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.

**ClockworkZion**

azreal13 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

I love all this talk about how we're suddenly going to see these broken Unbound armies are just going to overtake the meta. Seriously now, who'd play against an army of 10 Bloodthirsters or all Riptides or any other insane combo you can think of? Be honest now.

It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)

I know your Bloodthirster example was deliberately hyperbolic, but a kitted out BT is nigh on 300 points, so 10 are circa 3k, and by the time they'd agreed amongst themselves who was Warlord, you'd probably only have 6 or 7 left to field! Strong units that aren't undercosted do not concern me for the prospect of Unbound lists, it's things that are undercosted and horribly efficient like the Waveserpent that continue to concern me, in the context of the game as a whole in fact, and the lack of any rumours of anything that's going to tangibly rein them in is the one thing that is still bothering me.

I was more using it as the most extreme example of an army I could think of without digging out codexes to actually build one. The point remains though, those extremely broken combos (whatever they may be) are very rarely, if ever actually see play because people will just avoid playing them.

**Peregrine**

azreal13 wrote:
It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)

Well the WD article does say that point limits are optional...

**vadersson**

I think I solved the question of which rulebook to get. I leave for vacation on the 29th and don't want to lug three big hard cover books with me to read. So digital edition here I come.

I hope I get to actually play again soon. I have spent an awful lot of money just to play two turns of a game so far.

**Thatguyhsagun**

Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/CM's to represent a DW army.

**Azreal13**

Peregrine wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)

Well the WD article does say that point limits are optional...

Yeah, but I think we can treat that with the contempt it deserves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/CM's to represent a DW army.

Actually, if your opponent decides to bring an unending horde of baby Nids, they'll probably do ok!

**Hollismason**

I like every single change that has been stated so far, and don't get the falling sky mentality. Now my opinion is that Daemons got a huge boost in power almost to the point of Broken, but we have not seen the other side of the coin with the Anti Demon powers.

Psychic Phase -> Interesting and fun, now seems like you are actually "doing" stuff instead of Buff Debuff Shooting Attack. You mean I actually can stop my opponent from casting stuff , Great!!
-2 Through Difficult Terrain, Great!
Grounded! Great
More Survivable vehicles. Great , Negates Open top being super destroyable but still worthwhile.
Battle Forged! Great
Unbound , Great ! Sure i can be abused
Mission Changes, Love it. Makes the game matter from Turn 1 onward.

I like Unbound Armies , it allows you to play old school games and it allows you to build stuff like Genestealer cult without anyone complaining.

Yes, I am in fact playing the entire first company of my Marine army, it's really cool I don't know why people hating on it.

Like anything it can be abused but there's only so many rules you can make to prevent this.

**Azreal13**

Hollismason wrote:
I like Unbound Armies , it allows you to play old school games and it allows you to build stuff like Genestealer cult without anyone complaining.

Yes, I am in fact playing the entire first company of my Marine army, it's really cool I don't know why people hating on it.

Like anything it can be abused but there's only so many rules you can make to prevent this.

Not exactly, if all the units points values were commensurate with their power value, then there would be very limited ways to abuse Unbound without resorting to cheating. The only issue people have with unbound armies is that units exist in the game that are too strong for their points, and Unbound gives a certain sort of player to exploit those imbalances still further.

You're absolutely correct, used responsibly, Unbound has potential to allow players to do awesome stuff without having to jump through hoops to get permission to do it, but nobody is worried about players who will use it to create awesome army concepts.

So, the only rule that needs to exist for it to be no problem whatsoever is one in the Game Design office in GWHQ that reads "Test Units Thoroughly and Cost Them Appropriately."

**Kelly502**

I like the sound of the special edition boxed set but man that's pricey! I want the little rule book mostly. don't need the art book... Anyonw know if the smallish rule book will be available later?

**Relapse**

Seems fitting to have a DE Haemonculus on the rule book cover, the portal, no doubt to unimaginable suffering as one struggles to make sense of this year's rules.

**Slayer le boucher**

Sir Arun wrote:
Okay, so apart from us existing players already having a set number of purchased units and armylists etc. leading us to continue playing battle forged armies, my questions is:

...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?

If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.

Been spending the day in Brussels GW, spaked with a bunch of guys, when speaking about the reroll, they all agree that this is a good thing, so if some seasoned players, think so, then there is a lot of newbies who will think so.

Also a newbie player won't now, what to take from what codex to make something broken, if he does, its a) becaus someone told him so/made his list for him, b) he found a thread with army lists and simply copy them without knowing really how to play them, in both cases, it won't a good army.

Now of course if they listen to the redshirts, who can't do nothing but yappers about the brolen stuffs, and they listen to it( like i saw today...), then there is nothing any one can do.

Kelly502 wrote:
I like the sound of the special edition boxed set but man that's pricey! I want the little rule book mostly. don't need the art book... Anyonw know if the smallish rule book will be available later?

To be fair the Munitorium set contaisn quite a lot, the books obviously, objectives tokens, missions cards i believe, all the new templates and dices+stick rulers and also a 40k novel i heard from the Staff.

But then again 250euros for a cardboard box..., if it was a etched metal box with gravings...or at least like the Apoc Vortex grenade transport case;

But instead for 250euros a box that has the shape of a bolter?...

**Sinful Hero**

Relapse wrote:
Seems fitting to have a DE Haemonculus on the rule book cover, the portal, no doubt to unimaginable suffering as one struggles to make sense of this year's rules.

Missed that joke by about 30 pages.

Good grief this thread is getting bloated.

I'm curious if you're required to still pick a character as a warlord in unbound lists? The Tyranid player from the battle reportseems to use a Tervigon(a non-character HQ).

**Relapse**

Sinful Hero wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Seems fitting to have a DE Haemonculus on the rule book cover, the portal, no doubt to unimaginable suffering as one struggles to make sense of this year's rules.

Missed that joke by about 30 pages. Good grief this thread is getting bloated.

I'm curious if you're required to still pick a character as a warlord in unbound lists? The Tyranid player from the battle reportseems to use a Tervigon(a non-character HQ).

Oh well, at least someone won't have to sift 30 pages back to find it. Look for it again in about 40 pages!

**Lansirill**

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/CM's to represent a DW army.

I'm stealing that idea for my own DW. I think I may have to make some movie marines as well.

**Juicifer**

Why, yes GW, we do indeed intend to play this game with points. Thanks for putting that on the table, though!
I'm almost convinced we're about to go from "Forging a Narrative" to "Jesus take the Wheel", and that's just based on the official word so far!

**Relapse**

Juicifer wrote:
Why, yes GW, we do indeed intend to play this game with points. Thanks for putting that on the table, though!
I'm almost convinced we're about to go from "Forging a Narrative" to "Jesus take the Wheel", and that's just based on the official word so far!

I must exalt that!

**Sihdhartha**

Here's the thing, I keep seeing people say that they don't think unbound or some of these other changes are going to alter things that greatly, it'll only be a small percentage that exploits the problems that these could potentially cause ect..

Well then, wouldn't this small percentage be the same small percentage of players that exploit current problems such as re-rollable 2+ ward saves, Riptide spam, wave serpent spam, ect?

So then if it's really such a small percentage that would exploit things like this why would they possibly need to fix things? (which seems to be the biggest consensus most places i have gone).

Let's not kid ourselves, it's going to be the same percentage that creates these problems now as it will be looking for new problems in the next edition.

History (of the game, and community) would seem to give lie to trying to downplay and brush off the concerns brought up by some of these changes (and rumored ones) as unfounded and going to happen so rarely as to not matter.

**Davor**

Slayer le boucher wrote:

But then again 250euros for a cardboard box..., if it was a etched metal box with gravings...or at least like the Apoc Vortex grenade transport case;

But instead for 250euros a box that has the shape of a bolter?...

At least when I bought my 5th edition rule set it came with a metal box that I can put my minis in in a shape of an ammunition box. Card board doesn't seem worth it to me at all. Yes I didn't get all the extra books and poster but then again, all the extra books was one book.

**BlaxicanX**

ClockworkZion wrote:

And how is that any different from now?

It isn't significantly different from how it is now, and that's my point. Right now, troops are an afterthought for many armies. The meta of today is to take minimal troops and invest in the big toys so that you can spend five turns decimating your opponents' army, and then make a last ditch dash with your minimal squad-sized troops to grab as many objectives as you can. That's today's meta. The rumored FOC changes, scoring changes and Unbound rules makes that "ignore troops, focus on the big guns" strategy stronger. It's not alleviating the problem, it's encouraging people to become apart of it.

And how do you know tabling is an auto-lose now?

How do you know it isn't? This isn't an argument. I see the appeal that you're trying to make, but there's a difference between speculating on information we actually have, which is what I'm doing, and falling back on the Dakka-typical "you shouldn't judge until we know more!" angle that you're trying to use here. This is a speculation thread.

**shade1313**

azreal13 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)

Well the WD article does say that point limits are optional...

Yeah, but I think we can treat that with the contempt it deserves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/CM's to represent a DW army.

Actually, if your opponent decides to bring an unending horde of baby Nids, they'll probably do ok!

Actually sounds like a fun battle to watch, potentially.

**Grey Knight Luke**

So how many ADL will I be able to take? 10 quad guns a vindicare? And an entire half of the field in difficult terrain sounds hilarious.

**BlaxicanX**

Terrain isn't apart of the FOC iirc, so you can't take multiple fortifications, even with Unbound.

**ClockworkZion**

BlaxicanX wrote:
And how do you know tabling is an auto-lose now?
How do you know it isn't? This isn't an argument. I see the appeal that you're trying to make, but there's a difference between speculating on information we actually have, which is what I'm doing, and falling back on the Dakka-typical "you shouldn't judge until we know more!" angle that you're trying to use here. This is a speculation thread.

You cut part of my post off there in your rush to look right. I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.

Next time don't quote out of context to make yourself look "right" it just makes you look like someone who is desperately trying to "win" an argument on the internet.

Frankly I don't care who wins, I just think assuming the worst possible outcome being the only correct one is just too pessimistic for even me. I prefer "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" as my mantra. Sure it means I do have to consider the worst, but frankly I already have, it's called "I quit 40k and play something else". Everything else is less dark in comparison.

**Grey Knight Luke**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Terrain isn't apart of the FOC iirc, so you can't take multiple fortifications, even with Unbound.

I just assumed terrain was included as non faction groups... My mistake

**Vector Strike**

This guy has milked all the new stuff about 7th from WD #16:

http://www.ozdestro.com/blog/white-dwarf-issue-16-full-40k-7th-ed-revealed

+ In Eternal War missions both players have the same objectives throughout the battle
+ In Maelstrom of War missions, the parameters can change from one turn to another. The idea is to simulate High Command changing the orders as the battle goes on. By gaining points at the end of each turn you have a fighting chance all the way until the end of the game.

+ Unit Coherency has been increased to 6" when measured vertically
+ Split Fire no longer requires a Leadership test

+ Super-Heavy Vehicles, Gargantuan Creatures and Destroyer weapons are now in the rule book
+ Specific scenery sets you can buy from GW now have their own data sheets.

+ Wound Allocation has changed - now when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll a hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of weapons in the unit at a time.
+ Casualties are always models closest to the firers.
+ You can choose which weapons in your squad fire first

+ Vehicle survivability has been rejigged too; a Penetrating Hit now requires a score of 7 on the Vehicle Damage table to destroy the vehicle. You can still destroy a vehicle by whittling it down or destroying it in one foul swoop with a dedicated anti-tank weapon. The difference is that a speculative shot isn't likely to get the job done in a single shot. This makes the +1 or +2 bonus on the vehicle Damage table for certain weapons invaluable.

+ Difficult Terrain is now a -2" on the charge distance.

+ Almost all units can claim objectives - including Land Raiders.
+ One of the advantages of a Battle-Forged army is that your troops always trump an opponent's scoring units enabling you to capture objectives even with enemy units nearby.

+ There is now a Battle Focus rule for Psykers which can increase the amount of psychic powers you have at the start of the game.
+ If you choose all your powers from the same discipline, for example, the you get the Primaris Power in addition - which gives every Psyker at least two to use.

+ Battle-Forged armies can re-roll your Warlord Trait and the Objective Secured special rule.
+ Unbound armies can have units that are not allied in the same force!

**Puscifer**

I got a question...

Like 5th and 6th ed, will the armies be getting an FAQ/Errata on launch day of 7th?

**Peregrine**

ClockworkZion wrote:
I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.

In 6th edition you can have armies that consist of nothing but flyers (or similar units that must start in reserve) and units that start the game aboard flyers, and you will automatically lose the game. GW had no problem screwing over all-reserve armies, even fluffy ones like jump pack BA or Elysian drop troops, in 6th, so there's no reason to believe that this rule will change in 7th.

**BlaxicanX**

ClockworkZion wrote:
You cut part of my post off there in your rush to look right. I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.

I really don't think it does. I've seen rumors that Unbound armies ignore the FOC. Where are you seeing that an all-flyer army is possible?

Frankly I don't care who wins, I just think assuming the worst possible outcome being the only correct one is just too pessimistic for even me.

You need to learn what analysis is. Positing that I'm being "pessimistic" by pointing out that the current rumors strongly encourage ignoring troops is like saying that I'm being "pessimistic" for pointing out that 2+2=4.

I understand the sentiment of too much negativity being annoying. But the point of this thread is not to have a happy circle-jerk and talk about how great (or terrible) 7th edition is going to be, the point of this thread is to speculate and discuss the rumors that we're seeing. I call it as I see it, so if you want my opinions on 7th edition to be more positive, than present me with rumors or information that gives me a reason to have a positive reception.

**ClockworkZion**

BlaxicanX wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
You cut part of my post off there in your rush to look right. I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.
I really don't think it does. I've seen rumors that Unbound armies ignore the FOC. Where are you seeing that an all-flyer army is possible?

I don't get how you don't see that they are. If someone doesn't have to follow FOC they can easilly take an army of nothing but Stormtalons, Heldrakes or Doom Scythes (to name a few).

**midget_overlord**

+ If you choose all your powers from the same discipline, for example, the you get the Primaris Power in addition - which gives every Psyker at least two to use.

Do you mean that I can now choose my powers instead of rolling, or are they stil rolled forl randomly?

**BarBoBot**

What it means, is that if you choose to roll ALL your psychic rolls for a model on divination (as an example) then you get the primaris power for free.