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.

Voodoo_Chile wrote:

 paqman wrote:
Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.

We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.

Yeah it looks like there is no difference to Ordnance weaponry which is a shame.

I don't completely agree. Removing the drawback of snapshots to other weapons does not makes much sense for regular vehicles. The only vehicle being handicapped by this rule is LRBT (and demolisher). However, there is still hope the dev's have thought of reassessing LRBT playability : we don't know if "heavy" rule is modified in a positive way.

Thud wrote:Deploy objectives before picking sides. Good.

First turn is interesting. Seems like you roll off for deploying, then after having deployed, the player that deployed first can decide to go first or second.

First blood is still in. :(

Yeah.
First blood is a bothering and unfair rule mostly dependant on luck. In the recent tournament I co-organized, I had the idea of swapping it for something that both players can claim (just as line-breaker & slay the warlord, which makes sense). A move that was hailed by many players. I was hoping for some sort of change in V7, alas nothing good here.

I've heard of First Blood being changed in some tourneys to being a point earned for wiping out a unit in the first game turn. Not easy, and clearly harder for some armies than others, but at least both sides have a chance to claim it that way. I'd support a change in that direction and if GW doesn't do it, house-rules it is, I guess.

I really don't see them backing out of the ordinance rules. While I agree it was a stupid change, they're really isn't a point to it if the most common ordinance using tanks all ignore it. It's the same logic to why the Daemon USR lost EW.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Why not just let players choose, would make a lot more sense.

Because rolling dice on tables that are largely useless Forges a Narrative!!

I always thought a "Break the Enemy" would be nice instead of First Blood. If you kill half your opponents units, rounding up, you get to claim a 1VP for Break the Enemy.

So now that Vehicles officially have the Relentless rule (for some reason, I thought they already had it), I wonder if this will pass on to any passengers in the vehicle? This not only will fix the broken Burning Chariot, but it will make transports with firing ports much more effective because they will be able to move and fire heavy weapons (Rhinos for Devastators anyone?), especially with the way it is worded in the vehicle rule section.

p71 6th ed BRB wrote:Vehicles always have the Relentless special rule.

So... nothing new?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
So now that Vehicles officially have the Relentless rule (for some reason, I thought they already had it), I wonder if this will pass on to any passengers in the vehicle? This not only will fix the broken Burning Chariot, but it will make transports with firing ports much more effective because they will be able to move and fire heavy weapons (Rhinos for Devastators anyone?), especially with the way it is worded in the vehicle rule section.

I think the point of that rumor was that passengers inside a vehicle have the relentless special rule.

 Battlesong wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Why not just let players choose, would make a lot more sense.

Because rolling dice on tables that are largely useless Forges a Narrative!!

I think it's more that letting players choose would require that some of the traits be toned down. For example, 1 on the Strategic chart (Stealth in Ruins, Move Through Cover) is quite good, as are the two that either let you reroll reservers, or give your opponent -1 penalty to reserve rolls. I think that almost no one would choose anything other than those.

He said "Now that they have it, I wonder if it'll pass on...". They already have it. It doesn't pass on. It doesn't actually fix anything.

Status quo - why assume it'll change?

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Voodoo_Chile wrote:

 paqman wrote:
Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.

We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.

Yeah it looks like there is no difference to Ordnance weaponry which is a shame.

I don't completely agree. Removing the drawback of snapshots to other weapons does not makes much sense for regular vehicles. The only vehicle being handicapped by this rule is LRBT (and demolisher). However, there is still hope the dev's have thought of reassessing LRBT playability : we don't know if "heavy" rule is modified in a positive way.

Incorrect sir, I submit to you the Monolith.

 Thokt wrote:
Incorrect sir, I submit to you the Monolith.

Surely the monolith, come the next rule update, will become a heavy vehicle. If it isn't already. I don't think it is.

So long as Heavy is made meaningful we should be good on the vehicle/ordnance front.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
So now that Vehicles officially have the Relentless rule (for some reason, I thought they already had it), I wonder if this will pass on to any passengers in the vehicle? This not only will fix the broken Burning Chariot, but it will make transports with firing ports much more effective because they will be able to move and fire heavy weapons (Rhinos for Devastators anyone?), especially with the way it is worded in the vehicle rule section.

While I doubt this is the case, it would be crazy if it's true. Devastators wouldn't be buffed so much, they still have 2 more heavy weapons than fire ports. Tact squad would get the most benefit, as you could take advantage of the heavy weapon in a ten man squad, as well as move and use a grav gun rather just auto-taking the plasma. I would really hate to see mech vets with lascannons/autocannons, even more reason for a parking lot.

 Thud wrote:

First turn is interesting. Seems like you roll off for deploying, then after having deployed, the player that deployed first can decide to go first or second.

Thank the Empra for this. Deploying first and then moving second is a HUGE tactical disadvantage because the second deploying player get to sets up in response to the first players set up and then move first. Looks like we won't be seeing much of that nonsense any more.

T

I hope a leak of the Sanctic table comes out soon =/

 Nem wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
Tyranids are not people. They should not think like people, they should not have special characters like people, and they should not have unique wargear like people. We are not arguing that Tyranids are stupid, we're arguing that Tyranids would no more fight in a challenge than you would duel an individual ant.

Imagine this...

Hive tyrants drops down 20 or so yards front of a Tau squad, Does a funky roar. In relation, it's massive and the squad did not eat their weetabix this morning. they stutter, with a slight back step before readying there weapons. The commander, fueled by snickers, charges through the ranks right up in the HT's face.

The HT isn't going to walk around and dance with the commander to make sure he's hitting everyone. This is an cinematic example of a challenge where the Tau commander is challenging.

And if the Hive Tyrant felt like ignoring the lone Commander whose weapons he barely registers as a threat and instead just tackling into the squad which is its actual objective, he would do it. He would "decline" the challenge and proceed to butcher the rest of the squad.

He wouldn't glance at the Commander, decide he's not worth fighting and then run away like a frightened child. Monstrous Creatures are literally walking battering-rams, they don't "have" to fight anything that they don't want to fight in melee, they can walk right through them.

My problem with challenges isn't that they exist, my problem with challenges is the penalty you get for declining them. Declining a challenge should not prevent you from fighting. Simple as that. Put some other penalty on there.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Incorrect sir, I submit to you the Monolith.

Surely the monolith, come the next rule update, will become a heavy vehicle. If it isn't already. I don't think it is.

So long as Heavy is made meaningful we should be good on the vehicle/ordnance front.

Monolith is heavy. It was one of the hints towards a 6e change actually, which was pretty interesting.

 Thokt wrote:




Incorrect sir, I submit to you the Monolith.

Had to re-check my codex to find out if it even is in the codex anymore.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
My problem with challenges isn't that they exist, my problem with challenges is the penalty you get for declining them. Declining a challenge should not prevent you from fighting. Simple as that. Put some other penalty on there.

The simple solution is some morale-based test or penalty. If an IG sergeant ducks from a challenge, it makes his squad more likely to run away. If a Hive Tyrant ignores a challenge, his Tyrant Guard don't give a crap.

But we're getting off topic somewhat. Someone post more rulebook info, stat!

So any leaks yet by people who have (or claim to have) the rulebook early? Usually we get those by now right?

I just hope that they re-structure the Precise Shots rule, so the IG players can stop having a civil war.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Voodoo_Chile wrote:

 paqman wrote:
Nothing new from the vehicle page other than adding instruction for the psychic phase.

We can also see that they added the relentless definition there. If they have a full section for USR and also copied them all over the place where needed as quick reference, it might explain some of the extra pages of rules compared to the 6th edition rules page count.

Yeah it looks like there is no difference to Ordnance weaponry which is a shame.

I don't completely agree. Removing the drawback of snapshots to other weapons does not makes much sense for regular vehicles. The only vehicle being handicapped by this rule is LRBT (and demolisher). However, there is still hope the dev's have thought of reassessing LRBT playability : we don't know if "heavy" rule is modified in a positive way.

The problem with the rule in general is just as you mentioned, there aren't really any vehicles with ordnance weapons that have other meaningful weaponry besides a Leman Russ tank. Basilisks firing their Earthshaker cannon at a unit out of sight on the other side of the table won't care much, Vindicators dumping an s10 AP2 pieplate on a heavy infantry unit usually aren't bemoaning the loss of their stormbolter, Defilers are the only other vehicles that *might* matter, but largely the restriction is only meaningful on the Leman Russ in the first place.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So any leaks yet by people who have (or claim to have) the rulebook early? Usually we get those by now right?

It's only Monday, and a holiday Monday at that here in Canada and the UK. (now please excuse me while I go light some fireworks!)

I'd love to be able to fire the particle whip and either the 12 gauss sponsons or the eternity gate without snap firing.

Ok, so I finally caught up. 229 pages, wow. Anyway, I really want to throw in my 2 cents on what we know so far:

Unbound - Great idea, but utterly hamstrung by the lack of both overall game balance and internal army balance. As was said previously, this would work so much better if all units were built using a consistents point per attribute system; and re-rolls on the Warlord table, let me just jump for joy at that one. For gaming groups, great, for tourneys, probably not even a factor, for friendly pick-up games at a store, this can be a minefield.

Lord of War/D-weapons - not happy that they're in (knew they would be, but not happy about it), but at least content that they nerfed d-weapons

Psychic phase - Like the idea, I just hope this phase doesn't take over the game; I'll need to see how they reworked the powers

Wound allocation - also a good idea, but I can just see this dragging games out even longer than they are now. I wish they would stop writing rules like this is still a skirmish game.

Daemonology - I like this, I really do, but cripes, I don't want to buy another 50.00 codex just to use a cool new power - I don't even mind buying the models to use, just making us shell for a new codex to use said cool new power is rather underhanded

Vehicles - Like the 7 to explode, hoping that they changed SOMETHING about how hull points work

-2 to Charging through terrain - If true this will help some, but my Nids sure hope that there is some other type of help for assault armies

85.00 rulebook - Really, I mean just really. I also play a lot of RPGs and my this is more than most RPG books. I was discussing this with a friend of mine and compared this to Pathfinder, and he was right - for the Pathfinder book (50) and the Bestiary (40), it's the same cost as the 40k book; I pointed out, though, that after the 40k book, you still need at least one 50.00 codex, and then you need several hundred dollars worth of models to functionally play the game. Look, I know this was never invented, or intended, to be a budget hobby, but there is a point where this gets ludicrous...I believe GW just went plaid.

Dude instead of spending points on psykers that can explode into bloodthirsters I think that I will spend points on bloodthirsters that can explode into bloodthirsters.

Also, I like the space balls ref in the post above

Here's another: just like at the end of the movie the BT will breakout of the BTs chest with a top hat and cane and start singing a ditty.

Hello my darlin!!

Just saw this on FB & thought it quite funny! (Don't know who did it)

Call me crazy, but I dont see Games Workshop adopting a Call of Duty, or Assassin's Creed release cycle.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Call me crazy, but I dont see Games Workshop adopting a Call of Duty, or Assassin's Creed release cycle.

Why not? If the player base is willing to pay for new rules editions more frequently why wouldn't GW capitalize on that desire and build a shorter life cycle for their editions?

If your reasoning for why GW wouldn't do that has anything to do with game balance or maintaining goodwill among players then I will happily accept your challenge and call you crazy.

Guess that makes me crazy haha