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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The WD team has shown time and time again they're willing to bend, break, or just forget rules to make things look cool in their articles, so why should we treat a small blurb as gospel when they're making Natfka look more consistent and reliable?

Because there's a difference between bending the rules to make a fun mission and blatantly inventing rules when your sole purpose is to show off the new rules. "Look at how awesome this is, you can turn your psyker into a demon, except you can't unless you invent your own rules that allow you to do it" isn't a very convincing sales approach. We safely assume that some of the other rules in the game weren't quite by the book, but there's really no reasonable doubt that one of the new psychic powers allows you to summon a demon at the cost of sacrificing the model (or sacrificing some of the model's health).

I really don't like the idea of loyalist Space Marines turning to chaos to win a battle, it goes completely against all of the fluff we have been reading up to now surely?

I mean, one might turn, but not to win a battle for his chapter!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Actually the more I think about it the more I think that's exactly why Ezekial was most likely chosen: it's sensationalist enough to get us talking and waiting impatiently to know more.

Except that's a terrible idea because anyone who loves the thought of being able to do it with that character is going to be disappointed and angry when they look at the real rules and discover that they can't.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
I'm confused as to why people think that Dark Angels are summoning demons in 7th Edition when they clearly say that they were messing around in the WD

Because they clearly weren't messing around. It's ambiguous.

Because if you're PLAYTESTING rules by "Messing around" with things that aren't actually in the rules... well...

Percent based FOC or no FOC at all?

Sounds screwed up. I just invested like $300 into getting the army I wanted, spent most of the year agonizing over lists and trying to find competitive ideas that I like, all the gluing and painting... all for what?

So some cockneyed git can say "Oh bosh the FOC! It's too hard to write lists, and people who are good at it ought to have to relearn it!" This is ridiculous. Sorry, I find this silly, that is my opinion. I do love the hobby, but can I justify GW prices for a painting hobby? Maybe the guys will be more interested in Firestorm Armada now or something?

At any rate, I have a very nice display cabinet full of Marines. Maybe one day I can give em to my kids. Chapter Master Smashface as Molly the Tea Server during playtime? Seems appropriate given the look of things to come...

Also, there's absolutely no reason at all to believe that the rules work differently. The entire argument that the "battle report" is a lie consists of "I really don't want this to be true".

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, there's absolutely no reason at all to believe that the rules work differently. The entire argument that the "battle report" is a lie consists of "I really don't want this to be true".

GW has already established a rule set for allowing anything you want.

So why no toss everything else out the window as well? Grey Knights summoning Daemons? No problem!

Eldar getting Slaanesh Daemons? Drive your race into further damnation!

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Actually the more I think about it the more I think that's exactly why Ezekial was most likely chosen: it's sensationalist enough to get us talking and waiting impatiently to know more.

Except that's a terrible idea because anyone who loves the thought of being able to do it with that character is going to be disappointed and angry when they look at the real rules and discover that they can't.

WD Codex: Sisters of Battle. 4 Specials in a 5 model Dominion Squad in the battle report, 2 per 5 in the codex. They've done it before and they can do it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, there's absolutely no reason at all to believe that the rules work differently. The entire argument that the "battle report" is a lie consists of "I really don't want this to be true".

Nice accusation, but it's "the WD Team has shown they don't know their ass from their elbow so I'm not trusting some blurb that doesn't even give us all the details of how it happened" in my book. I don't care if it's true, but I do rate the WD team has FAR less reliable than they should be on new product information.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Nice accusation, but it's "the WD Team has shown they don't know their ass from their elbow so I'm not trusting some blurb that doesn't even give us all the details of how it happened" in my book. I don't care if it's true, but I do rate the WD team has FAR less reliable than they should be on new product information.

The funny thing about the WD team is that they could simply phone Matt Ward and get clarification on how to play or a quick fact check, but ya'know, they have a tight schedule and that whip ain't cracking itself.

 WarOne wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Nice accusation, but it's "the WD Team has shown they don't know their ass from their elbow so I'm not trusting some blurb that doesn't even give us all the details of how it happened" in my book. I don't care if it's true, but I do rate the WD team has FAR less reliable than they should be on new product information.

The funny thing about the WD team is that they could simply phone Matt Ward and get clarification on how to play or a quick fact check, but ya'know, they have a tight schedule and that whip ain't cracking itself.

I've reached the point that when the WD team talks about a new product I take it with more salt than I do the Anonymous Rumors from Natfka. I've just seen them screw too many things up, especially since they went to the previous "new" WD version. With them doing 4+ a month now I've lowered my expectations on them getting details and facts right that much more.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
WD Codex: Sisters of Battle. 4 Specials in a 5 model Dominion Squad in the battle report, 2 per 5 in the codex. They've done it before and they can do it again.

That's entirely different. Getting the number of weapons wrong is a minor error that few people are going to care about. That's not at all the same as "oops, we said you could summon a demon but you can't summon demons at all" when you're writing a little story about how cool the new rule for summoning demons is.

Nice accusation, but it's "the WD Team has shown they don't know their ass from their elbow so I'm not trusting some blurb that doesn't even give us all the details of how it happened" in my book. I don't care if it's true, but I do rate the WD team has FAR less reliable than they should be on new product information.

"They make mistakes" isn't a reason to believe that this particular thing is a mistake. If we had some contradictory evidence from another source that gave a reason to doubt the WD claim then yes, it would be reasonable to believe that the WD author made a mistake. But we have absolutely nothing like that, the only reason anyone has for doubting the WD story is stubborn refusal to accept that GW could be doing something that they don't like.

WD is attempting to write a narrative about how cool the new rules are and you should totally but the product. Everything else I believe comes second.

Given that the staff is paid to produce content to incentivize people to play the game, it comes as no surprise.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
WD Codex: Sisters of Battle. 4 Specials in a 5 model Dominion Squad in the battle report, 2 per 5 in the codex. They've done it before and they can do it again.

That's entirely different. Getting the number of weapons wrong is a minor error that few people are going to care about. That's not at all the same as "oops, we said you could summon a demon but you can't summon demons at all" when you're writing a little story about how cool the new rule for summoning demons is.

They screwed up codex options before so when presented with one you say it's not the same thing as screwing up a codex option. Riiiiiiiight.

I think you're too sold on that is MUST be as written not that it MAY be as written. They can leave it out of being available to DA and just point at the line about play testing as a cop out.

For someone who seems to be so aware of how the company is willing to milk people for money you seem rather adamant that the only possibility is that it wasn't done for pure hype reasons. I'm at least trying to entertain other possibilities, such as them getting creative to shill their magazine.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nice accusation, but it's "the WD Team has shown they don't know their ass from their elbow so I'm not trusting some blurb that doesn't even give us all the details of how it happened" in my book. I don't care if it's true, but I do rate the WD team has FAR less reliable than they should be on new product information.

"They make mistakes" isn't a reason to believe that this particular thing is a mistake. If we had some contradictory evidence from another source that gave a reason to doubt the WD claim then yes, it would be reasonable to believe that the WD author made a mistake. But we have absolutely nothing like that, the only reason anyone has for doubting the WD story is stubborn refusal to accept that GW could be doing something that they don't like.

I doubt the accuracy of the WD Staff based on their track record, forgive me for playing cynic and skeptic here. I'm not saying it "can't" be true or that I don't "want" it to be true, I'm just approaching this with the understanding that there is a solid chance it "may not" be as presented. I refuse to jump on the bandwagon either way here, and I really don't see the point of only latching onto the idea of it being true in complete, and intentional, disregard for all the times they've gotten things wrong.

Track records matter, and theirs is far from perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:
WD is attempting to write a narrative about how cool the new rules are and you should totally but the product. Everything else I believe comes second.

Given that the staff is paid to produce content to incentivize people to play the game, it comes as no surprise.

Which was my point about picking something that'd get hype. It's not like they're lying with how it's worded if it turns out to not be an option for Dark Angels after all. I remain open to both possibilities until I know enough to actually draw a conclusion.

I just think they're completely throwing away the fluff.. similar to how Storm of Magic was absurd for fantasy. There are 0 situations where High Elves would ally with Demons for example.. ditto for Lizardmen yet for some reason it was allowed! Yay sell more models.

Demonology is fine as a discipline but why is it ONLY not allowed by Nids? There is no rational reason why Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, ANY of the rest of the first founding chapters, grey knights, ELDAR or Orks (If you dont understand how orks psychics work then you should read up) would summon demons.

It sorta makes sense for IG in terms of psykers going all crazy yet that's what commissars are for..and obvious CSM but that's really it. It makes little sense for demons to transform into demons.. thats not how demonic possession works.

I think it's foolish to say "well this dude librarian COULD summon a demon if my fluff is written in a way that supports my customer chapter being down with demon friends". Okay, well I'm sure in the span of 10,000 years there can be a justification for just about ANYTHING however the codices are supposed to represent the core theme of an army not every possible fringe idea. What's next, female space marines?

Dark Angels summoning demons should never be condoned under any circumstance.. especially by the chief librarian wtf. IMO the only thing keeping 40k a float is its very strong lore, and they're killing it with every supplement

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They can leave it out of being available to DA and just point at the line about play testing as a cop out.

And, again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it isn't available to DA besides "I don't like it". The article even very clearly says that all non-Tyranid psykers can take the new powers.

I'm at least trying to entertain other possibilities, such as them getting creative to shill their magazine.

There's a difference between being open-minded, and being so open-minded that your brain falls out. You're on the wrong side of that line, you're just posting skepticism for the sake of skepticism.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They can leave it out of being available to DA and just point at the line about play testing as a cop out.

And, again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it isn't available to DA besides "I don't like it".

I'm at least trying to entertain other possibilities, such as them getting creative to shill their magazine.

There's a difference between being open-minded, and being so open-minded that your brain falls out. You're on the wrong side of that line, you're just posting skepticism for the sake of skepticism.

Just because you've chosen to believe it can only happen one way doesn't mean being open to the possibility of it not being that way (or the rule even being presented incorrectly and there is no way to do what they claimed or at least how the described it) doesn't mean you need to try and insinuate claims that I'm intentionally being stupid just so I can argue things.

I'm skeptical of everything the WD team posts until I can see the rules for myself. This is no exception and I see no concrete reason why it should be.

 Kirasu wrote:
I just think they're completely throwing away the fluff...

This is why FW gets such kudos because even though people may "fear" their rules, all their content is based in specializing in lore and grounded in fleshing out what the basic kits and the main game do not provide.

GW is simply pushing to milk as much money as they can. This methodology though will hit a wall at some point and the company will have to make an important decision on whether or not they believe they can sustain that type of strategy.

I'm just going to have to wait and see what bonuses Battle Forged Armies get over unbound armies before I complain about the removal of the FoC at someone's whim. I mean, most armies already take the minimal troops required as it is now; if only Troops can score and win games still, and the bonuses for Battle Forged Armies are worth the points, I can't imagine anyone dropping it for Unbound armies. I mean, it'll be cool to play a First Company army as the Ultramarines, or the ability to take a Tank Brigade without having to buy a forgeworld army, (Though, really, two squads of 5 vets in a Chimera wasn't that prohibitive!).

And I'm not sure how I feel about this psyker phase... are the Psychic powers going to stay the same? Are they going to get more punishing to those who don't have a Psyker in their army to defend themselves, making Psyker HQs even more must takes than they are now? And now I get to pack my Daemons with me when I play my Ultramarines army... take a 65pt Librarian and try to explode him as fast as possible to get a Bloodthirster to rampage around the field. Even if he dies fairly quickly, it's only 65pts for the chance at a 250pt Greater Daemon.

Probably going to keep playing Eternal War missions, just due to the simplicity.

This is going to be a long two weeks.

Inversely, why is it that a new rules edition must be such a mystery? The lead-up seems like it's building the bad hype. I'm not particularly enjoying this, nothing has me "amped up" about it. Why can't it be seen months in advance like Warmachine or Infinity releases? At this point, we're in the Internet age... it's kinda sad and bumming me out that we are stuck with this archaic approach.

I am at the point that the rumors have me not excited to play the game. I'm not performing a max exodus fire sale, but I deleted all the competitive lists I had planned to save up and buy for this year. I'll probably ditch my Gue'vesa list for the time being, too. I'll snatch up some BA ICs that look cool and give them squads to lead, but that's about it.

Crazyterran wrote:
if only Troops can score and win games still

I would be extremely surprised if this is true. There's no point in talking about how awesome your new all-dread army is going to be if the fact that you have no troops means you have no chance of winning. I think even GW is able to figure this one out, and will include a way for unbound armies to have non-troops units score objectives. The only question is whether it will be a blanket "everything scores" rule in the new edition, unbound armies getting to choose one FOC slot to make scoring, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
if only Troops can score and win games still

I would be extremely surprised if this is true. There's no point in talking about how awesome your new all-dread army is going to be if the fact that you have no troops means you have no chance of winning. I think even GW is able to figure this one out, and will include a way for unbound armies to have non-troops units score objectives. The only question is whether it will be a blanket "everything scores" rule in the new edition, unbound armies getting to choose one FOC slot to make scoring, etc.

Everything scores and/or you can score from inside a vehicle like 5E.

Land Raiders/Rhinos on objectives! Locking it down like 2011!

GW WD Batrep: "we thought it would be fun to superglue five Ultramarine tacticals together to form Ultramarine Voltron"

Dakka: "OMGOMG GW HAS LOST THE PLOT VOLTRON MARINES COMING IN 7TH IMMA PLAY WARMACHINE HALP"

 Kirasu wrote:
It makes little sense for demons to transform into demons.. thats not how demonic possession works.

Heh, now I'm imagining demons summoning demons, like a cross between a Russian doll and the Tardis (because the inside ones are bigger!). "Horror summons herald!" *pop* "herald takes demonology, summons prince!" *pop* "prince takes demonology, summons lord of change!"*pop* "lord of change takes demonology, I choose you Tzeentch!" *world. Implodes*.

 ruprecht wrote:
GW WD Batrep: "we thought it would be fun to superglue five Ultramarine tacticals together to form Ultramarine Voltron"

Dakka: "OMGOMG GW HAS LOST THE PLOT VOLTRON MARINES COMING IN 7TH IMMA PLAY WARMACHINE HALP"

Yep, better ignore the legitimate complaints that GW is actively breaking the game and ignoring decades spanning back-story to sell a couple crappy plastic toys.

I may have to go through with my "Imperial Saints" idea for my IG if this is true. Summoning blood letters is a no go, but the spirits of long dead heroes? That may work...

 Peregrine wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
if only Troops can score and win games still

I would be extremely surprised if this is true. There's no point in talking about how awesome your new all-dread army is going to be if the fact that you have no troops means you have no chance of winning. I think even GW is able to figure this one out, and will include a way for unbound armies to have non-troops units score objectives. The only question is whether it will be a blanket "everything scores" rule in the new edition, unbound armies getting to choose one FOC slot to make scoring, etc.

If you are playing an unbound army, you are going for the table. It'd be a good way to help balance out the fact that your enemy is running nothing but Leman Russes, or an army of Riptides. Troops should continue to be the ones to score, as a way to help balance things out.

I mean, is anyone looking forward to playing against all drop pod armies of Sternguard? Or Drop Pod Ironclads? Or, hell, an all FMC or Flyer list? Or the AV14 spam that Guard could put out, especially if their Leman Russes score?

EDIT: I'd personally hope that taking an unbound list means no Warlord Traits, no Scoring (unless you take Troops) and no Lords of War. But, I doubt the last one, as who wouldn't want their tank brigade led by a Baneblade? *sigh*

 Happygrunt wrote:

 ruprecht wrote:
GW WD Batrep: "we thought it would be fun to superglue five Ultramarine tacticals together to form Ultramarine Voltron"

Dakka: "OMGOMG GW HAS LOST THE PLOT VOLTRON MARINES COMING IN 7TH IMMA PLAY WARMACHINE HALP"

Yep, better ignore the legitimate complaints that GW is actively breaking the game and ignoring decades spanning back-story to sell a couple crappy plastic toys.

I may have to go through with my "Imperial Saints" idea for my IG if this is true. Summoning blood letters is a no go, but the spirits of long dead heroes? That may work...

You could actually fluff it that way. A Daemonology chart could be fluffed as Imperial Miracles instead. That Saint you just summoned? Yah, it has a Bloodthirster statline and Daemon rule, but I swear it came straight from the Golden Toilet of the Emprah.

Super Promise.

Crazyterran wrote:
If you are playing an unbound army, you are going for the table.

Only if you assume that GW is adding unbound armies for competitive play reasons, rather than as an opportunity for fluff players to bring fluffy lists that aren't currently legal. Those fluff players aren't going to realistically hope to table their opponents every game (nor are they likely to find that very much fun), and that means they're going to need some way to get scoring units.

 WarOne wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

 ruprecht wrote:
GW WD Batrep: "we thought it would be fun to superglue five Ultramarine tacticals together to form Ultramarine Voltron"

Dakka: "OMGOMG GW HAS LOST THE PLOT VOLTRON MARINES COMING IN 7TH IMMA PLAY WARMACHINE HALP"

Yep, better ignore the legitimate complaints that GW is actively breaking the game and ignoring decades spanning back-story to sell a couple crappy plastic toys.

I may have to go through with my "Imperial Saints" idea for my IG if this is true. Summoning blood letters is a no go, but the spirits of long dead heroes? That may work...

You could actually fluff it that way. A Daemonology chart could be fluffed as Imperial Miracles instead. That Saint you just summoned? Yah, it has a Bloodthirster statline and Daemon rule, but I swear it came straight from the Golden Toilet of the Emprah.

Super Promise.

Until you remember the name of the psyker ability, the rumoured bad effects (possibly slaughtering your own units) and more

 insaniak wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
I'm confused as to why people think that Dark Angels are summoning demons in 7th Edition when they clearly say that they were messing around in the WD

Because it doesn't say that they were messing around. It says that he gave Ezekiel Daemonology in the interests of playtesting. Nothing in that statement suggests that it isn't normally allowed by the rules. It just says that he was trying out those powers in the new rules.


It's certainly possible that they chose to preview the new rules by talking about the stuff they did that isn't actually in those rules... but I fail to see what the point of that would be.

Yep, I agree. Even more along those lines, if you read the text to the left in the main body--it has partial sentences that strongly imply everyone barring Tyranids can take those powers--with another sentence below mentioning 'Summon the fell'. Given that the main body implies this, as well as the sidebar--and the fact GW has been pushing for people to have the ability to include more and more out of Codex options in their armies to increase sales--I'm inclined to believe it.

 ruprecht wrote:
GW WD Batrep: "we thought it would be fun to superglue five Ultramarine tacticals together to form Ultramarine Voltron"

Dakka: "OMGOMG GW HAS LOST THE PLOT VOLTRON MARINES COMING IN 7TH IMMA PLAY WARMACHINE HALP"

Yes yes... toss everything under the bridge why don't ya' invalidate all the arguments people have. Look, it's more like this. One side says: WD is terrible at keeping consistent to their rules so don't trust them. Another side is looking at it and saying: Nonetheless, it's still a possibility due to how they worded the implications of daemonology in conjunction with their text which is extremely vague in its wording. Neither side is entirely right. Maybe DA shall be capable of using it, maybe it won't, who really knows? But it's kind of like the knee jerk reaction. It's just everthing compiling. 2 years for one edition, rumours of a 100 dollar codex, these new releases constantly being shot out, suddenly battleforged vs. screw the FoC, new allies table, an entire psyker phase, blabbering on about how all psykers get this table and beware the daemon and all that jazz. It's... odd. Plus, it really doesn't work as well for CSM to summon daemons and get stomped. It'll happen but they are far more likely to get along. Heck, they used to be the same bloody book.