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.

barko wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What armies don't have acces to a flyer?

Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.

Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.

Was going to say Sisters, but you said it. I thought Orks had flyers. Bombers and a jet, or am I mistaking something? I even have the kit but not put it together yet. So they have a flyer as well.

 amanita wrote:
I have to say that though the tactical cards may not be a bad idea, they do seem to be a bit...ponderous?

Here's a breakdown of the 4 we've seen so far: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/595167.page

It's not lookin great IMO.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 amanita wrote:
I have to say that though the tactical cards may not be a bad idea, they do seem to be a bit...ponderous?

Here's a breakdown of the 4 we've seen so far: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/595167.page

It's not lookin great IMO.

The good thing about cards is you can make game variants that omit or add to the deck, or GW Can make alternate decks for variant missions.

And whilel it hasn't been confirmed yet I bet that altars of war get a mention in the 7e BRB, giving further ways to change how we play the game on a regular basis.

Davor wrote:

barko wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What armies don't have acces to a flyer?
Orks? They have jets.

Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.

Was going to say Sisters, but you said it. I thought Orks had flyers. Bombers and a jet, or am I mistaking something? I even have the kit but not put it together yet. So they have a flyer as well.

Orks jets have Supa Shootas. S6 is pretty pathetic for dealing with other flyers, who tend to have 11+ armor. So they have them, they're just not very good at dealing with other flyers.

We have no AA guns, but considering we're BS2 snapshots don't really hurt us as much. Problem is that once your lootas are gone (which if your opponent isn't a drooling vegetable should be the first thing to die), orks generally don't have enough high strength shots to do anything about flyers.

I think the new shooting rules make sense. I don't think they'll actually slow my games down as i always made separate rolls for the different classes of weapons anyway. I hate trying to remember which colored die was for which weapon when my opponent rolled so I always just trusted them anyway.

Also, I'm really liking that Pens only happen on a 7+. My DE wyches and warriors will breath a little easier knowing that they'll live a bit longer when their ride inevitably turns into scrap metal.

The Diff Terrain change to just being -2 also helps out a lot. There are many ways a unit moves and now having it a flat -2 simplifies things.

On the whole I think we'll end up with some mechanics that take longer and some that go faster.

clively wrote:
On the whole I think we'll end up with some mechanics that take longer and some that go faster.

Assuming that's true, they still added an extra phase to the game.

So am I to understand a krak missile may no longer take out a rhino from behind? That doesn't seem right.

Though I can see Unbound being fun for a select few, it's obvious money grab overtones are hard to ignore. Players won't just have to buy more models, but will have to pony up for their rules as well. Clever, in a sneaky underhanded way! I just think it will take away more than it can possibly add to the game.

 amanita wrote:
So am I to understand a krak missile may no longer take out a rhino from behind? That doesn't seem right.

It can still be Wrecked, can't it?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What armies don't have acces to a flyer?

Marines... no they have two.
BA's have one.
DA's have their own special ones (for some reason...).
Wolves don't... do they? Ok that's one.
Grey Kahnigits do.
Guard. Yeah.
Tyranids. Yes. Terrible ones to be sure, but they do.
Daemons? Yup.
Chaos? Yeah.
Necrons? Sure.
Tau? Yep.
Eldar? Yes.
Dark Eldar? Again, yes.
Orks? They have jets.

Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

Imperial Knights.

Drakmord wrote:

 amanita wrote:
So am I to understand a krak missile may no longer take out a rhino from behind? That doesn't seem right.

It can still be Wrecked, can't it?

Don't know if explodes only moved to "7" or if wrecked is at 6. In any case, an anti-tank rocket fired at the back of a lightly armored vehicle now only either has a 1/6 chance of destroying it if it both hits and penetrates or possibly none on one shot depending on if wrecked is still at 6.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

Well Sisters, but since you said significant I guess you mean excluding them.

Which makes me sad.

EDIT: Other insignificant armies who don't have flyers or skyfire: Legion of the Damned, Imperial Knights, Inquisition.

Scratch that last one, I think they might have Valkyries.

 warboss wrote:
In any case, an anti-tank rocket fired at the back of a lightly armored vehicle now only either has a 1/16 chance of destroying it or possibly none on one shot depending on if wrecked is still at 6.

Yep, welcome to 40k, where tanks are simultaneously horribly fragile for gameplay purposes and absurdly durable from a fluff perspective. There's really no way to justify how stupid these rules are.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

Well Sisters, but since you said significant I guess you mean excluding them.

Which makes me sad.

EDIT: Other insignificant armies who don't have flyers or skyfire: Legion of the Damned, Imperial Knights, Inquisition.

Scratch that last one, I think they might have Valkyries.

Legion of the Damned can take Flakk missiles, if you convert a mini or have the old LotD with missile launcher.

 Peregrine wrote:

 warboss wrote:
In any case, an anti-tank rocket fired at the back of a lightly armored vehicle now only either has a 1/16 chance of destroying it or possibly none on one shot depending on if wrecked is still at 6.

Yep, welcome to 40k, where tanks are simultaneously horribly fragile for gameplay purposes and absurdly durable from a fluff perspective. There's really no way to justify how stupid these rules are.

The Chewbacca Defense? Look Inq Torquemanda is bestest friend with bloodthirsters now! Don't pay attention to the confusing new rules.

M.

Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.

None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.

The "pessimism" lies in the realistic viewpoint of a game degrading from a structured play style. A structured play style promotes a healthy community that has no observed fissures that Warhammer 40k does. I've seen some stuff wrong in other games, but it's never been on the level of this game; the only difference between casual and hardcore is time spent versus army composition.

Nor are we dealing with a company that actually promotes community health, either.

Even further in the wait category. But it'll probably sell out and be the "bestest rules ever!" 5e with fixed wound allocation and double hull points anyone?

BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.

That has never ever been the case. Even GW has made statements as such. They "reinvent" the game each edition.

I've gamed since Rogue Trader, and I know 1st was a role playing version (that was out for 6 years, and never got any errata, or faqs, just sayin'), 2nd was the emergence of the game as a war game as we know it (3 books, uber characters, cards, etc...) that lasted 5 years. Then 3rd (for 6 years), 4th (for 4 years), 5th (for 4 years), and 6th (for 2 years)...

Sure, each book carried over some things from it's predecessor, yes, but in essence the newer rule book is/was in fact a NEW game.

If ANY game company wanted to fix and fine tune their rules, we'd have seen Warhammer 40k Version 1.2, then 1.3, then 1.4, etc... But GW won't do that. They stated they are moving the game into bigger and bigger games. Soon Titans will be allowed...

Just don't disillusion yourself in thinking 7th is the "fixed" or "fine tuned" version of 6th...

7th is 7th, a new 40k game.

 TheKbob wrote:
Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.

Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.

None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.

It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.

I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.

Wow. I saw a glimmer of hope, until the design studio said they saw Chappy getting more time than Libby... what the freaking feth?!?!! How on earth do these idiots keep their jobs?!? Seriously, we need a coup and put Gilstrap, Brandt, Tuttle, and Reecius in charge of design and play testing. The podcast crew would do a billion times better than these sycophant, lore butchering, no FAQ support morons.

There's some pearls on the swine still, I just hope a community agreement can be made on a sane tournament 40k rules system that the American 40k scene can use in club play with a spirit of solidarity and conformity.

 spartanlegion wrote:
BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.

You have misunderstood. It's quite well known that GW use a new edition to shake things up. What people are saying is that each new edition should be intended to finetune the previous instead of just changing stuff for the sake of change.

 spartanlegion wrote:


BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.

That has never ever been the case. Even GW has made statements as such. They "reinvent" the game each edition.

I've gamed since Rogue Trader, and I know 1st was a role playing version (that was out for 6 years, and never got any errata, or faqs, just sayin'), 2nd was the emergence of the game as a war game as we know it (3 books, uber characters, cards, etc...) that lasted 5 years. Then 3rd (for 6 years), 4th (for 4 years), 5th (for 4 years), and 6th (for 2 years)...

Sure, each book carried over some things from it's predecessor, yes, but in essence the newer rule book is/was in fact a NEW game.

If ANY game company wanted to fix and fine tune their rules, we'd have seen Warhammer 40k Version 1.2, then 1.3, then 1.4, etc... But GW won't do that. They stated they are moving the game into bigger and bigger games. Soon Titans will be allowed...

Just don't disillusion yourself in thinking 7th is the "fixed" or "fine tuned" version of 6th...

7th is 7th, a new 40k game.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

44Ronin wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.

Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.

None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.

It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.

I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.

They're commenting on what is known. No, the rule book hasn't been released, but many of the rules are known, like the addition to a new phase. A new phase will add to the time it takes to play, if you can't see that then you're blind. You don't need the rulebook to figure that out. Also, people are commenting on how this release, so far, is following a perceived pattern of GW business and gaming practices. We don't need the full rulebook to see the obvious moneygrabbing "use your whole collection" type game this is becoming.
You could easily be accused of being a blinded white knight, but I won't do that because I don't know you. So stop accusing people of arrogance.

 streamdragon wrote:

Davor wrote:

barko wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What armies don't have acces to a flyer?
Orks? They have jets.

Am I missing anyone? Or, to rephrase, am I missing anyone significant?

You missed Sisters, unless you don't think they are significant.

Was going to say Sisters, but you said it. I thought Orks had flyers. Bombers and a jet, or am I mistaking something? I even have the kit but not put it together yet. So they have a flyer as well.

Orks jets have Supa Shootas. S6 is pretty pathetic for dealing with other flyers, who tend to have 11+ armor. So they have them, they're just not very good at dealing with other flyers.

Considering you can fire 18 twin linked BS3 shots on a waaagh.... it's actually pretty damn good and hardly pathetic. You could also learn how to flank against rear armour. It's not that hard to do with a flyer coming in from reserve.

 insaniak wrote:

 spartanlegion wrote:
BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.

You have misunderstood. It's quite well known that GW use a new edition to shake things up. What people are saying is that each new edition should be intended to finetune the previous instead of just changing stuff for the sake of change.

I agree, but there have been a few posters that sounded like they didn't understand that...

xera32 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.

So simple. It required almost no thought.

Because musical wounds was so awesome? From your example my 9 strong beasts of nurgle wound require 28 wounds to kill 1, while they IWND the wounds back, or to give an example of a unit someone would actually take, broods of carnifexes, centurions, fleshhounds, or chaos spawn. Taking from the front sort of makes sense (the flamer isn't going to roast the guys at the back), but I can understand the annoyance that it is for horde melee armies.

The new wound allocation method just seems to be reining in the multi flamer units from obliterating infantry hordes.

Agreed, musical wounds was the worst thing about 5th and I'm so glad it's gone. The only compromise I'd be OK with would be owner choosing the model, but then all wounds apply to that model until it is removed.

44Ronin wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.

Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.

None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.

It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.

I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.

Can you offer up something to be hopeful about instead of calling people's opinion "whining"? Is that at all possible?

 insaniak wrote:
The change to vehicle damage is promising... Making it harder to one-shot vehicles is a good change.

However, unless they have changed how LOS works, they have managed to make regular shooting even more annoying with the change to rolling each different weapon individually...

The one-shot was my bane, since I like Razorbacks I'd run 6 of them sometimes, I would lose them quick, then the remaing little 6 man squads would be hoofing it, usually losing too many squad members to hold anything. So for me that sounds great!

 Crablezworth wrote:

 spartanlegion wrote:


BTW - I realized now that many folks have the misconception that each edition was meant to fine tune the previous.

That has never ever been the case. Even GW has made statements as such. They "reinvent" the game each edition.

I've gamed since Rogue Trader, and I know 1st was a role playing version (that was out for 6 years, and never got any errata, or faqs, just sayin'), 2nd was the emergence of the game as a war game as we know it (3 books, uber characters, cards, etc...) that lasted 5 years. Then 3rd (for 6 years), 4th (for 4 years), 5th (for 4 years), and 6th (for 2 years)...

Sure, each book carried over some things from it's predecessor, yes, but in essence the newer rule book is/was in fact a NEW game.

If ANY game company wanted to fix and fine tune their rules, we'd have seen Warhammer 40k Version 1.2, then 1.3, then 1.4, etc... But GW won't do that. They stated they are moving the game into bigger and bigger games. Soon Titans will be allowed...

Just don't disillusion yourself in thinking 7th is the "fixed" or "fine tuned" version of 6th...

7th is 7th, a new 40k game.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Yeah, kinda like that!

It just feels like they're taking a chainsaw to financial regulations and I don't work on wall street. That's what 7th feels like, Free market 40k,

 MWHistorian wrote:

44Ronin wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.

Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.

None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.

It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.

I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.

They're commenting on what is known.

The comments are definitive conclusions, though. And as I said, it follows in line with this guy, always cynical doom and gloom nonsense.

No, the rule book hasn't been released, but many of the rules are known,

and more rules are not known than are known.

like the addition to a new phase. A new phase will add to the time it takes to play, if you can't see that then you're blind.

That is an arrogant assumption. The arrogance is hard coded into your language by calling other blind (yet the rules have not been released and you have not played the new rules at all, you're calling other blind? Way to go
.
Having psychic powers spread over multiple phases causes headaches that may very well cost you more time in a game than having them consolidated into a phase. Let's not forget when players forget the correct phase that a power must be used, and ask the other player to backtrack, and the ensuing discussions that occur.... that takes a lot of time as well.

You don't need the rulebook to figure that out.

According to what logic?

Also, people are commenting on how this release, so far, is following a perceived pattern of GW business and gaming practices. We don't need the full rulebook to see the obvious moneygrabbing "use your whole collection" type game this is becoming.
You could easily be accused of being a blinded white knight, but I won't do that because I don't know you. So stop accusing people of arrogance.

It's a form a tunnel vision, written without thinking of alternate possibilities and variables. It's arrogant enough to call it arrogant

44Ronin wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Most changes that have been affirmed by White Dwarf articles suggest the game becoming even longer to play in time frame with new wound allocation requirements, magic phase, and added randomness further.

Having a sole psychic phase cleans up psychic powers. Considering you don't have the rules yet I think you are just arrogantly assuming things.

None of this release yet addresses the issue of Games Workshop's business practices. Occam's Razor suggests this is in all interest of end of year financials given timing, lack of support, lower sales volume, etc. The tangible quality of releases is down with recycled content or vanilla releases with bolt on $15 additions. Many of which required FAQs for a long time now with zero corrections.

It hasn't been released yet, you don't know the full contents of it. So your assumptions are just whining for the most part.

I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you are like a broken record. IN fact when I even just see your avatar before reading I know what the post will be like.

As others have already stated, I'm not whining nor assuming. Rather I'm drawing educated hypothesis based off information we now know and the previous gameplay trends of Warhammer 40k.

I'm sorry if I'm a "broken record" but I suggest you not turn your scorn from someone reciting facts, rather to the entity reproducing them time and time again.

Give me a reason to post a sportive response for 7th edition and I'll gladly jump for joy. Nothing that's been presented has me happy. What would? A massive release of FAQs, new Facebook pages, a community forum, community managers, and an announcement of a new edition in the months to come with open player testing to ensure a solid release worth the monetary investment.

Because if you're going to ask triple the cost of your competition, you should at least have feature parity. But then again, this is just me "whining."