40k 7th Edition release 24th may - All info in 1st post, psychic power cards added (5/21)

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

bodazoka wrote:
You wont play 40K like that. No one will.

You can state that categorically and unilaterally? As insaniak said, it’s all well and good to play it your way until you run into someone who plays the rules as they are written.

**bodazoka**

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.

Ahh right! sorry I thought you meant line of sight. Yes the LOS thing did make it longer I always placed my 2+ save in the front as Im sure everyone else did. It did seem to frustrate allot of people when he bounces off so many wounds. And I would totally make you play it the correct way!

**44Ronin**

ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Unbound is interesting.

For me, as an ork player, it means I can take a 39 point grot unit and not blow a whole troops choice on it.

It also means I can finally lay the horde advantage down to actually mean something (eg., putting down more than 200 troops models on the table, HAHA!)

or have a boatload of cheap mutliple target units so the enemy army could never fire at everything. It will be awesome to nullify other armies overpowered toys with sheer mass

Currently Orks cannot make a convincing horde list with only 6 troops choices when the game gets between 1500-1999 points, or even with multiple detachments

**bodazoka**

Agree with everything there ClockworkZion well written.

**Leth**

That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.

Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic

Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.

MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?

The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.

**MWHistorian**

Leth wrote:
That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.

Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic

Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.

MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?

The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.

I think most people are worried about pickup games, not tournaments.

**Peregrine**

ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.

And I have to admit, this is the one change so far that I love. My IG armored company can finally stop taking infantry just to score objectives. And since I don't need any of that unbound nonsense that means I get super-scoring LRBTs as troops, Hellhounds and Salamanders as fast scoring units, and artillery/vanquishers/etc as "home" objective campers.

**ClockworkZion**

Peregrine wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.

And I have to admit, this is the one change so far that I love. My IG armored company can finally stop taking infantry just to score objectives. And since I don't need any of that unbound nonsense that means I get super-scoring LRBTs as troops, Hellhounds and Salamanders as fast scoring units, and artillery/vanquishers/etc as "home" objective campers.

That is the first post of yours I've ever read where you said you liked something. I kind of want to mark it on the calendar.

Ribbing aside the video makes sense then. I was limiting my write up to screen caps and WD pages as it's harder to make a mistake about what is said when it's in print.

**44Ronin**

MWHistorian wrote:
Leth wrote:
That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.

Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic

Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.

MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?

The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.

I think most people are worried about pickup games, not tournaments.

Care to elaborate?

**MWHistorian**

44Ronin wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Leth wrote:
That is the funny thing about unbound, most of the units that I see people complaining about would not really do well in a tournament setting or with the new mission cards.

Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part. At which point You can literally just go to ground every turn while he wastes lots of fire power trying to dislodge you. and if ignore cover goes to just -2, all of a sudden you are getting cover saves again. Good balance of the mechanic

Helldrakes? You can easily spread out a unit so he can only flame3 or so at a time. Also LOS blocking terrain. He still needs to see you to use the template.

MSU single model armies? What if one mission has KP, or they get the kill three units in a turn card?

The extreme lists may do well in certain situations but in general I think that there will be enough paper around to keep those rocks from constantly winning. Right now most of the power builds exploit the end of game win conditions. Once it goes to progressive a lot of those armies suffer.

I think most people are worried about pickup games, not tournaments.

Care to elaborate?

I don't do tournaments and don't care about them. The rules are usually controlled and you usually see the same three lists anyways.
What I'm worried about is the pickup games where now we have even more types of games and armies to negotiate through. Do we do unbound or bound? I might not have an unbound army and that might be all he has? Or he thinks his unbound army is totally fair and I think its spammed cheese. There will always be TFG and they're obvious. It's the "in between" situations that add more complexity to what we have to do before we play. This increases the chances of game refusals and also increased and even more exaggerated mis-matched gamed. All these new rules really don't matter if you play in a tight group of people you know well and you all have a similar idea of what you want, but now the random pickup game has become a lot harder to get working to a degree that both people will find suitable.

**MajorWesJanson**

Peregrine wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.

Given that the current BRB missions still exist, and two of them specify that fast attack or heavy support units are scoring, it can be assumed that there will be some limitations on scoring units.

We could possibly see say the current missions unchanged, with only troops scoring and the current secondary missions.
Unbound is simply not following the FOC, so doesn't affect scoring status of units.
Maybe the 6 Maelstrom of War missions are the ones that are "all units but zooming/swooping models are scoring", and potentially the 36 tactical objectives replace the normal secondary objectives.

All this talk of unbound army lists makes me want to make a counts-as Bentusi army that ignores the FOC. "We will not be bound!
Cookie for the reference.

**greyknight12**

As far as unbound armies go, it seems from reading the white dwarf (may 17th issue) that the concept of unbound seems to be primarily geared towards new players, can't remember the exact quote. I personally think that such a stink has been raised about them thus far that not many people will run unbound armies except for fluff reasons.

What I am excited about are the changes to allies. Firstly, the reduction in battle brothers. Secondly, from what we've seen it looks like you may be limited to one allied detachment, so the era of inquisitorial dets+allies may be over. That's just my gut feeling from reading it, but it's also my biggest hope for 7th edition. I'm looking forward to trying out the rest of the rules as well, except for the tactical objectives. I just don't think 40K is a dynamic/fast enough game to support any meaningful objectives other than "shoot this guy". But we will see.

**Anpu42**

As far as wound Allocation goes, I was happy how 6th did it in the BRB. It was fast and efficient.
You take 17 Wound Roll 17 Saves and remove them from the front, when you reach a Character you make your “Look Out Sir” Roll and then if/once it falls, you move on until you run out of your Wound Pool. It was quick and worked well.
Then they FAQed it to that slow and clumsy method.
After a few games we started to ignore the FAQ.

**RoninXiC**

But "older" players will use unbound too.. and they will know how to screw up the game.

**angelofvengeance**

White Dwarf is out tomorrow in Games Workshop stores, independent stockists and right here on the Games Workshop website. The big news this week is that Warhammer 40,000 is being reborn with a brand new edition. This issue of White Dwarf is the definitive guide to all the exciting changes, so make sure you pick up a copy to find out what’s new in the 41st Millennium.

Alongside a trio of articles about the new features of Warhammer 40,000 there’s a stage-by-stage painting guide for Wood Elf Dryads, a chat to the writers behind the new Warhammer 40,000, a look at all the latest releases and our weekly outpouring of office musings and painting projects.

White Dwarf is also available as as ePub and MOBI digital downloads from the Black Library website and through Apple iBooks.

Here we are ladies and gents.

**H.B.M.C.**

azreal13 wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
azreal13 wrote:

My point is, the rules need to provide a framework regardless, as "don't be a dick" as a rule is either irrelevant or insufficient.

I couldn't agree more.

Oh, go on, I'm sure you could squeeze a little more agreement out if you tried!

I agree more than Blacksails does!

**Veriamp**

MajorWesJanson wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.

Given that the current BRB missions still exist, and two of them specify that fast attack or heavy support units are scoring, it can be assumed that there will be some limitations on scoring units.

We could possibly see say the current missions unchanged, with only troops scoring and the current secondary missions.
Unbound is simply not following the FOC, so doesn't affect scoring status of units.
Maybe the 6 Maelstrom of War missions are the ones that are "all units but zooming/swooping models are scoring", and potentially the 36 tactical objectives replace the normal secondary objectives.

All this talk of unbound army lists makes me want to make a counts-as Bentusi army that ignores the FOC. "We will not be bound!
Cookie for the reference.

Well my guess would be that in the Big guns and the other mission heavy and fast attack would gain the Objective Secured usr in those missions. So everything is scoring just somethings are more scoring then others.

**Perfect Organism**

Leth wrote:
Riptide spam? What makes riptides scary is the buff commander and those upgrades are limited to one per army so he cant spam the ignore cover part.

Can't you just take a unit of marker drones with a commander to achieve the same effect? Not quite as difficult to kill as a commander with a riptide, but still pretty durable if you have a few shield drones and/or put shadowsun in the unit for a cover-save bonus.

In my mind the thing that stops riptide spam is that the more of them you take, the worse the odds that one of them will fail it's nova reactor roll each turn. If the enemy concentrate their anti-armour fire against the one without a 3+ shield, they can probably take it down reasonably quickly.

**Wayshuba**

So far, all 7th edition is is a few tweaks (some good, some leading to other problems) and a few new rules strictly meant to "sell more models" and not really adding much to the game.

7th is STILL going to collapse under the same junk that 6th edition has. Nothing that has really been needed to be fixed has been fixed.

The "core rules" are what need to be reworked from the ground up. It is high time, with the size of the game, that GW did away with IGOUGO. Same with saving throws - this can easily be converted into a Defense score or mechanic of similar ilk. Vehicles and flyers need to be worked from a similar mechanic in the game. Movement scores should be back in the profiles to eliminate the myriad of special rules that came about because of the elimination of it. I could go on, but the point is NOTHING that really needs to be fixed is being fixed. They are just adding more junk on top of an already bulky system.

Maybe I am missing something, but someone please tell me how anything known about 7th edition is going to cut down on the massive special rules and kinked on systems that are in place today? I haven't seen one thing that is going to do this, so the problems that exist today are STILL going to exist on May 24th only worse, because once again they have just layered more stuff on top of already broken stuff.

**Nem**

So I missed some stuff and I can't find the page with the original wound allocation stuff people are talking about - I assume it's separate wound pools for different weapons? I would think this would be so you have to actually think about the range of your weapon then in a multi ranged shooting attack from a unit.

I like this, it long process, but it's far more strategic and in favor of horde armies. It should be about positioning in game, rather than weapon selections on your army list.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like IGOUGO, and the different saving throws, as it opens up just the saving mechanic to many different variables that you just don't get in other games.

**Perfect Organism**

Did anyone else notice that they now seem to have two different game mechanics called 'Battle Focus'? One is a special rule for Eldar and the other is the bonus primaris power that psykers get for taking all their powers from one discipline.

**Nem**

Perfect Organism wrote:
Did anyone else notice that they now seem to have two different game mechanics called 'Battle Focus'? One is a special rule for Eldar and the other is the bonus primaris power that psykers get for taking all their powers from one discipline.

Maybe they'll errata the Eldar rule out of the game

I joke. I joke.

**Sigvatr**

insaniak 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

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

Would allocation, especially with mixed weapons and multiple blasts is a huge problem in 6th due to the "always take from the front" thingy. Another problem is the ability to always measure distances. I can understand players doing so in a tournament, sometimes, an inch can be decisive, but it really prolongs games.

**Smacks**

While unbound sounds very liberating, it also reminds me very strongly of the nonsense that spoiled 1st edition. That was how we ended up with the minimum 25% troop point limits in 2nd, which eventually grew into the FOC. The quote: "those that do no not get to learn history, are doomed to repeat it" springs to mind.

**Loopstah**

Peregrine wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

IIRC one of the WD/video things said "everything but zooming flyers", which makes sense.

And I have to admit, this is the one change so far that I love. My IG armored company can finally stop taking infantry just to score objectives. And since I don't need any of that unbound nonsense that means I get super-scoring LRBTs as troops, Hellhounds and Salamanders as fast scoring units, and artillery/vanquishers/etc as "home" objective campers.

This also makes me extremely happy. I can actually take an Armoured Company that is actually all armour and still score. Even better the troop russes should also have objective secured. I never liked the fact you had to take squishy guardsmen.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

This is very cool because the weapons of the rank-and-file troopers of your opponent cannot do anything to your army. At all. Ever. Just completely useless. And some special weapons like flamethrowers too. That will make for a quite fun game for him.

**Therion**

The edition sounds slightly better in light of the new information, but excuse me if I find it laughable when I see some people applauding changes such as the new Maelstrom of War / whatever missions, where you score points for holding an objective at the end of every turn. This very specific idea was suggested a long, long time ago, even right here at Dakka, at the Tournament Discussions forum, where people were trying to figure out if the problem with 6th edition is the game or the missions & terrain. People suggested that objectives should be scoring points at the end of every turn, but not all gamers could agree that it was in any way a good idea, and I believe it was canned for the most part.

So what else is changing? A psychic phase? Whoop-dy-doo. Either it's pretty much the same as what we have now, except in the form of a different phase, or it changes the landscape of the game to magic hammer, just like Warhammer Fantasy. A cynic could even see the introduction of a Psychic Phase as a direct result of Warhammer Fantasy dying altogether as a game, and GW wanting to bring the few remaining Warhammer Fantasy gamers into 40K by adding a magic phase into it. After all, the magic phase & magic items lists have some die hard fans in the Fantasy genre.

What else? Unbound & Battle-forged? We all know that's utter trash. If you can't in 5 seconds think of some unbound lists that are outright game breaking, you're new to tournament 40K. Similarly, Lords of War being parts of the standard FoC, together with their "nerfed" D weapons, are still game breaking, because 1850p or 2000p lists will be all about rock paper scissors. An army can literally consist of one model, or a few, rendering most of a balanced army's weapons completely useless for the duration of the entire game. So in short, everything in this "Unbound/Battle-forged/Lords of War/Datasheets/Dataslates/Formations/Allies/Fortifications/Forgeworld units" section is still unbelievably imbalanced, and the only way to cope with any of it, is to house rule it in a tournament rules package, meaning that 7th edition fixes absolutely nothing.

I still agree with a previous poster this feels like an "Ultimate edition", meaning the last one anyone even tried to give a Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n about.

**Samurai_Eduh**

I like all the changes I've read about so far. Demonology seems fine to me fluff wise, because they are only demons if you model them as such. Who says my Xenos inquisitor isn't actually using his mind to teleport a squad of squat allies to the battle from orbit (lesser demon stats)? Or my Space Marine librian isn't conjuring a terrifying vision of a legendary chapter hero (herald)? Or my Primaris Psyker merely telepathically sends coordinates for a large battle robot to drop from an orbiting landing craft (greater demon)?

I'm really excitied to play this new edition!

**Davor**

I wonder since today is pre-order day, will the site crash like it did when Space Marines were being released for pre-order.

I guess today will also be the day we can pre-order for the iPad version? Hopefully we will get new pics and see what else we can see.

**ninjafiredragon**

ninjafiredragon wrote:
So do we have a confirmed rumor anywhere about snap shot being -2 bs? Because I REALLY want that...

Anyone?