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.

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

 insaniak wrote:

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

I don't see wounds spilling over making any sense. Why even have the challenge sub rules?

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

I don't see wounds spilling over making any sense. Why even have the challenge sub rules?

Because the Bloodthirster lops off the Sergeant's head and keeps swinging. Makes plenty sense!

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

I don't see wounds spilling over making any sense. Why even have the challenge sub rules?

How does it not make sense? You stop swinging at the guy you're fighting after he dies and move on to the squad. You still have to deal with the WS and T of the guy in the challenge, so it makes it a bit harder to hurt the rest of the squad.

It makes plenty of sens, that i don't have to waste the 13 Attacks of my JuggerAxelord, on a mere sergeant, the rest of the unit can take a bit of punishment also.

All of those rules look pretty good, waiting to see what the transport rules look like

 whembly wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Do we know how wound allocation works now? Removeing from the front has been my most hated change from 6th.

Still from the closest to the firing models.

If anyone wants orks or csm pm me. Because assault armies are still R.I.P. in peace

Whoa there bucko...

Let's wait to see if you can assault out of transport easier (ie, in 5th).

Nah. I'm done. I didn't like 6th ed because it's wound allocation slowed down the game, and greatly punished assault armies. You can see earlier in the thread where i broke why it dose this in detail.

Now doing wound allocation is going to take even longer, and for someone who liked playing large armies it was to annoying.

The one thing that was keeping me around was if they fixed wound allocation in 7th. They have not. So I'm done with 40k. It's that simple.

Like the deamonology lores were sounding interesting, alonge with the malestorm of war missions. But 6th ed wound allocation has just just been to big of a pet peev for me.

 AdeptSister wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
The reference section is pictured in the photo with the LE version. Sadly the text is too small to read but a few things can be discerned:

Melee to-hit chart is the same.

So weapon skill will remain useless...That is sad.

Agreed - one the stupidist things in the game is that high WS versus Low WS never hits on better than 3+ - unlike shooting with its 2+ AND Re-rolls

There's nothing in the fluff to support the idea that Inquisitors become more radical the older they get. It happens, and it's certainly a danger, but that's not the same thing as it being the forgone conclusion of working as an Inquisitor. Using Eisenhorn as an example, Commodus Voke was old as gak when he died, around 200 years old, and was Puritan to the bone.

The fact of the matter is that the idea of Coteaz or any Space Marine, especially Grey Knights, intentionally summoning deaemons is stupid as gak and utterly shatters the fluff. There is no logic-hoops one can jump through to make that not the case; it's as idiotic as Black Templars being more willing to fight alongside Tau than Sisters of Battle.

But I'm not giving into despair just yet. Tyranids are getting the shaft once again, which at least goes to show that even Games Workshop can not be this mind-numbingly stupid when it comes to handling their own fluff. I think it's very likely that there will either be a list of factions who can use the daemonic powers, or individual characters will be FAQ'd to have access to the discipline.

I could at the very least see there being a line, somewhere, that specifically notes that Grey Knight psykers do not have access to the Malefic discipline.

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

I don't see wounds spilling over making any sense. Why even have the challenge sub rules?

Or, alternatively, and more narratively, seeing their senior officer utterly butchered in front of them has a somewhat negative effect on their desire to keep fighting and be next?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
The reference section is pictured in the photo with the LE version. Sadly the text is too small to read but a few things can be discerned:

Melee to-hit chart is the same.

So weapon skill will remain useless...That is sad.

Agreed - one the stupidist things in the game is that high WS versus Low WS never hits on better than 3+ - unlike shooting with its 2+ AND Re-rolls

I tried proposing different tables to buff WS in Proposed Rules it but you get a LOT people who fly off the handle at the idea of high WS becoming really good.

 Accolade wrote:
Oh I know, I think $340 is absolute insanity. It's at *least* $130 priced over any of the previous LE books, but look at all those hardcovers!!

At least if it was something like $1000 we could have the people who bought it institutionalized.

Pshaw. They price it properly in order to keep the riffraff away. I'll be buying three; two for myself, and one for my manservant.

Enjoy the dregs, plebs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
The reference section is pictured in the photo with the LE version. Sadly the text is too small to read but a few things can be discerned:

Melee to-hit chart is the same.

So weapon skill will remain useless...That is sad.

Agreed - one the stupidist things in the game is that high WS versus Low WS never hits on better than 3+ - unlike shooting with its 2+ AND Re-rolls

I tried proposing different tables to buff WS in Proposed Rules it but you get a LOT people who fly off the handle at the idea of high WS becoming really good.

I would have liked double WS+ to hit on 2s and get hit on 5s but alas it is not to be.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

I don't see wounds spilling over making any sense. Why even have the challenge sub rules?

Or, alternatively, and more narratively, seeing their senior officer utterly butchered in front of them has a somewhat negative effect on their desire to keep fighting and be next?

Sigh, guys I'm not saying spill over doesn't make sense by itself. I'm saying spill over makes challenges pointless (got to read both sentences)

Why on earth if a big ugly steps forward would an IG sarg either charge it alone or do nothing and watch it butcher his guys?! However his grunts have the good sense to mob rush the guy! The Challenge matrix is just stupid, I like the idea, but there's got to be a better way than what we got. Hopefully there's further changes too.

Maybe after the challenge is resolved people at later intiative steps get to attack the guy in the challenge? So you got a force ax or something and you send in the sergeant to eat the challenge, get killed and then you get to swing with what will actually kill it.

Or just remove challenges to avoid even MORE useless rules to bog down the game.. I swear 6th ed was just about adding rules that never needed to exist.

Or...

Remove challenges entirely.

Done.

You can all thank me later.

*EDIT* Ninja'd.

 Blacksails wrote:
Or...

Remove challenges entirely.

Done.

You can all thank me later.

*EDIT* Ninja'd.

Agreed. If the two big baddies are left, the combat resolves with just them fighting. I dunno, I like the idea of warlords seeking each other out, but when it gets down to the sarg/aspiring champ level, it just doesn't make sense.

So loyalists summoning daemons seems to be true. *headdesk*
This is the stupidest thing GW has done... well ever. This is the first time I have ever been actually angry with GW.

Was it not this, I'd actually be moderately exited about the new edition.

 Crimson wrote:
So loyalists summoning daemons seems to be true. *headdesk*
This is the stupidest thing GW has done... well ever. This is the first time I have ever been actually angry with GW.

Was it not this, I'd actually be moderately exited about the new edition.

Only imperials who I could see it working for are: IG (traitor guard), the base SM book (traitor marines) and the Inquisition book (radical inquisitors). Any other faction doesn't make sense. The remaining books are all first founding legions or close descendents of first founding legions. Marines who know what happens when you turn to chaos.

Just read a crap full of pages. Just wondering if I missed something about Tyranids Shadow in the Warp. Before it would lower the Ld of the psyker. Now that you need 4+ to see if you are successful, what happens to the -3 to Ld now for psykers?

Or nothing has been said yet, and it's wait and see? What do Nid players think of this?

I'd be down with removing them.

Challenges serve absolutely zero purpose.

Instead of it being a universal rule, it should just be a special rule for like, Chaos Marines or something.

Challenge: When in the first round of combat, before any blows are struck, a character with this special rule may elect to pick an enemy character and offer a challenge. If the challenge is accepted, the two combatants may not attack nor be attacked by any models not participating in the challenge (template weapons may hit them as normal). If the challenge is declined, the opposing character must pass a leadership test, or be unable to attack that round. The challenger fights as normal.

If the character with this rule wins a challenge, he must immediately roll on the Chaos Boon chart.

Davor wrote:
Just read a crap full of pages. Just wondering if I missed something about Tyranids Shadow in the Warp. Before it would lower the Ld of the psyker. Now that you need 4+ to see if you are successful, what happens to the -3 to Ld now for psykers?

Or nothing has been said yet, and it's wait and see? What do Nid players think of this?

Nothing has been said. Nids, Sisters and BT would need FAQs to make up for their reduced psychic defense.

 Crimson wrote:
So loyalists summoning daemons seems to be true. *headdesk*
This is the stupidest thing GW has done... well ever. This is the first time I have ever been actually angry with GW.

Was it not this, I'd actually be moderately exited about the new edition.

It's true, if you choose the malefic table for their psychic powers and choose to manifest them.

Ultimately it's down to whether the specific player is prepared to turn to the ruinous powers in an attempt to gain advantage.

The fiction supports "loyalists" who are not above doing such things. The end justifying the means.

Besides, we haven't seen the sanctic table yet.

 Kirasu wrote:
Or just remove challenges to avoid even MORE useless rules to bog down the game.. I swear 6th ed was just about adding rules that never needed to exist.

The thing about challenges is that it does fulfill something that GW always wants to have, and that is the concept of two big characters fighting against each other in the middle of battle, which is a very cinematic concept that you see in their novelizations, etc.

In 4th edition they tried to accomplish this by having ICs count as a separate unit for CC allocation, but that caused all sorts of rules headaches. In 5th, they got rid of that, but just forced you to move your ICs first (to at least make sure they got into combat and not hang back outside of combat range unheroically).

The crazy thing is, they put all the rules they needed into 6th edition to make this happen *without* needing to spend a page or two on rules for challenges.

They added both the precision strike rule and the 'look out, sir' rule and that's all they needed. They could have just said that when a character is attacking in combat if there is an enemy character engaged with them, then they can declare they're allocating all their attacks against that enemy character. All those attacks gain precision strike (against that enemy character), but the enemy character can still use look out sir.

Boom. Done.

 Blacksails wrote:
Or...

Remove challenges entirely.

Done.

You can all thank me later.

*EDIT* Ninja'd.

I like the concept of challenges but you should only get to do the whole "Look Out Sir!" once per combat phase or something rather than once per wound.

It should also be independent characters too. Why is Marneus Calgar picking on that one lowly sergeant?

Davor wrote:
Just read a crap full of pages. Just wondering if I missed something about Tyranids Shadow in the Warp. Before it would lower the Ld of the psyker. Now that you need 4+ to see if you are successful, what happens to the -3 to Ld now for psykers?

Or nothing has been said yet, and it's wait and see? What do Nid players think of this?

Nothing has been said, nothing is known.

 Crimson wrote:
So loyalists summoning daemons seems to be true. *headdesk*
This is the stupidest thing GW has done... well ever. This is the first time I have ever been actually angry with GW.

Was it not this, I'd actually be moderately exited about the new edition.

Honestly I've never gotten all that excited about the edition, I just want to know what it's going to do to the game and if it'll be the thing that draws me back in or not.

The real think that keeps grabbing my interest is the idea of painting my Argent Shroud Sisters in NMM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happygrunt wrote:

Davor wrote:
Just read a crap full of pages. Just wondering if I missed something about Tyranids Shadow in the Warp. Before it would lower the Ld of the psyker. Now that you need 4+ to see if you are successful, what happens to the -3 to Ld now for psykers?

Or nothing has been said yet, and it's wait and see? What do Nid players think of this?

Nothing has been said. Nids, Sisters and BT would need FAQs to make up for their reduced psychic defense.

Sisters and BT have Adamantium Will, I assume their Deny the Witch bonuses will come from there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happygrunt wrote:

Davor wrote:
Just read a crap full of pages. Just wondering if I missed something about Tyranids Shadow in the Warp. Before it would lower the Ld of the psyker. Now that you need 4+ to see if you are successful, what happens to the -3 to Ld now for psykers?

Or nothing has been said yet, and it's wait and see? What do Nid players think of this?

Nothing has been said. Nids, Sisters and BT would need FAQs to make up for their reduced psychic defense.

Sisters and BT have Adamantium Will, I assume their Deny the Witch bonuses will come from there.

Actually, there may be some credence there. If you need a 6+ to deny a die, maybe they need 5+? Nids still would need a solid FAQ though.

Still seems like a silly idea, the concept of "what army do you play" is pretty much a "Well I have this allied with this and use demons" allies was cool when it was specific like witch and demonhunters
lost and the damned kind of did it, but now I can pretty much toss and two armies together and summon demons and buy whatever I want for them and throw it all on a table.
That's sounding less like a game and more like complete nonsense.
Are there any other games that I can do that? Not to my knowledge... 7th just seems like a "we have nothing else, just buy things, buy all the things, doesn't matter why!!"
Now staff can just say to kids "yeah buy whatever it really doesn't matter!" it's their dream come true.