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.

Time for a quick reminder that personal attacks contribute nothing worthwhile to the discussion. Dakka's rule #1 is to be polite. Let's try to keep this behemoth on the rails, hmm? Address the rules discussion, not the character of the poster.

Please note my first post plains says wording such as "suggests". Yes, the Game Could have a seventh phase where we play beer pong to decide who goes first on the next turn. But for the sake of not addressing the absurd, we use the practical wisdom given to us. This wisdom suggests this isn't a 5e to 6e level of change, it is a tweak of 6e into... We don't know.

But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer.

And as for emotionally charged, yes I am unhappy at new changes, my primary army being garbage, and the company asking more money for an unknown update.

My emotions do not change the facts of Games Workshops business decisions and how they reflect poorly in comparison to their competition. And I used the term Occam's Razor, implying the simplest solution is usually he most correct. The new edition is probably for financial reasons. Could it be coincidence? Yes. We cannot prove either theory correct or incorrect, but this then suggests to err on the side of caution given the previous mentioned facts and trends.

But yes, back to whining.

 MWHistorian wrote:

44Ronin wrote:


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.

No he couldnt easily be accused as a blinded white knight because some of his posts have been positive about the changes and some of them have been negative. He could be accused of being balanced.

As far as you thinking it will slow the game down? that is your opinion... it is hardly a fact.

My argument is that the poster has the responsibility to provide a burden of proof to back up his conclusions. Just because he thinks a psychic phase will slow down the game, doesn't mean that it will.

The other thing, we have failed to address the specifics. Ask yourself, does having the psychic powers spread out in multiple phases provide an efficiency of sorts that proves superior to having it in a phase?

As far as I have read, this issue has not been touched upon , yet it has been concluded which is odd.

I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..

Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?

Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1

The game has gotten longer to play. You can see this in tournament play with extended round lengths. I know, anecdotally, that outside of my death star forces, games are normally 2.5 hours. My Draigowing can be played to completion in usually an hour to hour and a half. This is using primarily 30 models, with most being back field squatters or 15-30pt acolyte units.

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..

Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?

Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...

Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

 TheKbob wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1

The game has gotten longer to play. You can see this in tournament play with extended round lengths. I know, anecdotally, that outside of my death star forces, games are normally 2.5 hours. My Draigowing can be played to completion in usually an hour to hour and a half. This is using primarily 30 models, with most being back field squatters or 15-30pt acolyte units.

Which tournaments extended there round lengths?

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1

I saw far more games running out of time at 6th edition events than I did during 5th.

 TheKbob wrote:
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.

So no change then?

 TheKbob wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..

Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?

Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...

Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

This is hardly a main slowing down factor. As the True LOS and cover rules changes were. I think you're blowing things heavily out of proportion.

We can only tell when the rules come out and enough games are played to average it out via impression

bodazoka wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1

The game has gotten longer to play. You can see this in tournament play with extended round lengths. I know, anecdotally, that outside of my death star forces, games are normally 2.5 hours. My Draigowing can be played to completion in usually an hour to hour and a half. This is using primarily 30 models, with most being back field squatters or 15-30pt acolyte units.

Which tournaments extended there round lengths?

Also my second point what is really different in wound allocations that will mean the game will take longer? and if so how much longer? are we talking 2 minutes per turn? 5 minutes? is this something people are going to even notice if it exists? are there practices that people can implement to help the game speed up like rolling different colored dice together? etc...

I'll be gracious and bow out. I don't have time to research every major GT structure or my local RTTs over the past two years. But the general consensus is the same, the game has gotten longer to play. I've been in the loop with plenty of TOs and attended enough tournaments to know this is a discussed issues. If you want write it off as anecdotal, then move on,

I addressed the wound allocation issue already.

bodazoka wrote:
Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.

Sure, you can. Just like a lot of players ignored the change to LOS that resulted in saves having to be rolled one at a time... Which is fine, right up until you run into a player who wants to play by the actual rules.

bodazoka wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.

So no change then?

Go retread the article. Complete change.

I always rolled my dice by type one at a time anyway. Honestly with people trying to have 3-4 different weapons firing at the same time and remembering which dice. My method of going weapon by weapon usually was faster.

Also I find that if people know the rules and know what they are doing games end naturally. I usully finish in under 2 hours unless the other guy is playing really slow or doesn't know the rules. Usually it is people who don't know the rules well and we constantly have to check the rule book that takes the most time. Or people who don't know what they are going to do and take 5 minutes to move one unit.

There are plenty of short cuts you can take. Our local horde ork player always got to at least turn 5 because he knew how to move his army quickly.

 insaniak wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.

Sure, you can. Just like a lot of players ignored the change to LOS that resulted in saves having to be rolled one at a time... Which is fine, right up until you run into a player who wants to play by the actual rules.

How many players out of a 1000 would make me do that? if/when that happens in a tournament (where time matters more) I would seriously doubt the TO (who I would call over) will support that guy's obvious attempt at slow playing me.

Although currently years in gaming and yet to meet him/her.

44Ronin wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..

Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?

Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...

Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

This is hardly a main slowing down factor. As the True LOS and cover rules changes were. I think you're blowing things heavily out of proportion.

We can only tell when the rules come out and enough games are played to average it out via impression

Am I?

I'm the one stating it will make the game longer. Based on Jervis' words, that appears fact. Unless White Dwarf expresses their frequent use of "glossing over."

You're the one antagonizing me. We shall know when the rules come out. Be my guest and prove me wrong.

 TheKbob wrote:

bodazoka wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.

So no change then?

Go retread the article. Complete change.

You wont play 40K like that. No one will.

So no change.

Besides.. it's a white dwarf article. I am almost 100% positive that the rolling of multiple colored dice to speed the game up was mentioned by GW either in a white dwarf or the rule book itself, hell it may even be in the 7th ed!

bodazoka wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

bodazoka wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

Nothing suggests you can not do it the way everyone always has... one line in a white dwarf article does not invalidate the roll different colored dice method.

So no change then?

Go retread the article. Complete change.

You wont play 40K like that. No one will.

So no change.

Besides.. it's a white dwarf article. I am almost 100% positive that the rolling of multiple colored dice to speed the game up was mentioned by GW either in a white dwarf or the rule book itself.

And again, the article says otherwise. If tts wrong, then they are lying about the very product they intend to sell you. Fabulous!

You just playing this method would be "slow play" thus if you followed the rules as written, shoots would take longer which supports my original claim that games would take longer in total. So I'm wrong, but double wrong if GW is also wrong?

So I'm always wrong and you're always right, got it,

 TheKbob wrote:

44Ronin wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I remember when people thought that the rule changes from 5th to 6th would mean the game would double in time.

Yet all the major tournaments were able to have games finished in the same amount of time. And as far as I understand it not one of them increased there match times?

I of course anecdotaly take as much time to play a 5th ed game as I did a 6th ed game. And I drink!1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
But what's been presented, such as new wound allocation, suggests games taking much longer now. Rolling, wounding, and resolving of saves per weapon type basis will take longer..

Why? how does that differ greatly from what we have now?

Personally I roll all my dice at the same time and have separate colored dice...

Because the article suggests resolving each uniquely. Thus shoot the flamer, hits, wounds, saves and then bolters, hits , wounds, saves, and then the plasma, hits wounds and saves, and then the krak grenade from my Sgt,

So on, so forth. For mixed weapons squads or by using the rules to he fullest, you're looking at a unit needing five sets of rolls instead of lumping. I too use different color dice, but the new words written suggest this isn't a valid method now.

This is hardly a main slowing down factor. As the True LOS and cover rules changes were. I think you're blowing things heavily out of proportion.

We can only tell when the rules come out and enough games are played to average it out via impression

Am I?

I'm the one stating it will make the game longer. Based on Jervis' words, that appears fact. Unless White Dwarf expresses their frequent use of "glossing over."

You're the one antagonizing me. We shall know when the rules come out. Be my guest and prove me wrong.

I'm not antagonising you, I simply don't believe you have the tools, information or even the sufficient evidence necessary to make the claims you are claiming.

The burden of proof is on you, being the maker of claims. So provide the quote and explain yourself fully?

I can't really explain how your assertion works, now can I?

On tourneys and time.

Using a tournament to state that games don't last longer is a self defeating argument. Tourneys are timed events. The only way to judge if times were running linger would be to have statistics on the average number of turns completed by the players per round. I have never seen this metric anywhere.

Since tournaments are timed events and are extremely competitive, the players involved usually bring very efficient armies with somewhat lower model counts to account for limited time.

This is a terrible way to judge the average time to complete a game.

bodazoka wrote:
How many players out of a 1000 would make me do that? if/when that happens in a tournament (where time matters more) I would seriously doubt the TO (who I would call over) will support that guy's obvious attempt at slow playing me.

My experience was about half and half with players expecting LOS to be played 'correctly'... It has nothign to do with slow playing. It potentially makes a difference to the outcome.

 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.

Yeah the mission cards will add a few minutes while you figure out how to get as many VPs as you can that turn. I don't even want to think about if you don't have the cards and have to roll for them. That will take too long for me. So I agree there but that is only if you're playing the missions that use them. If you're running short on time stick to the standard 6 missions.

The magic phase is really only adding a few d6 to the duration of the game each turn. Roll a D6 add mastery levels won't take but a second unless you forget your psykers levels every turn. Denying in 6th edition everything gets to roll a d6 to try and deny. 7th you get d6 attempts to try and deny, heck this part might even be faster if you throw all your dice at a single power (forewarning). Casting powers got a few d6 longer if you perils, granted.

The shooting phase I don't think will be too bad either. Yes if you have a flamer or blast weapon shooting it might add an appreciable amount of time to each squad's shooting based on player skill and how well you know know each other (EX: Not watching him roll the saves while you're measuring distance and rolling to hit for other weapons).

I think the space magic phase and new shooting will add a lot of tactical choice. Do I use my very short ranged demo charge first or hope massed hits from my 3 flamers will kill these Space Marines? Do I throw all my dispel dice at the forwarning or do I try and stop his perfect timing too? It will take longer I agree but I think it adds to overall gameplay as well. I will have to wait and see as my opinion is based on WDW and maybe the way I'm imagining it isn't right and it will take much longer than I think.

Random thought...I'm going to have to number my objectives now. I can just picture it now.. "which frakking objective is objective 3?"

EX: Not watching him roll the saves while you're measuring distance and rolling to hit for other weapons).


This one is an interesting one to me because when I leave the table I always say "Hey man roll/move whatever and let me know when I get back". My thing is if I feel like you are the kind of person who would cheat I wouldn't be playing you in the first place. Even in a tournament, if you cheat that is on you and you have to live with that.

Also with premeasuring its pretty hard to cheat on movement since I will have measured the major worries/ranges.

Also for most things that take extra time I just say screw it and let them pick.

For things like random allocation I just let them pick which models, for multiple barrage I just roll them all and go from there, in most situations I let people run in the movement phase(unless it might actually affect the outcome)

Is this the exact way you are supposed to play? Nope, but it saves time. Neither is this a problem with the rules, as long as the end result is close enough I don't really care. Then again I am also the guy who makes sure people know what a unit can do or when they are making a mistake during a game, just to make sure it was as intended.

For example: In the last tournament the AM guy cast ignore cover on the unit shooting at my bikes. I asked him why because he had nothing that broke my armor and there was no way for me to get a better save. So I just let him choose something else. This was at the top table of the tournament.

 TheKbob wrote:
And again, the article says otherwise. If tts wrong, then they are lying about the very product they intend to sell you. Fabulous!

You just playing this method would be "slow play" thus if you followed the rules as written, shoots would take longer which supports my original claim that games would take longer in total. So I'm wrong, but double wrong if GW is also wrong?

So I'm always wrong and you're always right, got it,

Just because that is how they mention the hits are to be rolled does not mean they do not adivcate (nor is it illegal) to roll the dice all together. It does not mean that this is what the rule book insists you MUST do.

If people roll there dice as written in the white dwarf article you would be correct, however.. no one will (outside of the 1 in 1000 player) and you know that. Your argument that this method will make the game take longer is correct, what Im arguing is that effectively the way to roll the dice will remain the same (as there is nothing stating that you are not allowed to roll them all together) hence there is no change.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
How many players out of a 1000 would make me do that? if/when that happens in a tournament (where time matters more) I would seriously doubt the TO (who I would call over) will support that guy's obvious attempt at slow playing me.

My experience was about half and half with players expecting LOS to be played 'correctly'... It has nothign to do with slow playing. It potentially makes a difference to the outcome.

I meant the rolling of the dice, I am sorry I never specifically responded to the LOS thing.

bodazoka wrote:
I meant the rolling of the dice, I am sorry I never specifically responded to the LOS thing.

To be clear, by 'LOS' I was talking about 'Look Out Sir' not line of sight. Hence the slow playing reference. Playing Look Out Sir correctly is much, much slower than the abbreviated way that people were playing before (and in some cases after) the FAQ changed it.

Frankly all this back and forth seems silly to me and I'd much rather discuss what we do and don't like about what we know than having arguments over if we find the other person's point of view valid or not.

So that said I'm skipping all this back and forth stuff and instead going to do a full run down of everything we know so far (from the videos and WDs) and what I think of all of it:

Unbound Armies: Interesting idea, hampered by the problems of the game balance (or lack there of). Taking FOC is not a bad idea, by itself. The real issue is that we have things that run too high in points and this rarely, if ever see lists (ex. Terminators) or are just automatic takes into a list (ex. Wraithknights). I assume more people who want to use this for fun ideas or cool thematic armies will likely get lumped into the crowd of "WAAC jerkasses" by most people just because of the way the game isn't balanced. That said....

Battle-Forged Armies: I do like that GW at least has made some attempt (though to what effect we don't know exactly) to balance the new against the old by giving the limited lists some kind of buff for playing with restraints on. I just hope this goes beyond the "super scoring" and re-rolling Warlord traits because the first can still be beaten by tabling and the latter doesn't matter if you use most named characters.

Psychic Phase: Frankly I like this. It gives psykers a nice spotlight while not letting them run too rampant. With how powers work (4+ per Warp Charge required for the power) and Perils works (rolling Double 6s) it really brings a nice risk/reward mechanic system to the game. One that I hope is paired with powers that really make you want to use the new phase. The free Primaris is a nice buff to level one psykers and rewards specialists, but really the dispel mechanic will be the major make or break for most people on this I think.

Daemonology: No, I didn't forget it, I just wanted to cover this one on its own. Frankly the idea is fine in my book. I even like the idea of Dark Angels being radical enough in how they'd hunt the Fallen to resort to summoning Daemons to do their will as it fits my head canon of how far the chapter will go in their hunt. The full restrictions and methodology used for this would be the real make or break for me if it wasn't for the whole "all doubles perils" (unless your Daemons) thing that really cuts a lot of the crud out of it. Also who really wants to summon something in their army that can trigger the whole "stand around and do nothing" part of distrusted allies if they're within 6" (which they likely will be after being summoned). I just don't see this being the new "big thing" to be abused in 7th, but I can always be wrong.

Maelstrom of War Missions/Tactical Objective Mission Cards: Love the concept, love the idea, love the fact that you don't even need to buy the cards to use them. This is frankly one of the BEST things I've seen in this release so far. It's a dynamic way to change how the game is played from turn to turn and I feel does a lot to break up the ol' "grab objectives at the last minute" method of playing the game we've been doing for two editions now. This one gets a thumbs up just for shaking that monkey off our backs. Of course, if you like the monkey (his name is Bobo), you can still play the old missions or one of the MANY alternate ones in the Altar of War or Supplement books. So nothing was invalidated, just expanded on. I like it!

Price/Three Book Combo: Frankly I'm not excited about the price. Yes, I know the rulebooks have been getting progressively thicker over the years but I don't like the price creep that has come with them. And while I'm happy this was NOT $100 USD as guessed I still wish it'd stayed $75 or gotten cheaper. That aside, making the books a three pack is genius. It gives players a smaller rulesbook to carry around and reference, and that makes most of us pretty happy. They just need to hurry up and release it by itself for less than $40 before summer is over to earn real brownie points.

Oh and the special edition is just way too damned much.


FMCs: A single grounding test if they sustain wounds is a nice buff for them because before it was all to easy to drop them (and for a while, dribble them like a basketball). It might annoy armies that relied on grounding FMCs to make things work but if anything related to the rumors regarding snapfire are true I don't see it being too big of a deal if they're slightly harder to drop.

Challenges: I like the overflow aspect. It's a good buff towards armies that want to use challenges effectly, or are required to (CSM). I just hope other things were tweaked to make up for the fact that using a cheap character to "speed bump" a nastier one was changed.

D-Weapons: I'm glad to see that we're seeing it balance back out again so models with invulnerable saves get protection against the attacks more often. Especially when those Invulnerable Saves are usually factored into their points costs. I'm sure Daemon players are more likely to bring their armies to Apoc games now too.

Lords of War on the FOC: We knew it was coming, here's to hoping there is something like a percentage cap like the Heresy books did.

6" Verticle Unit Coherency: I never had issues with the 3" version, but I can't complain about this. Seems fine to me. Makes scratchbuilt terrain less of a pain too I'd suspect.

Split Fire: No Leadership tests? That solves the Astra Militarum quandry right there at least. I'm sure Space Wolves are happy too.

Wound Allocation Rules: I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean it basically is just like the AP method like 6th edition, only more precise I suppose with how you'll need to approach shooting an enemy unit. I assume most of us will just roll things like we already do, and just resolve them in groups based on weapons instead of AP values just to speed things up.

7+ Explodes: Doesn't fix how easy it is to glance things to death, but at least it no longer means losing your Land Raider on a 4+ to a Melta. I hope Hull Points got buffed or vehicles got armour saves or something to make up for all this.

-2" Charge Distance into Difficult Terrain: MUCH better than before and easier to plan around. Though it does mean you could charge 0" if you roll snake-eyes which is kind of funny.

Everything Scores (for the most part): I have no idea how to feel about this, but with super scoring in the game it does make Troops a LOT more useful than before when it comes to properly holding objectives. I just wonder what they mean by "the most part". Is there something in the core rules that keeps things from scoring we should know about or is it the same old stuff as before? Guess I'll just need to wait for the rulebook on that one.

 insaniak wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I meant the rolling of the dice, I am sorry I never specifically responded to the LOS thing.

To be clear, by 'LOS' I was talking about 'Look Out Sir' not line of sight. Hence the slow playing reference. Playing Look Out Sir correctly is much, much slower than the abbreviated way that people were playing before (and in some cases after) the FAQ changed it.

Honestly if the saves are all the same I just tell them to roll all the saves and then just attempt to LOS any wounds that get through to the person.

Also zion, very good rundown and I agree with most of your points.

However for me personally I found that even though it is 10 bucks more, it is going to save me a lot because I was going to get the hardcover, and then get the boxset for the soft small one with models I don't really want. Now I just need to buy the one. The extra 10 bucks is worth it to not have to carry everything around.

Now do I wish it was solo? sure but it is better than the old status quo so I am happy about that.

Also I think 7+ explodes adds a lot to vehicles survivability. Unless it is Ap1/2 or open topped you are going to survive the turn unless they dedicate fire to killing you. This means that investments in things that keep vehicles alive are now more worth it. IWND on iron hands? Way better when the vehicle might live. Venerable? Might be worth it, techmarine and servitor squads to heal vehicles might be worth it. It adds a significant amount of survivability but doesn't make them BS like they were in 5th. I think it is very significant.

 undertow wrote:
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.

Yeah, I'm not talking about musical wounds at all. I've discribed exactly how it worked.

Pretty much agree with everything you said Clockwork