azreal13 wrote:
I Want To Believe.

 vadersson wrote:
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.

 Kelly502 wrote:
May be the best bet because correct me if I'm wrong, but the updates/ correction will happen automatically.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.

 TheKbob wrote:
I look forward to Zion's review.

 TheKbob wrote:
Did some catching up on the thread, nothing of note to comment on besides this is it... After this weekend, rules leaks ahoy as the book hits hands on Tuesday. It's kinda like being at the top of the chain on the roller coaster. That bit of slow tottering right before the plunge.

 undertow wrote:
I've heard people mention on other sites that FMCs won't be able to charge until the turn after they land. Has anyone else seen this or gotten any confirmation?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.

Frankly the only reason I'm buying it now is to review it and cover the whole thing as best I can so others can make informed decisions of their own. Something I wish we had a lot more of in this hobby honestly.

bodazoka wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.

Frankly the only reason I'm buying it now is to review it and cover the whole thing as best I can so others can make informed decisions of their own. Something I wish we had a lot more of in this hobby honestly.

Feel free to PM me the link when you do! I would love to read your breakdown I have appreciated your honest, un emotional, un bias comments (both negative and positive) on these changes in this thread so far. Will be a good informative read.

Also to the previous poster Im one of those "weird" guys who liked 6th so.. have all ready ordered 7th...

 44Ronin wrote:
You have a very poor grasp of military history, and what actually happens in close quarter fighting. Your position is downright ignorant to actual history. Your revisionist view is laughable at best.

Cavalry charges and even infantry charges were a big part of warfare in the Napoleonic era. In fact I'd call these things decisive elements in a battle in those times. You're wrong with your arbitrary date.

 Accolade wrote:
You ever heard of this thing called friendly fire? Ten feet...

I never called anyone stupid, I'm pointing out factual errors and modern misconceptions about warfare. They're almost to the point of being offensively ignorant.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

1700 was chosen as the beginning of large scale manufacture of firearms. Which, funnily enough, began the process. If you'd like to illustrate your point, though, I'll happily stand in the same ten foot room as you with a firearm while you get a spade, and we'll see who wins.

Melee continues to exist. But over time it's faded into the modern iteration, which has made it all but obsolete. My point stands, and until you can show me any contemporary combat where any significant percentage of combat occurred in melee it's going to keep doing so.

No, you're taking an off hand comment that was originally intended in jest as some gospel to which I adhere in a way I never said I did.

Did you ever hear of this thing called aiming? If it's not at the point where you are literally linking arms in a grapple with someone, picking out a guy and the guy several feet away isn't hard. Unless you have a comrade between said target and yourself.

You will notice that all the special forces response teams which do things like storm embassies and work their way through any other buildings all bring guns, and all use them indoors. They may have melee options available, but I'd struggle to find an example of them ever being used in deference to the firearm they're carrying.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.

 Perfect Organism wrote:
I thought that 'the dogs bollocks' was a good thing? Am I failing to keep up with English again?

Hatemonger wrote:

Brachiaraidos wrote:40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.

Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.

Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.

I mostly agree with you, except that this is exactly what the change from 2nd to 3rd edition was supposed to be about. If you have access to WD #226, it has all the "introductions" to the (then) new 3rd edition, including lots of designer notes and explanations, and it's well worth a read. Changes like Rapid Fire getting extra shots based on range, Cover Saves and the armor/AP system instead of modifiers, were all done to facilitate batch rolling. Instead of "This marine is at long range from that Ork in cover, and this one is short range from that Ork in cover, and these two are short range from those guys in the open, but they moved, so..." you just go on to "These guys fire bolters at those Orks... 5 hits... 3 wounds. Take saves." Psychic powers went from a card-based mini-game to basically "actions" that you do in the appropriate phase - albeit most of them just glorified alternate guns, which was admittedly rather bland.

Fast forward to today, and I'm fiddling with model placement so that my special weapons are close enough to hit, but not close enough to automatically be the first to die due to "Closest Model" removal, and then my opponent is rolling saves separately again because of Look Out Sir. They're adding the Psychic Phase back in, which I confess does actually seem like a simplification against the proliferation of powers used during-or-maybe-at-the-beginning-of- any given phase. I'm rolling on tables before we start playing, because my Commander gets different special rules every game, and my daemons also get different wargear. My daemons also might get different invulnerable saves over the turns, but also random anger-of-the-gods-artillery-strikes, because CHAOS. But I guess now we'll also be rolling/drawing for different mission objectives every turn, too?

Each of these things might be ok on its own. It's not any one of them that I feel bogs the game down, it's the cumulative effect of all of them together. To be fair, they all have the potential to add little bits of flavor to a game, but I'm left wondering if the cost involved is really worth it to me.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Is it a futuristic, small scale, skirmish RPG? Or is it epic in 28mm? D-weapons, riptides, deathstar units etc etc, are neither here nor there. The game suffers from an identity crisis - we get a horrible compromise of big battles and skirmishes crammed into one, and from what I've been reading, it's just gotten worse.

I think this cuts to the heart of it, but it's not just about the size of the game, it's about the focus. Superheavies are cool. Detailed characters with little roleplay elements are cool. Offbeat games with unlikely alliances are cool. Mental duels between mighty psykers are cool. Grand battles with sweeping movements of massed troops are cool. Bombing runs and dogfights and air-cav drops are cool. That's all cool! But I don't know that it's really cool to try and do all of that at the same time. In my head - in the ideal sense - yeah, sure it is. But at a certain point, something has to give, and unfortunately, I fear it is the gameplay that is being compromised now. They've gone to great pains to include a lot of fun ideas, but I feel like the sum total does not result in a more satisfying experience for me.

- H8

 Elemental wrote:
Okay, so are you arguing this to correct misconceptions about war in general, unrelated to 40K? Or are you arguing that 40K suffers for not being realistic enough with regards to CC?

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 Davespil wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?

This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.

Yeah, I am in agreement with this. Obviously 40k isn't all about realism, but sometimes the efforts to make things kewl and axesome come across as heavy-handed and childish. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any assault whatsoever, but that it shouldn't be about massive charges and counter charges like this is the Crimean War- which even then, the large horse charges resulted in significant defeat when the Crimean guns just mowed them all down.

Personally, if I was GW I would make assault less and less important in 40k to help differentiate both it and WHFB to encourage people to play both games. With the Psychic Phase returning, there is less and less reason to play WHFB (apart from pretty models).

The whole point of 40K is anachronisms. Machineguns and swords, space knights and space elves, laser guns and revolvers, tanks and cavalry charges. These days pretty much the only reasons to play 40K are the aesthetic and the background, so unless you're stuck playing it because literally no other games are played in your area, why would you want to dilute and change those? There are innumerable tabletop and videogames out there that cater to everything from hyper-real modern military to near-future hard sci-fi that would satisfy this "guns pwn everything" mindset, so why not play one of those instead of wishing to change major parts of 40K's thematic underpinnings that attract a lot of other people to the setting in the first place?

 Perfect Organism wrote:
I thought that 'the dogs bollocks' was a good thing? Am I failing to keep up with English again?

Anyway, I like sixth. I've liked every edition since fourth better than the last and only my ignorance of third edition and my issues with the style of second edition stop me from seeing all versions of 40k so far as a steady improvement.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
I would still enjoy if CC came to incorporate pistols and assault weapons, so close combat wasn't all just glorified arm flailing when it makes little sense.

(Though frankly most of my guardsmen are as if not more dangerous punching an enemy because of the proliferation of S3. A shotgun blast that hurts as much as punching, go figure.)

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
I would still enjoy if CC came to incorporate pistols and assault weapons, so close combat wasn't all just glorified arm flailing when it makes little sense.

(Though frankly most of my guardsmen are as if not more dangerous punching an enemy because of the proliferation of S3. A shotgun blast that hurts as much as punching, go figure.)

I'm pretty sure that 40k 'close combat' is meant to represent both point-blank shooting and hand-to-hand fighting. Surely that's why pistols give you an extra attack? Granted, it isn't a great representation because the rules don't give you much benefit from having a good gun in close, but I think the idea is there already.

Also, guardsmen might not have a Close Combat Weapon, but I seem to recall the rulebook saying that most combatants would have knives and improvised weapons even if they didn't have anything listed in their wargear. Stabbing someone with a knife or bludgeoning them with a club probably isn't nearly as deadly as shooting them, but at least it's in the same ballpark.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.

 Lansirill wrote:

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.

 Perfect Organism wrote:
I find it a bit hard to swallow that half-ton marines and normal humans can get in each other's transports without changing the transport capacity. I guess it's just one more little absurdity for the pile though. I doubt that it's actually going to crop up very often.

The only really desirable cross-faction transport combos I can think of are daemons in landraiders and eldar infantry in dark eldar vehicles, both of which seem fairly justifiable and not too powerful.

 Sir Arun wrote:
also, new pics of the individual books are up on the GW site. the verdict remains: worst rulebook cover design ever:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I have a feeling the change really will be 1 HQ, 1 Troop and then everything else comes in "detachments". That sounds like GW's way of rolling. Sure you have to have a second troop choice, it's just part of one of the detachments.

Or the WD made a typo again.