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.

3. Every unit including vehicles will now score

There goes my heavy troops Black Templars army list....

its something that has always bugged me about assault, where if you wipe out a unit then charge towards the next squad in the consolidation phase, but having to make sure you stop just in front of that squad, as if it say. no please take a shot at my face old chap. obviously the squad being charged would get to make its overwatch - as again its fluffy and make sense.

 Pacific wrote:


The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.

Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.

Was 5th Edition balanced? Was 4th? I've got 20 year old White Dwarfs where Eldar were winning every tournament. In one WD the Chinese winner of the 40k world tournament [whatever it was called then] smashed up Phil Kelly with a spammy Eldar list. In a batrep from another WD of that time they played a game where an Edlar psyker turned into a deamon prince if it was killed, and any Eldar units went into ongoing reserves.

This loose attitude to balance and the ability to write OP lists if you want to has always been around, so I don't think it can be described as 'suddenly'.

If it's that bad, then models can be used with different rulesets, or there's Ebay. But complaining about lack of balance in 40k is as silly as me going onto Infinity or Warmachine forums and saying that they need to introduce giant robots with weapons that ignore cover and destroy everything on a 2 or more. Different games for different approaches, and to me, variety is a good thing.

azreal13 wrote:Really, Captain Avatar, just leave it.

This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"

You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n

Agreed

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
actually the game was originally developed to basically need a referee to run, with no real thought about balance, and with players playing to 'have fun' and sit down to chat about who had actually won at the end (so no cut and dried results).

I feel that you are either not really being fully forthright here or are not asking yourself why 1st ed was this way.

In the beginning, GW used the playerbase as a development tool for creating the 40k universe. Players created custom campaign/story arcs, played games to add narrative, recorded the results(wrote a battle report), submitted said report to White Dwarf or GW in hopes of being mentioned.
Some of said battle reports helped to form what is now the history of the 40k universe.

Since the end of 2nd ed, GW has not really looked to use these home made campaigns as a source for background material. Hence why GW moved to a more balanced game system in editions 3, 4 and 5.

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:although since it began 40K has moved more towards a balanced, win/loose style game but it certainly has never got their completely, and now it seems to be swinging back towards it's roots

this will cause problems for the more 'tournament' and 'pickup game with strangers' players (which are probably the minority of players, but the majority of the strongly active users of 40K websites like Dakka)

Careful, your British is showing. I find it amusing that the cultural gap caused by America being an ocean away not only limits the world view of americans, but all you english as well.

You see, America is a major source of revenue for GW.

American is "not" a rather small island nation with country wide mass transit and a games store on every corner.

America is very much the home of pick-up games.

and

Americans are very much into fair "competitive" play.

So, pick up games and competitive games may truly be a minority in england,....in the U.S. They are much more the norm.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.

Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.

Was 5th Edition balanced? Was 4th? I've got 20 year old White Dwarfs where Eldar were winning every tournament. In one WD the Chinese winner of the 40k world tournament [whatever it was called then] smashed up Phil Kelly with a spammy Eldar list. In a batrep from another WD of that time they played a game where an Edlar psyker turned into a deamon prince if it was killed, and any Eldar units went into ongoing reserves.

This loose attitude to balance and the ability to write OP lists if you want to has always been around, so I don't think it can be described as 'suddenly'.

If it's that bad, then models can be used with different rulesets, or there's Ebay. But complaining about lack of balance in 40k is as silly as me going onto Infinity or Warmachine forums and saying that they need to introduce giant robots with weapons that ignore cover and destroy everything on a 2 or more. Different games for different approaches, and to me, variety is a good thing.

It isn't that it was ever good, it is the fact that it is getting worse, and, even more concerning, it seems deliberate.

 tuebor wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I hated this rule. Please no...

Being a Guard player I also hated this rule, I've got bad memories of Baharoth eating his way through half of my Guard army more or less by himself on more than one occasion. That said, with blob squads and a few other things I think the Guard has rather less to fear from this rule than it did back then.

So space your units out more than 6" ?

Personally I hope its true. With 6th Edition favouring shooting armies, with Overwatch, Tau, Eldar and Imperial Guard, it'll be nice if Assault themed armies actually had a leg up again. My Raven Guard army of shotgun Scouts, Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans will certainly need it.

 Pox Apostle wrote:

3. Every unit including vehicles will now score

This would be bad, it would completely eliminate the purpose of troops (not to mention all those special rules/characters that turns something into troops/scoring.)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pox Apostle wrote:
So, last night someone from The Overlords Podcast group on Facebook posted these tidbits. Hopefully they don't mind if they're posted elsewhere. There's some interesting things to chew on here.

-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in - A rumor that's come up before. Not impossible but I don't know how true it is either.
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game - I assume this doesn't apply to powers you fail to manifest because they're denied, and only applies to the powers you fail to manifest because you roll too low. Sounds kind of harsh honestly.
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score -This feels like a step back to me, assuming it's true. One of the great points about 6th was how it made troops more important to the army by making them scoring.
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives So the table approach is their only way to win in Eternal War missions? I dunno...this seems off to me.
5. Lords of war are in Wouldn't surprise me
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now I don't see reasons for them to change, especially since they're still selling the book
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more. Hull points, not the chart is what makes vehicles so easy to kill
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book. We've gotten this rumor before actually. It's one of the few I hope is true
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches For charging or just movement in general?
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how. That happens every edition though, so I'm not sure if this is a "rumor" or just a safe guess
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --I hope they use the Heresy alternate rules instead. Making them Roll to Wound would be great

Responses in yellow.

(only now I saw this) I agree with your opinions, Zion. The one I like the most is the change to vehicles' table - still not the fix they need, but helps nonetheless.
Hope the psyker stuff does not include Force Weapons.
The book being separated in 3... don't think so. They'd sell a lot of rules and very few of the others.
I think the actual Wound allocation is nice enough.
I like Heresy-era D weapons optional rule as well.

 Pacific wrote:

Again, if you are so unhappy with the game, move along.

The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.

Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.

Pacific- could you please edit this post to show who said this. The way you edited it makes it seem like I am saying to move along if someone doesn't like it.

Thanks.

Consolidating into another combat... well, my army is a shooty one with one prominent CC element (Chaos Termies), so I'm not really keen on that change. Still, with proper unit placement and Overwatch this shouldn't be game-breaking.

Making all units scoring is asinine. I really hope that won't happen.

Anyway, at this point these all are only rumours (as opposed to the WD stuff).

 Crimson wrote:
This would be bad, it would completely eliminate the purpose of troops (not to mention all those special rules/characters that turns something into troops/scoring.)

That's a really good point.

 azreal13 wrote:
Really, Captain Avatar, just leave it.

This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"

You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n

This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.

And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.

Allow me to lay out 7th edition.

1) GW makes Unbound a thing.
2) The ballsiest, most sociopathic players will build their 8 Riptide armies.
3) They will then get told to sod off in many of the LGS' excluding GW's and more extreme LGS', either because of an unbound ban or game refusals, or being told they're not welcome. People will migrate to the LGS' that suit them.
4) Many tournaments will ban unbound, or place more crippling restrictions on such armies.
5) Just like the proven untrue idea that Escalation/Stronghold assault was going to ruin everything for everyone and add two mandatory books to everyone's need to buy lists, there will be no massive issue.

Minor rumor. Take this with a grain of salt, the source is an independent stockist.

Source tells me the cost of the new book is right around $100. There's some special edition stuff that will be available to FLGS retailers - dice, cards, templates, etc. Limited edition variants of the book are web-only.

He has a large inventory of existing 6th edition books. He was told the new book will make up for his losses. It sells for more than 6th edition and claims players will need new copies, the existing books are obsolete.

As for the new rumors about "sweeping changes," very doubtful about these for a few reasons.

1) Allowing every unit to score means people will buy fewer infantry models. GW makes most of it's money off the sale of infantry models.

2) Making vehicles harder to kill involves more than adjusting the vehicle damage table. The table itself makes it harder to kill vehicles than it was in 5th edition, hull points are the problem.

3) Consolidating into combat would benefit CSMs, Orks and Tyranids. GW never does anything with the rules to help these armies.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So space your units out more than 6" ?

Fairly easy for a Space Marine army, not so easy for 120 Guardsmen, especially if you're using a decent amount of terrain. I had a guy tell me that once back in 4th so we did a test to see if it was possible. Using 25% terrain I was able to get half of my units 6" away from each other by being entirely in base to base, which wasn't really a feasible way to play either.

That said, those were 4th edition problems. The Guard codex has had a lot of changes that mitigate those problems, particularly vets being troops and platoons being able to blob up, as well as Priests and power weapons making those blobs something that a 5 man tac squad isn't going to kill and run down like it would have a similarly sized (and costed) conscript squad back in 4th. I really don't think it would be nearly as much as issue nowadays as it was back then but I certainly understand why people would be leery of it at first glance.

 techsoldaten wrote:

3) Consolidating into combat would benefit CSMs, Orks and Tyranids. GW never does anything with the rules to help these armies.

Maybe they've realized those 3 factions are hugely underpowered and are adding such a rule precisely because it would benefit them.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Really, Captain Avatar, just leave it.

This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"

You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n

This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.

And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.

Wow.

Just.... wow.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.

One of the more recent examples..
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/591506.page

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

3) Consolidating into combat would benefit CSMs, Orks and Tyranids. GW never does anything with the rules to help these armies.

Maybe they've realized those 3 factions are hugely underpowered and are adding such a rule precisely because it would benefit them.

I doubt it. GW sells it's expensive plastic toys mostly to mothers at the urging of their teenage sons. GW is going to sell a lot less product if CSMs, Orks and Tyranids are on every table.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

3) Consolidating into combat would benefit CSMs, Orks and Tyranids. GW never does anything with the rules to help these armies.

Maybe they've realized those 3 factions are hugely underpowered and are adding such a rule precisely because it would benefit them.

I doubt it. GW sells it's expensive plastic toys mostly to mothers at the urging of their teenage sons. GW is going to sell a lot less product if CSMs, Orks and Tyranids are on every table.

Well Orks and Tyranids contain a lot of models in each army (Heck, they are the definitive horde armies) so technically they'd be selling a huge amount of product if they became highly competitive.

There really is no need to be quite so cynical. 7th edition was brought about because the writers were unhappy with 6th after all- clearly this is being done out of some desire to improve things.

 azreal13 wrote:

Wow.

Just.... wow.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.

One of the more recent examples..
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/591506.page

And it always comes back to the same question?

Why can you not accept diversity of opinions? Nobody is asking you to agree with me (and others who disagree with you).

All people want is that you stop denigrating people who don't happen to share your particular take on what is good or bad about a game (to which you are certainly entitled)?

I love how people are arguing with eachother over a rulebook that hasn't even been released yet. Many people are raging because it's so soon or because it is going to ruin the game.

It's not like we know how the rules are going to work... And SO many of the same people were complaining about 6th edition being broken/unbalanced/unfair.

You just can't please some people.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Wow.

Just.... wow.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.

One of the more recent examples..
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/591506.page

And it always comes back to the same question?

Why can you not accept diversity of opinions? Nobody is asking you to agree with me (and others who disagree with you).

All people want is that you stop denigrating people who don't happen to share your particular take on what is good or bad about a game (to which you are certainly entitled)?

He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing it in dozens of threads.

 Jaceevoke wrote:


He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing in dozens of threads.

Sure. If people stop whining about how they dislike the current direction of 40K, I will stop saying that I actually like the direction it is going?

Deal?

 alarmingrick wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
This would be bad, it would completely eliminate the purpose of troops (not to mention all those special rules/characters that turns something into troops/scoring.)

That's a really good point.

Not to mention remove any reason to purchase troops which means selling less models....yeah, not buying it; sure GW wants you to buy the expensive big gribblies but they also want you to buy 60 Dark Eldar warriors and 150 guardsmen.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:


He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing in dozens of threads.

Sure. If people stop whining about how they dislike the current direction of 40K, I will stop saying that I actually like the direction it is going?

Deal?

Deal!

With two caveats..

Explain how you play the game 'right' and stop manipulating threads with barely OT posts so you can start banging your drum.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Really, Captain Avatar, just leave it.

This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"

You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n

This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.

And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.

Wow.

Just.... wow.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.

One of the more recent examples..
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/591506.page

and for me and i mean this politely and to the pair of you.

shush. i am sick of whenever zwei posts the damn gestapo comes out and trash talks him, dont like what he is saying ignore it, if he keeps going report it half threads filled with OT comments like this are tedious and boring, your not the only one that does it, just the latest and its tedious to read. zwei i know you want your oppinion and you have it, great, but the ramming down throats gets annoying.

OT: some of those rumoured changes seems decent/logical, but i do not foresee the rulebooke split into 3. scoring vehicles, my fleet will be thrilled. consolidating into combat, if you can overwatch ill understand it (just having 6" of space between everything... tricky and totally neuters any for of gunline, esp those behind adl) unbound, thats gonna be a thing so no scoring for them though, unlikely esp saying everything your opponent has will score, thats a bit much.
mmmm overall they seem ok but... i have reservations

 azreal13 wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Really, Captain Avatar, just leave it.

This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"

You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n

This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.

And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.

Wow.

Just.... wow.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.

One of the more recent examples..
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/591506.page

Don't let it get you down azreal13! Mr. O called me a cretin once. I've been called worse by better people.

I really can't understand the collapse of the 40k community on Dakka over rumors. I say keep your powder dry until you know
what you have to be up in arms about, totally. I admit I don't like some of what I'm seeing so far, but I also haven't seen the whole
picture.

Agreed. Take your arguments to PM. Nobody wants to read it. Your debate is a pointless one anyway.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:


He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing in dozens of threads.

Sure. If people stop whining about how they dislike the current direction of 40K, I will stop saying that I actually like the direction it is going?

Deal?

Deal!

With two caveats..

Explain how you play the game 'right' and stop manipulating threads with barely OT posts so you can start banging your drum.

I sadly play constrained by rules like the FoC, point values,mission objectives, etc.., more often than not, because it is "expected" and in the community not well regarded to ignore them.

And I am not manipulating any thread. I simply response to false statements where people - manipulatively - present their personal, usually negative opinion about the game as an allegeldy objective fact with stupid sentences like "everyone would benefit from more balance".

Assuming "everyone" is everyone, that is a misrepresentation of an awful lot of people.

Just say "I personally would prefer the game to be more balanced", and we're golden.

That's really quite enough. Let's move the topic back to 40K rumors rather than the personalities that post on Dakka. Any further issues within this thread will have this warning weighted into the length of a Dakka break a user may receive.

Ryan

(edited) Absoloutely. I wish more people used this common sense when posting.

Anyway, more to the point. I'm actually looking forward to seeing the new changes so I can formulate my opinion based on the facts. And I think I might just have to start collecting blood angels if the new box set is going that way.