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.

Again the point sails blissfully over your head Kan.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Again the point sails blissfully over your head Kan.

If you want me to address your "point", here you go:
Do you really think that actually having to talk to your opponent before playing a game is a bad thing? How many people do you think play without ever talking to their opponent before they meet for a game?

 Kanluwen wrote:
What, did you never play any of the Warhammer Fantasy: Skirmish scenarios?

Quite a few of those involved horribly skewed points/model counts--yet were still really fun. The one with 1000ish points of whatever army (with a continuous "spawn" of units recycling until the end of the final turn) against 5 Wood Elf Waywatchers with random traps on the table was a really fun one to play.

There's a huge difference between an asymmetrical game where the two players have equal-but-different advantages (numbers and respawning vs. traps and favourable objectives) and one that says "Whoever offers the largest sacrifice to your Lord Games Workshop wins the game".

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Speaking of which if you play Daemons, have a Greater Daemon of Tzeentch, it goes down to 1 wound, could you just use the Possession power and sac the current one to summon a new one?

Looks like it, yes. Although the replacement won't have any upgrades and it seems there is a significant risk of just finishing off your greater daemon with perils of the warp.

But then you give up one of your psychic powers for something you might not have an opportunity to use. An opponent who knows that you can do that will try to finish off a wounded Lord of Change before it has a chance to 'refresh'.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
"I'm taking only Wyrdvane Psikers and drown eveyrone in Bloodthirtherrs yadda yadda sky is falling" ;-)
I think I like those powers. They are fluffy and not OP. I woldn't take them with loyalists, but for Traitor guard they look nifty.
I can already hear the screams "cash grab! You need the demons dex!" But personally I think it would have been a bad idea to include all demons stats/rules in the BRB.
Of course I'm not happy shelling out a hundred bucks for a new book, but I realy (want to) believe that 7th will be better than 6th and that was my preferred edition by far.

I take 4 heralds who spawn 40 horrors each turn, each with 2D6 s5 shots and are extra scoringy. You were saying?

Summoning is a Warp Charge 3 power. Can Heralds be level 3? I forget.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that actually having to talk to your opponent before playing a game is a bad thing?

Yes, I do, when the conversation consists of nothing more than trying to fix GW's stupid decisions. I shouldn't have to negotiate with a potential opponent just so I can have a functioning game.

well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

 sennacherib wrote:
well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

We have zero information on who gets access to the Daemonology lores. Nothing yet suggests that everyone has access to it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regardless of the exact method it's done I expect there to be limits to basically prevent the spamming of summoning and the like.

There will be a limit alright... you may only summon as many greater daemons as you have models for.

Other than that, there will not be any limits.

This edition is not about the game... it is about model sales....

7th edition, imho, is probably the last edition of 40k. Mark my words, this is ultimately going to kill the game and have the exact opposite effect GW wants it to... just saying.

 sennacherib wrote:
well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

There is no guarantee that every single army is going to be able to summon up Daemons. Remember that there is two sides to Daemonology, the Sanctic side and the Malefic side.
So far we have only seen the Malefic side.

Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar and SoB don't have psychers either....

 Alex C wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

We have zero information on who gets access to the Daemonology lores. Nothing yet suggests that everyone has access to it.

WD says everyone except Tyranids.

Syphid wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

We have zero information on who gets access to the Daemonology lores. Nothing yet suggests that everyone has access to it.

WD says everyone except Tyranids.

Psychic power Tau, Dark Eldar, Black Templars and Necrons?

I'm going to ASSUME they don't get Malefic Psychic Powers.

Syphid wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

We have zero information on who gets access to the Daemonology lores. Nothing yet suggests that everyone has access to it.

WD says everyone except Tyranids.

Just like the Knights ally list.

 kronk wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
"I'm taking only Wyrdvane Psikers and drown eveyrone in Bloodthirtherrs yadda yadda sky is falling" ;-)
I think I like those powers. They are fluffy and not OP. I woldn't take them with loyalists, but for Traitor guard they look nifty.
I can already hear the screams "cash grab! You need the demons dex!" But personally I think it would have been a bad idea to include all demons stats/rules in the BRB.
Of course I'm not happy shelling out a hundred bucks for a new book, but I realy (want to) believe that 7th will be better than 6th and that was my preferred edition by far.

I take 4 heralds who spawn 40 horrors each turn, each with 2D6 s5 shots and are extra scoringy. You were saying?

Summoning is a Warp Charge 3 power. Can Heralds be level 3? I forget.

It is entirely possible that a psyker's ML just adds dice to the dice pool and is not connected to the warp charge of a power. It may be that a ML1 psyker can cast a warp charge 3 power as long as he can roll enough successes from the dice pool.

 Alex C wrote:


It is entirely possible that a psyker's ML just adds dice to the dice pool and is not connected to the warp charge of a power. It may be that a ML1 psyker can cast a warp charge 3 power as long as he can roll enough successes from the dice pool.

Possible, certainly. It's also entirely possible that the psycher can only cast a power that he has the ML for, but is free to use as many dice from the dice pool as he wants. We'll see, of course.

 Alex C wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
"I'm taking only Wyrdvane Psikers and drown eveyrone in Bloodthirtherrs yadda yadda sky is falling" ;-)
I think I like those powers. They are fluffy and not OP. I woldn't take them with loyalists, but for Traitor guard they look nifty.
I can already hear the screams "cash grab! You need the demons dex!" But personally I think it would have been a bad idea to include all demons stats/rules in the BRB.
Of course I'm not happy shelling out a hundred bucks for a new book, but I realy (want to) believe that 7th will be better than 6th and that was my preferred edition by far.

I take 4 heralds who spawn 40 horrors each turn, each with 2D6 s5 shots and are extra scoringy. You were saying?

Summoning is a Warp Charge 3 power. Can Heralds be level 3? I forget.

It is entirely possible that a psyker's ML just adds dice to the dice pool and is not connected to the warp charge of a power. It may be that a ML1 psyker can cast a warp charge 3 power as long as he can roll enough successes from the dice pool.

Not if they copy fantasy to it's ultimate magic phase conclusion. Each psycker will have their own spells.

Syphid wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

We have zero information on who gets access to the Daemonology lores. Nothing yet suggests that everyone has access to it.

WD says everyone except Tyranids.

Must have missed that bit.

Still, not every army has psykers...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that actually having to talk to your opponent before playing a game is a bad thing? How many people do you think play without ever talking to their opponent before they meet for a game?

Having to talk to your opponent? No, of course that's not a bad thing.

Having to waste time establishing whether or not you're both actually playing the same game, despite both of you having the same rulebook?

That's ridiculous.

I started doing that with 6th edition.

You want a game?

How many points?

Competitive, less-than, something in-between?

With or without Stronghold Assault?

With or without Escalation?

Allies cool?

FW Cool?

Let's roll.

I don't even ask that many questions on a first date.

 Alex C wrote:

Syphid wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
well, I gotta say that i am not entirely stoked on the new psychic discipline that gives daemons to every army outside of tyranids. Seems like giving the daemon codex to everyone while excluding lots of cool imperial stuff (like giant stompy robots) is weak sauce.

We have zero information on who gets access to the Daemonology lores. Nothing yet suggests that everyone has access to it.

WD says everyone except Tyranids.

Must have missed that bit.

Still, not every army has psykers...

But every army (except 'Nids) has access to allies with Psykers...

 kronk wrote:
I started doing that with 6th edition.

You want a game?

How many points?

Competitive, less-than, something in-between?

With or without Stronghold Assault?

With or without Escalation?

Allies cool?

FW Cool?

Let's roll.

I don't even ask that many questions on a first date.

Perhaps we should rename the Find A Game subforum to "OkDakka" or "40kMatch.com" and make everyone submit wargaming dating profiles with their preferences and pictures of their armies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Again the point sails blissfully over your head Kan.

If you want me to address your "point", here you go:
Do you really think that actually having to talk to your opponent before playing a game is a bad thing? How many people do you think play without ever talking to their opponent before they meet for a game?

I talk to my opponent.

Not just at the start of the game either, it has been known, on the odd occasion, for me to talk to my opponent for the whole battle!!!1!

I have no issue with this.

Issues may start to arise, not all the time, but sometimes, when I have to agree with my opponent about the appropriate way to play the game. When you have two opposing, but equally valid, viewpoints, both supported by the rules, and two players who may only have one chance to play a game once in a while, why is it fair that one or the other should compromise their enjoyment for the other person's?

I am really liking these changes, I also applaud GW for listening to the player base and making some of the obvious changes that people have been wanting.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I don't even ask that many questions on a first date.

to be fair there's only one question you really care about on a first date lol

 Kanluwen wrote:
There is no guarantee that every single army is going to be able to summon up Daemons. Remember that there is two sides to Daemonology, the Sanctic side and the Malefic side.
So far we have only seen the Malefic side.

Remember the WD quote that says "all psykers get it"?

Do we know if the summoned Daemons will be counted as part of the primary detachment, or follow allies rules? Would they be Battle Brothers?, Convenience?, Desperate?

bodazoka wrote:
I am really liking these changes, I also applaud GW for listening to the player base and making some of the obvious changes that people have been wanting.

Err, what? What changes would those be? Because so far all of the confirmed changes are terrible ones.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Again the point sails blissfully over your head Kan.

If you want me to address your "point", here you go:
Do you really think that actually having to talk to your opponent before playing a game is a bad thing? How many people do you think play without ever talking to their opponent before they meet for a game?

I talk to my opponent.

Not just at the start of the game either, it has been known, on the odd occasion, for me to talk to my opponent for the whole battle!!!1!

I have no issue with this.

Issues may start to arise, not all the time, but sometimes, when I have to agree with my opponent about the appropriate way to play the game. When you have two opposing, but equally valid, viewpoints, both supported by the rules, and two players who may only have one chance to play a game once in a while, why is it fair that one or the other should compromise their enjoyment for the other person's?

That's actually a good point Azrael.

Personally? I think if it gets to that point, setting up a rotation of "This game we do it the way I want to do it, then next game we do it the way you want to" would not be out of the question.

So no unbound vs battle forged it looks like. Missed that on my first skim through the screen caps. That makes objective secured a little redundant unless they're changing the scoring system after all. That could be nice actually. Troops are great at scoring, but you can choose to mostly ignore them and use other units to score... I'd take it out on a second date.

 Alex C wrote:
Do we know if the summoned Daemons will be counted as part of the primary detachment, or follow allies rules? Would they be Battle Brothers?, Convenience?, Desperate?

I'm guessing that they count as a unit from the Chaos Daemons faction, but that raises questions about what happens if you can summon a unit which has a 'come the apocalypse' level of alliance with something else in your army...