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.

**Windir83**

The new IG codex is absolutely amazing!

**ClockworkZion**

The_Grimm_One wrote:
What issue number of WD is this information in?

15. Comes out this weekend.

**Bull0**

I'm not backpedalling, I think it was a piece of gak, but it doesn't bear much relevance to the topic. Cheers for the insults though peeps, that's lovely

**streamdragon**

Vector Strike wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
The article mentions new players being able to play sooner because they can use what they have, rather than needing to buy and build specific models.

Unbound will be an interesting way to show new players the game, in my opinion. People like some stuff that can be inviable because of FOC. testing the units and the rules of the game with unbound would help them understand the game and select which units they like. After that, they go to the Battle-forged way of gaming. Unbound could be used as a 'super-tutorial'.

Agreed. It also helps with new players who might operate under the "buy what looks cool" method of force building, since rather than force them to buy specific models, they can continue to just buy what they want.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yodhrin wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
Da Butcha wrote:
I just can't figure out how this is supposed to attract new people to the hobby.

Sure, Unbound does allow you to 'play with the models you have', but only in one, very specific way.

You are still limited by the Allies chart AND by regular unit restrictions. So, it's liberating to allow someone to field their units of scouts and bikes, but there's no one out there who might want to field 6 SM with a heavy bolter? It just seems like if you would want to give players more freedom to field their collections, when there are unit restrictions that are at least as constraining. Ten Land Raiders? Totally legal. Four terminators? Sorry, that's outside the rules, and relegated to house ruling.

The article mentions new players being able to play sooner because they can use what they have, rather than needing to buy and build specific models.

Which is just silly, because everyone knows that anyone who walks into a GW store for the first time will be so struck by the awesumsnez of the game and the truly world-class FineSalesman patter from the staff(singular) that they all walk out again five minutes later with a complete army's worth of purchases.

Going to admit, I couldn't figure out if your post is sarcastic agreement or disagreement.

I think you agree with me? I need more caffeine...

**PipeAlley**

Is there a quick way to get a list of everyone who's commented on this thread? This feels like a homecoming and family reunion all rolled into one! I like it !

**MWHistorian**

I've recently turned pretty anti-Gw, but even I thought the IG codex was pretty good. (Hydra is useless and removing the characters was lame, though.)

**Bull0**

All this proves is that I was right to stipulate that I'm in no way a barometer for the "consensus" on a product. But I still think it sucks. Am I the only one that converted a Lukas Bastonne? And people in the IG thread were seriously losing their gak over the removal of Griffons, Chenkov, etc. Anyway, Orks will likely be more of the same, so if you're happy with bland, homogenized crap, you're going to love it.

**Palindrome**

daedalus wrote:

Why? IG isn't super-broken by any stretch of the imagination, but it appears to still be a solid codex based upon everything I've read and seen.

It may well be a 'competitive' codex but its still the same old lifeless dross that I have come to expect from GW. Most importantly the IG have been named Astra Militarum, that's unforgivable. 'Ork' is also a generic name so I fully expect the new Ork codex to be renamed something 'inspired' like Barbari Fungal.

**daedalus**

Bull0 wrote:
All this proves is that I was right to stipulate that I'm in no way a barometer for the "consensus" on a product. But I still think it sucks. Am I the only one that converted a Lukas Bastonne? And people in the IG thread were seriously losing their gak over the removal of Griffons, Chenkov, etc. Anyway, Orks will likely be more of the same, so if you're happy with bland, homogenized crap, you're going to love it.

I have a converted Al-rahem and a converted Bastonne. They're now a company commander with power sword and plasma pistol, and a veteran sergeant.

It sucks that they're gone, and I miss being able to use them for their rules. I still can't feel how you do about the codex and still feel like I'm being objective.

**WrentheFaceless**

Orkus Waaaghitarum?

Sounds all official and Imperial that way

**daedalus**

Palindrome wrote:
daedalus wrote:

Why? IG isn't super-broken by any stretch of the imagination, but it appears to still be a solid codex based upon everything I've read and seen.

It may well be a 'competitive' codex but its still the same old lifeless dross that I have come to expect from GW. Most importantly the IG have been named Astra Militarum, that's unforgivable. 'Ork' is also a generic name so I fully expect the new Ork codex to be renamed something 'inspired' like Barbari Fungal.

Okay, you got me on the rename. That's actually pretty horrible.

I didn't play IG back during their 3rd edition codex, really, the only codex I played that was ever a 3rd ed was DH, so when people talk about the good old days with the character and good fluff, I don't really know what the good old days actually mean.

**SlyasR**

As I think about it. It seems that if GWs agenda is to let people play whatever they wanted, then trying to balance the game would be the best approach. If it was balanced people were truly going to be able to field whatever. As it is now being a daemon player unbound does nothing for me regarding fielding nurglings or masque for example which are models I would have wanted to buy, its just, they cant be used.

I say GW is pretty stupid. Not stupid in the bashing sense, just stupid in the sense of not having their synapse-grey-brainy-cells (its a medical term) working optimal.

**ClockworkZion**

MWHistorian wrote:
I've recently turned pretty anti-Gw, but even I thought the IG codex was pretty good. (Hydra is useless and removing the characters was lame, though.)

Hydra isn't "useless" it's just not as good now that it doesn't ignore Jink saves (assuming Jink saves don't change in the next edition). It can still hit Skimmers and Flyers at no penalty and still drops plenty of lead into the air to kill things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually that's a thought: what if Skyfire ignores Jink saves in the future instead? If Snapfire becomes less painful (as some have talked about possibly happening in the past, even if it might be wishlisting) then changing what Skyfire does isn't unreasonable.

Eh, just a random thought.

**angelofvengeance**

Might call them the Krork instead? I think that was their ancient name?

**ClockworkZion**

Palindrome wrote:
daedalus wrote:

Why? IG isn't super-broken by any stretch of the imagination, but it appears to still be a solid codex based upon everything I've read and seen.

It may well be a 'competitive' codex but its still the same old lifeless dross that I have come to expect from GW. Most importantly the IG have been named Astra Militarum, that's unforgivable. 'Ork' is also a generic name so I fully expect the new Ork codex to be renamed something 'inspired' like Barbari Fungal.

Barbarus Fungi.

(Barbarus can also mean "Savage"

)

**MeanGreenStompa**

Bull0 wrote:
All this proves is that I was right to stipulate that I'm in no way a barometer for the "consensus" on a product. But I still think it sucks. Am I the only one that converted a Lukas Bastonne? And people in the IG thread were seriously losing their gak over the removal of Griffons, Chenkov, etc. Anyway, Orks will likely be more of the same, so if you're happy with bland, homogenized crap, you're going to love it.

Special Characters can disappear altogether for all I care, I come from a time before them, gamed through the time they were optional (and our group never took them) and only recently watched them become necessary for certain lists to become unlocked.

If they did away with a SC, it's a shame for someone who used it, but the model can still be used for something else, even if it's just a crewman on a vehicle.

Doing away with units, however, is a different matter and if I'd laid out the money for FW artillery for my Imperial Guard and they'd removed them from the Codex I'd be pissed off. (I am actually buying FW artillery as we speak, but building the FW Armoured Battlegroup to use them).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
'Ork' is also a generic name so I fully expect the new Ork codex to be renamed something 'inspired' like Barbari Fungal.

Orks getting a 'rename' was mulled over and rejected... But it was mulled over.

**Talizvar**

Been going through the IG codex and I say it is good... with a few complaints because I would not be me:

Spoiler:

Funny, I am reminded of this definition: "Compromise: When you reach a point where neither group is happy."

If the IG or AM codex is any reflection on the GW mindset now, I would be interested to see if any attempt to reduce the power combos or the "deal" models is addressed.
I suspect they will just find more ways to allow "fluffy" lists and no real tightening will happen but IG seems like it is "good" but shines with Allies.

We shall see, but I still think the timing is just a Kirby requirement to save his bottom line, lets hope the rules writers treat this as an "opportunity".
I shall return to my usually griping.

**BlaxicanX**

The new IG codex is good in the sense that it's power-level on a competitive scale is more or less the same, perhaps a tad bit better.

The IG codex is bad in the sense that they removed a lot of content but replaced them with very little. From a fluff perspective, it's as bland and uninspired as the last few codices have been (Tau codex is the only book that's been on the mark in that regard), and as mentioned earlier, it did very little to shake up the game.

So, meh. Depends on what perspective you look at it from. If you're a competitive player you might be pleased, it's just a very boring codex though, all around.

**Ferrum_Sanguinis**

BlaxicanX wrote:
The new IG codex is good in the sense that it's power-level on a competitive scale is more or less the same, perhaps a tad bit better.

The IG codex is bad in the sense that they removed a lot of content but replaced them with very little. From a fluff perspective, it's as bland and uninspired as the last few codices have been (Tau codex is the only book that's been on the mark in that regard), and as mentioned earlier, it did very little to shake up the game.

What does that even mean? Did you actually WANT the codex to be a powercreep that shattered the meta and made everyone else's armies' useless? Cause I am sick of that crap.

**ClockworkZion**

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
The new IG codex is good in the sense that it's power-level on a competitive scale is more or less the same, perhaps a tad bit better.

The IG codex is bad in the sense that they removed a lot of content but replaced them with very little. From a fluff perspective, it's as bland and uninspired as the last few codices have been (Tau codex is the only book that's been on the mark in that regard), and as mentioned earlier, it did very little to shake up the game.

What does that even mean? Did you actually WANT the codex to be a powercreep that shattered the meta and made everyone else's armies' useless? Cause I am sick of that crap.

I think the idea is it did little to change the current issue of Tau and Eldar running rampant because it doesn't really provide any tools to really make those armies less likely to stop bringing some of the nonsense they do (like how Tau provided a strong answer for Heldrake spam, resulting in those armies largely falling out of the competitive scene). A good book doesn't need to challenge the entire meta, but if it provides the right tools it can help balance the more "must have" options some armies have and smooth the game's balance out a bit more competitively.

**TheKbob**

The best way to make friends with IG:

Bring 9 Wyverns. Actually play the barrage rules as corrected in the FAQ.

Enjoy a 30 minute, or longer, shooting phase.

Winning game design!

**daedalus**

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

What does that even mean? Did you actually WANT the codex to be a powercreep that shattered the meta and made everyone else's armies' useless? Cause I am sick of that crap.

Actually, I kind of do, under the assumption that for every one codex that's somewhat reasonable, there's 3 more made after it that will be completely unhinged.

Don't want to end up with my IG army looking like my DA army once the next codex comes out, after all.

**ClockworkZion**

TheKbob wrote:
The best way to make friends with IG:

Bring 9 Wyverns. Actually play the barrage rules as corrected in the FAQ.

Enjoy a 30 minute, or longer, shooting phase.

Winning game design!

Yeah, I wish it would go back to the way 5th did barrage. The new method is just too much of a mess.

**Therion**

I can't believe people still use the word 'meta' regarding 40K. There is no universal meta to 40K since every small community allows, bans and restricts different things, and with this upcoming edition change it will only change to the worse.

I suspect every type of unit will be scoring in 7th edition. Just like the Knights are. What'll be the new meta then? The only thing I'm sure of is that the meta will include no infantry models whatsoever. Unless of course you're talking about some 'local Bay area meta' where guys who host battle reports on youtube decide what's legal in 40K and what isn't.

There's no point trying to sugar coat 7th edition. The guys at GW aren't even trying to make it seem like they're designing a game. They're just throwing random rules on paper and telling you to complete the set yourself. Points costs are essentially pointless in a game where Titans and Fortifications are allowed and no type of FoC exists. Because it makes no sense is why I'm absolutely certain that's what 7th edition will be all about.

**BlaxicanX**

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
The new IG codex is good in the sense that it's power-level on a competitive scale is more or less the same, perhaps a tad bit better.

The IG codex is bad in the sense that they removed a lot of content but replaced them with very little. From a fluff perspective, it's as bland and uninspired as the last few codices have been (Tau codex is the only book that's been on the mark in that regard), and as mentioned earlier, it did very little to shake up the game.

What does that even mean? Did you actually WANT the codex to be a powercreep that shattered the meta and made everyone else's armies' useless? Cause I am sick of that crap.

>States that the codex is good for competitive players because it has a good power level.

>Is asked if he wanted it to shatter the meta.

I said I wanted it to shake up the game. I mentioned nothing about the meta.

There's more to a codex than it' competitive power, as hard as that may be to imagine.

**Vector Strike**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Actually that's a thought: what if Skyfire ignores Jink saves in the future instead? If Snapfire becomes less painful (as some have talked about possibly happening in the past, even if it might be wishlisting) then changing what Skyfire does isn't unreasonable.

Eh, just a random thought.

That makes Markerlight use even better. No need to expend 2 to ignore Dive/Jink from flyers. I'm all for it

**ClockworkZion**

Vector Strike wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Actually that's a thought: what if Skyfire ignores Jink saves in the future instead? If Snapfire becomes less painful (as some have talked about possibly happening in the past, even if it might be wishlisting) then changing what Skyfire does isn't unreasonable.

Eh, just a random thought.

That makes Markerlight use even better. No need to expend 2 to ignore Dive/Jink from flyers. I'm all for it

I'd assume that if it happens that way Markerlights would get an errata (they need a slight nerf anyways).

**Davor**

Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:
In other news local GW produces slightly cringy video:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=646969982042567

That is the best teaser trailer EVER for GW. Non of the other teasers got me excited. This one didn't really either, but I think it does a great job of making fun of themselves.

Still the best tester trailer done from GW.

**Flashman**

Davor wrote:
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:
In other news local GW produces slightly cringy video:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=646969982042567

...I think it does a great job of making fun of themselves.

I'm not sure that was entirely intentional

**Bull0**

Ah, he was really overacting for the camera, in a "look how obvious this is" kind of way. There's some self-awareness there. Don't kick the puppy.