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.

I'm hoping this edition brings me back to 40k as I would really like to do a Puritan and Radical faction for each of the Inquisitor Orders.

I would have thought Orks and Blood Angels would beonatleast 2 of the covers being that they are rumored to be first of the 7th edition codecies

 Kosake wrote:


HH in the beginners box? Expensive FW modells in a starter kit? Did I miss something? I think you mean Dark Vengeance...

DV is Marines vs. CSM, the HH was a reference to the nature of the contents, not saying that there is (or will be) FW HH models in a starter...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Who cares about the damn slip case... I still have to see that complete abortion of a cover on my rulebook.

Art being called an "abortion", really?

And it's not like you can't put another cover over it. Say make a protective cover out of a paper bag for instance. Or printing something you prefer and pasting it over it.

Yeah, with you on this one CZ, there's legitimate concerns for what the new edition my wreak, and then there's looking for a reason to get upset.

Cover the book in brown wrapping paper and "forge a narrative" by drawing your own cover art.

They want you to make up the rules as you go, might as well make up the cover too.

 Lobukia wrote:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DIAxx9Ez-wY/U3Hz_24A7yI/AAAAAAAAEEE/5Plk421PZ9o/s1600/10259818_10152490851994954_7364505389870471348_n.jpg

They're claiming some changes due to feedback... I really hope so.

I think you misread it...

Actually what is written is:

"Veterans of the warhammer 40,000 hobby will see that for this latest edition, the rules have been gracefully massaged, with the feedback of thousands of games..."

How I am reading it, is:

"(Calm down) Veterans (gamers) of the warhammer 40,000 hobby (you) will see that for this latest edition, the rules have been gracefully massaged, with the feedback of thousands of games (from our game testers, from Games Workshop employees & the ones testing the game...)..."

IMHO

Regardless, what rumors and info we have so far, is what 7th will be. These "feedbacks" are in the past, nothing to do with what we are getting in 7th, these feedbacks are resulting in what 7th is already...

 undertow wrote:

It's been said a few times already, but it's a bit early to get worked up about this. We don't know the rules for conjured units yet, we don't know if they have to DS onto the field, or if they're placed and can act normally. The sky isn't falling ... yet

I'm a little more curious as to the rules for picking / re-rolling conjuration powers. How many people are going to buy and paint up a greater daemon model based on the 1 in 6 chance they roll Possession? What if you don't own enough daemons to cast the Primaris more than once? It would be poor form to stick people with useless powers all game all under the aim of BUY MORE DAEMONS.

With luck, the only major overhaul will be psykers and assault. Rest is pretty fine imo.

And yes by fixing assault i also mean overwatch. i think its too strong against some armies.

Loopstah wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I think the new covers are appropriate for each book. You buy the fluff for the imperium of man's struggle(space marine), you get into the hobby for well detailed miniatures(like the DV helbrute). And you disect the rules like the master surgeon Urien. I'm liking the detailed sketch over the simplified background. Looks keen to me.

Surely you mean Urien reflects the complete horror of the jumbled mess of broken and ruined parts forged into an unholy yet somehow functioning wholeness that is called the rules?

For me, the one liner of the thread.

Excellent!

GW just posted a new video about the new missions. Haven't had a chance to watch fully.

Maelstrom of War Missions: http://youtu.be/RE4H93c7U5Y


MOD EDIT :

Is it just me, or has anyone else felt a change in the 40k narrative/fluff/progression of the 40k storyline with 7th?

I mean, Chaos seems to have gained a stronger foothold outside their realm (with the psychic phase & daemonoligy and all), allies have changed up (Tau & Space Marines), unbound armies in a narrative sense are like last compilations of leftover units thrown into a desperate situation, etc...

Anyone else think the same might be true?

 xttz wrote:

 undertow wrote:

It's been said a few times already, but it's a bit early to get worked up about this. We don't know the rules for conjured units yet, we don't know if they have to DS onto the field, or if they're placed and can act normally. The sky isn't falling ... yet

I'm a little more curious as to the rules for picking / re-rolling conjuration powers. How many people are going to buy and paint up a greater daemon model based on the 1 in 6 chance they roll Possession? What if you don't own enough daemons to cast the Primaris more than once? It would be poor form to stick people with useless powers all game all under the aim of BUY MORE DAEMONS.

But buying GW models is the hobby, didn't you know? The rules are written to enable you to enjoy the hobby more. I'm sure they'll make it all clear in "the hobby" book, which will feature full colour diagrams of how to buy things, and how to get your mum to buy things for you.

Interesting. Looks like you can score objectives each turn.

Protoman2k wrote:
GW just posted a new video about the new missions. Haven't had a chance to watch fully.

Maelstrom of War Missions: http://youtu.be/RE4H93c7U5Y

Interesting...

I like how Jervis equates "choice" with "whatever random result you're lumbered with on the D66 table".

"Variety is the spice of life" indeed!

Honestly, I do like the idea though

Mission idea looks interesting- keeps the game moving along and prevents too much of a static strategy.

I see it in the same light as I see random encounters in Dungeons and Dragons.

 Accolade wrote:
Wait, have they not hyped the previous editions?

Nope, they would work harder at keeping them secret. BAM! Preorder.

Loopstah wrote:
Interesting. Looks like you can score objectives each turn.

Indeed. I think this will be huge. It should help to prevent the last turn objective grabbing. The more objectives you grab earlier, the more chances you have to get objectives in later turns.

Also, this confirms that the mission card deck is not required.

 Alex C wrote:

Protoman2k wrote:
GW just posted a new video about the new missions. Haven't had a chance to watch fully.

Maelstrom of War Missions: http://youtu.be/RE4H93c7U5Y

Interesting...

I like how Jervis equates "choice" with "whatever random result you're lumbered with on the D66 table".

"Variety is the spice of life" indeed!

Honestly, I do like the idea though

From my understanding, and what I've heard, at the start of the game you have 3 objective cards randomly chosen from your shuffled deck. As you accomplish those objectives, you take another (face down) card from your shuffled deck...

LoL totally missed that! Nevermind!

I like the concept that you score points for holding objectives at the end of each turn vs. swooping in on the last turn with fast movers to seize.

 Alex C wrote:
Also, this confirms that the mission card deck is not required.

I'm sure if you don't get the deck of cards, you can roll for them...

Protoman2k wrote:
GW just posted a new video about the new missions. Haven't had a chance to watch fully.

Maelstrom of War Missions: http://youtu.be/RE4H93c7U5Y

Wow, that is very nice. Scoring points each turn, I like it.

 tastytaste wrote:
hmm you know what I find odd.

So far is no mention of Super Heavies in the new edition, besides Knights...

Could all the rumor mongers be wrong about Escalation in 7th?

I do enjoy rumors based on assumptions that turn out completely untrue I have to say.

We've already seen the new FOC with Lords of War included as standard. So Super Heavies are now normal 40K, like they were anyway as Escalation was a supplement.

Tau and Space Marines aren't allies.

The last big GW release we got was a 100+ page book dedicated to the Tau and Space Marines slaughtering one another. lol

Anyway, I actually kind of like the modular mission idea. It helps add some longevity to the game.

It's also a nice artificial great equalizer. Oh, I really like that gunline you've set-up in your deployment zone there, Tau. Too bad your objective is to hold this point waaaaaay over here on my side of the map.

Loopstah wrote:

So some of the objectives are exactly the same?

 spartanlegion wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Also, this confirms that the mission card deck is not required.

I'm sure if you don't get the deck of cards, you can roll for them...

Exactly, which is why I said the card deck is NOT required...

 Ifurita wrote:
I like the concept that you score points for holding objectives at the end of each turn vs. swooping in on the last turn with fast movers to seize.

As you (When) achieve your objective(s), you get the VPs. Some objectives give you VPs at start of turn, middle of turn, end of turn, etc...!

Here's a write up about why D&D 4th ed failed. There are many similarities to design, player base and what makes a good game that I think are interesting and sometimes highly applicable to the situation GW and us players face right now. One thing I like was when he said "but what the players want and what is good for the game is seldom the same thing."
I also think that 4th ed is an example of bad marketing and bad design (in a certain way, it was a well crafted game, but it wasn't much fun.)

How is this applicable to 40k?
Here's the first paragraph. Switch some names and editions to GW, 40k, 7th ed, etc and you get the picture. I suggest reading more in the article because its very well written and very interesting.

So, Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition has been announced, and the news has struck the sort of reaction I expected it to. People are hoping for this feature or that. Others are expressing their dismay at the fact that a new edition is coming so soon on the heels of D&D: Essentials. Yet others are suggesting that this heralds the end of Dungeons & Dragons, that a new edition will make the already split RPG community even more fractious. There are yet others that have met the news with incredible, soul-crushing apathy. So, there’s that.

http://giantsbridge.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-fourth-edition-died.html

Syphid wrote:

Loopstah wrote:

So some of the objectives are exactly the same?

Except for the "type", which may bear some relevance.