard, Modern, Vintage, EDH...) I think 40K can survive this.

**Squidbot**

Auswin wrote:

I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this.
The hysteria is quite amusing.

**streamdragon**

Bahaha, I just had a thought:

Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!

**xttz**

streamdragon wrote:
xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?

Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.

You're missing the math though. Currently each unit gets ML warp charge to use on powers. So a Zoanthrope gets 2WC and has a 1WC and 2WC power. It can use one or the other, owing to power costs.

In the new system, your entire army gets 1d6 + total ML Warp Charge. So if my army contains just the Zoey, I'm still getting d6+2 WC. So now I'd have enough WC to use both powers.

Naturally this all depends on how the rules actually shake down, and how psychic defense dice work. Still, it might actually make it worthwhile to take Zoanthropes in actual broods now!

I'm assuming that psykers still can't spend more charge than their mastery level. If that restriction is lifted it would be a nice little buff for Nids that get Warp Blast on Hive Tyrants too.

**streamdragon**

xttz wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
xttz wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?

Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.

You're missing the math though. Currently each unit gets ML warp charge to use on powers. So a Zoanthrope gets 2WC and has a 1WC and 2WC power. It can use one or the other, owing to power costs.

In the new system, your entire army gets 1d6 + total ML Warp Charge. So if my army contains just the Zoey, I'm still getting d6+2 WC. So now I'd have enough WC to use both powers.

Naturally this all depends on how the rules actually shake down, and how psychic defense dice work. Still, it might actually make it worthwhile to take Zoanthropes in actual broods now!

I'm assuming that psykers still can't spend more charge than their mastery level. If that restriction is lifted it would be a nice little buff for Nids that get Warp Blast on Hive Tyrants too.

The page mentions being able to spend as many dice as you want, but with higher liklihood of Perils with more dice. I'm assuming this is similar to Fantasy's Winds of Magic system. Even a level 1 caster (or a level 0 caster with a magic bound item) can throw 6 dice at a spell.

**StarTrotter**

Auswin wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Auswin wrote:

I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.

Except, as Yakface pointed out a few pages back, if this is the case there would be no point in Battle Forged armies receiving bonuses.

The intention is very clearly for Forged armies to fight against Unbound armies, with the Forged armies receiving some sort of bonus for following the rules.

Not if (as I mentioned in my OP) the intention is for them to be a bonus granted to an army using units from entirely within the same codex. In short: No bonuses for taking allies.

I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.

Wouldn't this then put a simple ally list (which can be fluffy) at a disadvantage against the entire armies shoved together as well though?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Bahaha, I just had a thought:

Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!

Along with Tau and DE you mean

**Kilkrazy**

2nd edition was a long time ago. The majority of people playing today have been brought up on 3rd, 4th and 5th editions.

When you look at the amount of whinging and moaning™ that has arisen through 6th edition, it is clear that on DakkaDakka at least, there is a strong resentment of the changes in the rules from the 3/4/5 paradigm, and that is hardly going to be assuaged by changing even further in the "wrong" direction.

**vadersson**

Hey gang,

So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here, it looks like 40K will not be any fun for the casual player anymore. I don't even have a Riptide or Broadside.

It would be a real shame if 40K killed off new players after less than a month. I hope someone writes a good review of the new rulebook so I can determine if I really want to keep getting into this game. Otherwise, looks like my models go back on ebay where I found them...

Thanks,
Duncan

**avedominusnox**

I am scared as hell with these news.

**WarOne**

The fear right now is the unknown. Will 7th edition "break" WH40k for too many players as they find out there are too many unreasonable hurdles to overcome?

**unmercifulconker**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Bahaha, I just had a thought:

Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!

Along with Tau and DE you mean

And any self-respecting BT player.

**Squidbot**

vadersson wrote:
Hey gang,

So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here, it looks like 40K will not be any fun for the casual player anymore. I don't even have a Riptide or Broadside.

It would be a real shame if 40K killed off new players after less than a month. I hope someone writes a good review of the new rulebook so I can determine if I really want to keep getting into this game. Otherwise, looks like my models go back on ebay where I found them...

Thanks,
Duncan

I wouldn't make any decisions yet, Duncan. Internet forums tend to be quite.... what's the word... unbalanced (Go ahead, people, take that joke). Wait until; the new edition has been out a while, and people have settled down, and had a read/play of the new stuff.
This could be a storm in a teacup. Or it could be awful. It's really too early to say, despite all the negativity being thrown around here.

**MWHistorian**

unmercifulconker wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Bahaha, I just had a thought:

Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!

Along with Tau and DE you mean

And any self-respecting BT player.

And SOB.

**WarOne**

unmercifulconker wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Bahaha, I just had a thought:

Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!

Along with Tau and DE you mean

And any self-respecting BT player.

And Khorne 'zerker armies....

**Sir Arun**

WarOne wrote:
The fear right now is the unknown. Will 7th edition "break" WH40k for too many players as they find out there are too many unreasonable hurdles to overcome?

you know whats gonna do it for me? If the next codexes they release start looking different than the current line.