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.

 puma713 wrote:

I'm not sure anyone is "driving up sales". If sales were being driven up, I doubt they'd have released a new edition so soon.

It's their only way to sell more models. Highly comp WAAC players will immediately buy overpowered crap like there was no tomorrow. I imagine Riptide sales to rocket to the sky soon after they were found guilty of being massively overpowered and then, just as fast, going down again. 3-4 Riptides per army, done. No need to buy additional models, the comp crowd has what they need. With a new edition that might throw balance around again, new stuff might become OP. New stuff that gets bought.

But alas, veterans aren't GW's target market. In the contrary, long-time players are more likely to leave the game again when they find out that it has nothing more to offer.

 azreal13 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Which brings back to the question of who, outside of themselves, are GW making the game for?

Well, in my opinion, they're not making it for anyone particular.

They're making it for dollar signs.

Those two ideas, while I don't necessarily think you're wrong, are almost mutually exclusive. But then, I've got far more criticism for the way GW appear to do business than the way they design their games.

True, you need to have a target market, but maybe that's what feels so desperate about it. I'm not sure they do.

 puma713 wrote:

 xttz wrote:
GW did in fact make 7E just for him and his gaming group, and any other gaming groups just like it. They also made Rogue Trader, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E for the same audience. This should be abundantly clear by now after years of this approach to game design. Wailing and gnashing of teeth on some random internet forum isn't going to change the 40k game into something it isn't and never has been.

I actually agree with this. They have always said it is a "beer and pretzels" game. The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive Tournament play, but it was never a game built for tournaments and the people that crave that sort of balance/gameplay. Now that it has shifted back toward its roots a bit (and added some more loose allowances), the people clamoring for balance and rigidity in the rules seem to be the event/tournament crowd. The casual gamer can just as easily discuss with his opponent beforehand about the game, but the tournament player builds armies, practices, tweaks their list, etc., so to have a rule(s) come out that could possibly shake up that ritual is disturbing.

But, in the end, it was a beer and pretzels game that got picked up by the tournament scene. Now that it has shifted away from that again, the group that it picked up along the way isn't happy about it, while the ones who are happy may not notice the change as starkly as the event-goer.

You're clearly not a tournament gamer then. And that's fine. Enjoy your game your way. But, if you were a tournament gamer, you'd be aware that the tournament gamers aren't the ones suffering the most from the messed up balance issues. When it comes to balance, tournaments are better than they ever were. Up until the current craziness you could in advance know which army, and more or less which army list, would win any given event. It's gone from BA Rhino Rush, to massive Eldar Seer Councils, to Iron Warriors, to Leafblowers, to Grey Knights. Now it's a toss-up. O'vesastar could win, but so could a Seer Council, or a Beastpack, or a Centurionstar, or a Farsight Bomb, or even Drop Wolves. Tournaments are fine. And tournament participants know what they're getting into. Want to win? Bring a great list and know how to use it. Same as it ever was, except more choice in lists.

But casual, just having a laugh, games are not fine. I have a casual Blood Angels list. It's a motley collection of units I like and that are painted well, that has grown over many years into what it is now. Most of the units used to be a part of a competitive list at some point in the past, others are just there because I thought they were cool. I love my Blood Angels, and I love that list. It's pretty much the definition of casual listbuilding and gaming, isn't it? Well, there's this guy at my club. He's a purely casual player (unlike me, who also enjoys tournaments), and he has the exact same kind of list, having built it up over many years, consisting of stuff he thinks is cool and likes to paint. He doesn't even have a single unit repeated in that list. Not even troops. Because he'd rather not paint the same thing twice. Some of the units he has are there just because he thinks the models and concepts are awesome. And, his list even follows an established background theme. Sounds like we'd have some great games together, right? Wrong. See, he plays Eldar. We've played a couple of games with these lists, and it's just ridiculous. It's such a one-way street that even deploying the armies is just a waste of time. Even though he's a great guy. Even though we approach the game in the same way.

And in comparison, I went to a tournament a couple of months ago with my hard-as-nails Taudar army, and had five close, super-fun games against five great guys.

That's why I want balanced rules. Not for tournaments, but for casual games.

Here's the thing, folks: Labeling people with charged tags like 'haters' or 'white knights' because they have an opinion that differs from your own accomplishes nothing other than to sidetrack the discussion with pointless back-and-forth that someone then has to remove from the thread to refocus things on the topic.

I have removed the latest example of this from the thread. Please avoid a repeat performance.

I'm collecting Blood Angels the same way since I no longer care about 40k tournaments. I'll go to GTs for Infinity or Warmachine...

Also, GW should go whole hog on beer and pretzels and put out Data Slate: BeerHammer.

BeerBombs and DestroyerShots. Let's do this!

I find it utterly laughable that someone can say "The more recent editions lent themselves to expansive tournament play" as if 6th edition and 5th edition were somehow the beginning of tournament hammer. They were the end of it. I played over a hundred tournaments in 3rd edition and it was great fun. I played a ton of tournaments in 2nd too of course and in 4th.

40K has never been less suited for tournament gaming or even semi-competitive gaming than it will be in the start of the 7th edition. Virtually the whole game is flat out unplayable with official rules if you're looking for even a suspension of disbelief type of game balance, and it has to be house ruled from top to bottom to become in any way shape or form playable. It might possibly be the worst mainstream tabletop game ever. I know these words sound harsh, but what other tabletop game is actually designed even worse than 40K? The only thing good about 40K is the stuff that has nothing to do with the game: The models and the fiction.

Have there been any confirmed or realistic rumors about:
1. Changes to how many HQs can be in a unit?
2. Shooting at fliers?
3. New ally matrix?

 xttz wrote:
How many adolescents do you think will go in and buy a Dreadnought and box of Terminators thinking they look cool, only to find they're not game-legal because they don't fit the 1 HQ 2 Troop FOC?.

Quite a few, no doubt. As they have for the last 20 years.

And, also as they have in the last 20 years, they'll play games with other adolescents who have similar collections, regardless of what the rules say or don't say they should use.

TableTopJosh wrote:
Have there been any confirmed or realistic rumors about:
1. Changes to how many HQs can be in a unit?
2. Shooting at fliers?
3. New ally matrix?

1. Nothing so far.

2. Rumours of -2BS to snap shots are being bandied about by some, and shot down by others.

3. WD said "new ally matrix." What exactly that entails is unsure. Rumours of the only battle brothers being Eldar/DE, CSM/Daemons, Imperium are floating around.

Has there been anything losted about benefits to counter lords of war? Didn't escalation have some sort of reroll to steal initiative or other relatively meaningless (when compared o a mulriple str D weapon wielding superheavy) benefit when only one player had a lord of war? I wonder if that carried over or if getting double screwed by both super heavies AND unbound are made up with the warlord reroll and super scoring (dead) troops.

 warboss wrote:
Has there been anything losted about benefits to counter lords of war? Didn't escalation have some sort of reroll to steal initiative or other relatively meaningless (when compared o a mulriple str D weapon wielding superheavy) benefit when only one player had a lord of war? I wonder if that carried over or if getting double screwed by both super heavies AND unbound are made up with the warlord reroll and super scoring (dead) troops.

Not yet, I suspect this would be filed under the "many small changes" they've been banging on about with little detail (other than the small box out in WDW)

Goes to illustrate how little we really know about what's coming.

Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.

 Hammernator wrote:
Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.

Consensus on that bit popping up in the past was that it was "not" IIRC.

 Hammernator wrote:
Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.

I'm fairly certain its 'not' that's missing there. I don't have the pic handy, but I'm mostly sure there's a full size pic of that.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Hammernator wrote:
Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.

I'm fairly certain its 'not' that's missing there. I don't have the pic handy, but I'm mostly sure there's a full size pic of that.

I just went back through the video and it says, "both players need not use the same method."

 puma713 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Hammernator wrote:
Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.

I'm fairly certain its 'not' that's missing there. I don't have the pic handy, but I'm mostly sure there's a full size pic of that.

I just went back through the video and it says, "both players need not use the same method."

Yeah, that's what I thought, thanks!

 Hammernator wrote:
Noticed this in the new promo vid.
Seems like it says that both armies have to be chosen using the same method. So no unbound vs battle forged.
Unless the omitted word is 'not' instead of 'to'.

Constantly. For this first battle, I chose a Battleforged
Ork army with plenty of vehicles. Jes, meanwhile, has taken a liking to Unbound
Tyranid armies consisting entirely of Monstrous Creatures and went for as many big
creatures as he could fit in 1200 points (you can see our army lists on page 29). For our game,
we rolled The Spoils of War, a mission with a strong focus on capturing the Objective
Markers dotted around the battlefield. We then set up our armies, each drew three Tactical

It seems not

Does anyone know if the Psyker app will be updated for 7th ed?

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Does anyone know if the Psyker app will be updated for 7th ed?

Pure speculation, but that doesn't seem as daft as anyone expecting the whole rulebook to be updated on digital platforms. I'd still not expect I though, just be pleasantly surprised if it happens.

 azreal13 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Does anyone know if the Psyker app will be updated for 7th ed?

Pure speculation, but that doesn't seem as daft as anyone expecting the whole rulebook to be updated on digital platforms. I'd still not expect I though, just be pleasantly surprised if it happens.

Well so far as we all know, the Psyker spell types are all still there, just the two Daemonology types to add on.. though GW never ceases to surprise..

 xttz wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.

Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines

Pro- Pro-tip: Don't accuse something of being hyperbole before finding out whether or not said instance has occurred in real life.

What I described above has happened numerous times with one instance of the individual actaully describing his list as his " super special elite homebrewed battlegroup."

 Captain Avatar wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.

Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines

Pro- Pro-tip: Don't accuse something of being hyperbole before finding out whether or not said instance has occurred in real life.

9 times out of 10, starting a sentence with "9 times out of 10" is hyperbole.

Not if it happens 90% of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Does anyone know if the Psyker app will be updated for 7th ed?

Pure speculation, but that doesn't seem as daft as anyone expecting the whole rulebook to be updated on digital platforms. I'd still not expect I though, just be pleasantly surprised if it happens.

Well so far as we all know, the Psyker spell types are all still there, just the two Daemonology types to add on.. though GW never ceases to surprise..

They may all be substantially revised or rewritten to allow for the different casting time, or to adjust their efficacy/clarify their wording. Again, like I said, not impossible, but not a slam dunk either.

Will someone please PM me, after you rage-quit the game, after reading the new 7th edition rulebook.

I want to get the updated rules but don't want to spend $85.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pro-tip: Don't catch your balls in your zipper.


Does anyone know if the fluff fits a scenario in which access to the warp is impossible.

Something of an "anti-magic" zone?

Because if such a thing happens surely we can use it in the new rules to limit psyker shenanigans, er psyker fully-legal power combos...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Love the CGM(casual gamer mafia) hyperbole and propaganda here.
....
9 times out of 10 the donkeycave is some casual gamer bully that wants to "force" you to play their "narrative" of where his /her "super special elite battle group" of nothing but homebrewed/home statted special characters wipes a legal army off the board.

Pro tip: it's generally considered poor form to complain about hyperbole, then write your own hyperbole within 2 lines

Pro- Pro-tip: Don't accuse something of being hyperbole before finding out whether or not said instance has occurred in real life.

9 times out of 10, starting a sentence with "9 times out of 10" is hyperbole.

Not by my experience.

You can accuse my example of being anecdotal, yes.

Doesn't contradict that my personal experience with 40k donkey caves has been dominated by the "casual" homebrew crowd. When I say 9 out of 10 I mean that out of the last 10 negative experiences in 40k ..9 of them were the self proclaimed cssual players.

I mean I get it,. Being called a rules nazi because someone didn't like that I turned down a game because I didn't want to play by rules he was trying to make up on the spot is supposed to be fun.
Being called a coward because I didn't want to indulge someone by playing their "Court of the Emperor"(Imperial version of eldar high king with homebrew rules for the primarchs) is a joy. I love have to resist the urge to smack the jerks and instead take my complaint to the store owner/manager.

I have other examples but you should get the gist.

Captain Avatar, I think you need to replace the batteries in your sarcasm detector.

 TheKbob wrote:
I'm collecting Blood Angels the same way since I no longer care about 40k tournaments. I'll go to GTs for Infinity or Warmachine...

Also, GW should go whole hog on beer and pretzels and put out Data Slate: BeerHammer.

BeerBombs and DestroyerShots. Let's do this!

D-Weapons become a bucket of Everclear!

jamesk1973 wrote:
Will someone please PM me, after you rage-quit the game, after reading the new 7th edition rulebook.

I want to get the updated rules but don't want to spend $85.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pro-tip: Don't catch your balls in your zipper.


Does anyone know if the fluff fits a scenario in which access to the warp is impossible.

Something of an "anti-magic" zone?

Because if such a thing happens surely we can use it in the new rules to limit psyker shenanigans, er psyker fully-legal power combos...

Been there done that. :' ( Brought tears to my eyes, ruined a good pair of Levi's)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I'm collecting Blood Angels the same way since I no longer care about 40k tournaments. I'll go to GTs for Infinity or Warmachine...

Also, GW should go whole hog on beer and pretzels and put out Data Slate: BeerHammer.

BeerBombs and DestroyerShots. Let's do this!

D-Weapons become a bucket of Everclear!

I have experienced a half a glass, downed in one drink, and can attest that it fits the bill for a D weapon.

My thoughts, pure and utter conjecture but;

- Can ally with one-self (Tyranids are in!)

- All Armies get some/all of the book powers, inferred from the WD info on No Demonology for Nids.

- Allies are refined (i.e. Your primary detachment cannot join/embark/buff/debuff your secondary detachment)

- Snap Firing.... there is going to be an extra caveat to support BS3 models. Or some additional item like grounding is on a 2+ now (but only after a wound is suffered, roll once per phase).

- Nid/Deldar/Necron - some interesting additions to their psychic phase, perhaps -1 to all power rolls when used vs a Deldar army.

- Challenges refined (somehow)

- LOS changed/removed or limited.

- The HEAVY vehicle type or/and the Ordnance weapon type amended/improved.

- Infantry Movement and/or wound allocation amended to support Infantry Movement.

Just wanted to show + I will look back to see if I've come close on any of these....