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.

So has the black library preview been discussed? Just saw it on BOLS but haven't had time to open it up.

 Crablezworth wrote:

bodazoka wrote:



I believe that accumulative VP's and an ever changing mission structure goes some way to fixing some of the issues above. It is hard to sing the praises of this though as I don't have all the information, it could end up not being a fix but I do believe it is at least an attempt at a fix from GW. When 50 odd games are played and the people more knowledgeable than me on here figure it out I am sure we will have an answer.

Based on the cards we have seen it's just kinda arbitrary. Think of the scouring, you, just like me have likely experienced pretty bad luck in the distribution of vp's to objectives. The problem is that cards do a similar thing, of the 4 cards shown, 2 of them can potentially give the owning player vp's just for picking them up. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

If that's the way it pans out, where some of the cards are essentially "get points for existing" then the people playing a game could agree to ignore those ones.

It's an option I'm not saying it's a great solution... Mostly it continues to highlight the problem of "how can I have an enjoyable pickup game of 40k with people I don't know"?

 Happygrunt wrote:
So has the black library preview been discussed? Just saw it on BOLS but haven't had time to open it up.

The only new thing in there is that it seems to be formatted slightly better. Slightly.

 Crablezworth wrote:

bodazoka wrote:



I believe that accumulative VP's and an ever changing mission structure goes some way to fixing some of the issues above. It is hard to sing the praises of this though as I don't have all the information, it could end up not being a fix but I do believe it is at least an attempt at a fix from GW. When 50 odd games are played and the people more knowledgeable than me on here figure it out I am sure we will have an answer.

Based on the cards we have seen it's just kinda arbitrary. Think of the scouring, you, just like me have likely experienced pretty bad luck in the distribution of vp's to objectives. The problem is that cards do a similar thing, of the 4 cards shown, 2 of them can potentially give the owning player vp's just for picking them up. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

We have had this discussion on a previous thread I believe? I remember your avatar! haha

I some what agree with the randomness of the cards that you may get a better draw than your opponent (as everyone who plays mtg can attest) but I think it's a much better situation than the current version of VP's. I at least "feel" like I may pull a card that can turn the tide if it's random whilst if my opponent gets the big scouring objectives I know I'm cooked turn 2.

Back to the mtg analogy there have been plenty of times your under 10 life waiting for that one card in your deck you know is there that can turn the tide! <--- that feeling is a great addition to the game.

I also bet my house (not really) that this will open up the game more for a TO who now may only need to change certain cards to provide a more even meta. I would be very very surprised if we are not seeing alternative cards instead of alternative missions (or both) from TO's soon. Exciting times!

Well here's hoping the cards prove to be optional. I want context and objective placement to drive the game, I just don't really want the random. I'm sure the cards will be able to be used in many "home brew" ways that may be more palatable.


I was kinda sorta hoping they would fix objective placement in 7the edition. Right now because they forced fortifications into the game in 6th they also forced in the requirement that both player know what table side is theirs which really messes up objective placement.

In 5th it was a lot more honest because neither player could guarantee where their army would be deploying. But likely instead of pulling back, they will have pushed forward and added more... stuff. And you can buy it.


40k needed to get its butt on a treadmill and lose a few pounds, they weighted it down and made it pseudo apoc in its girth. GW is treating 40k like the extra pounds are just more to love. Where they (gw) see more cussion for the pushin I see possible death by mechanical asphyxia. I'm suffocating in stuff, content, crap, and the most annoying part is I have to learn what it is so I can say no. I'm stuck under the weight of 6th edition and 7th edition doesn't seem to be cleaning anything up.

You only use the tactical objectives with the maelstrom missions not the old missions.

Loopstah wrote:
You only use the tactical objectives with the maelstrom missions not the old missions.

-shrugs- Here's hoping they fixed the old missions before making new ones. Even cynical me is hoping there is a chance they've fixed stuff like certain armies moving the relic in multiple phases, objective placement in general, the distribution of vp's in the scouring, kill points (in their entirety), first blood, and so on.

They must have aced it to have had enough time to make whole other set of missions on top of the old ones in less than 2 years. A lot of hard work there, no doubt.

More is better than good. Brevity is banality. Random is easy, balance is hard. Create more content with fewer resources. When people take notice of the lower quality, produce more content. Do whatever, just buy our toys. A lot of'm, the big ones are better. Do you even knight bro?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Well here's hoping the cards prove to be optional.

Well the cards are optional in the sense that you can still play the old style missions. Even if you choose the new style, you can roll a D66 to generate the missions instead of drawing cards.

 Crablezworth wrote:

bodazoka wrote:



I believe that accumulative VP's and an ever changing mission structure goes some way to fixing some of the issues above. It is hard to sing the praises of this though as I don't have all the information, it could end up not being a fix but I do believe it is at least an attempt at a fix from GW. When 50 odd games are played and the people more knowledgeable than me on here figure it out I am sure we will have an answer.

Based on the cards we have seen it's just kinda arbitrary. Think of the scouring, you, just like me have likely experienced pretty bad luck in the distribution of vp's to objectives. The problem is that cards do a similar thing, of the 4 cards shown, 2 of them can potentially give the owning player vp's just for picking them up. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

To me that sounds extremely fair since both players have the chance to pick up the free points (provided none of them has rigged the deck ..).

 Bonesnapper wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

bodazoka wrote:



I believe that accumulative VP's and an ever changing mission structure goes some way to fixing some of the issues above. It is hard to sing the praises of this though as I don't have all the information, it could end up not being a fix but I do believe it is at least an attempt at a fix from GW. When 50 odd games are played and the people more knowledgeable than me on here figure it out I am sure we will have an answer.

Based on the cards we have seen it's just kinda arbitrary. Think of the scouring, you, just like me have likely experienced pretty bad luck in the distribution of vp's to objectives. The problem is that cards do a similar thing, of the 4 cards shown, 2 of them can potentially give the owning player vp's just for picking them up. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

To me that sounds extremely fair since both players have the chance to pick up the free points (provided none of them has rigged the deck ..).

That's a good point I didn't think of. In the scouring example the opponent on the big objectives is the only one (technically) that has a chance at that objective. With the cards you at least have the same chance for that objective as your opponent does.

 Bonesnapper wrote:
To me that sounds extremely fair since both players have the chance to pick up the free points (provided none of them has rigged the deck ..).

It's "fair" in the sense that both players have the same chance of getting game-winning luck, but when your opponent draws easy VP and you don't it's not going to be a very enjoyable game.

 Thud wrote:

 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.

I know it's a bit late, but I simply have to quote this part, since I find it very true in a lot of cases. My issue is with the way GW have been doing their codexes since 6th ed hit, is that two very casual people can collect rather random armies of great looking miniatures that they also find cool fluff wise, but the armies that the miniatures will build, will likely be no where near close in regards to power level on the table. For example: I have a small, elite, blinged out BA jump pack army, and all the pretty miniatures with cool gear will never get used, because they are utterly worthless on the table. They can't even remotely compete against anything else from 6th edition. The army is not even that old, but I have miniatures worth about the same as a WM or FoW army collecting dust, because taking them in a game is pointless.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
I would like to see the "you go, I go" mechanic removed.

Make it more action/response type.

I feel that removing IGYG would slow the game down even more. With the game expanding to 100+ models(generally speaking), I don't think it would really be feasible. And the difference in numbers of units on the field could just ruin the experience for one or both players- either someone gets extra turns, or one player gets a bunch of models that sit there for the entire game. The unit by unit works fine for smaller scale games, but I feel 40k has gotten a little too big for that. Not to mention the upkeep involved to remember who activated or not.

You could organize your army into "detachments" of several units which activate together.

Ever play Firestorm Armada? I've never seen a game with the 500-600 point starter set and 3 groups of ships per side completed in less than about 2 and a half hours, and that runs on activating different groups of ships in alternating player to player sequence per turn. Most often when I go down the club the regulars play 800 and that lasts all evening from about 7 to 11.

With 40k that would just be insane.

bodazoka wrote:
That's a good point I didn't think of. In the scouring example the opponent on the big objectives is the only one (technically) that has a chance at that objective. With the cards you at least have the same chance for that objective as your opponent does.

It hardly makes any difference. Before you had a chance to end up sitting on big objective, now you'll have a chance to get a card that is better for you. In the end it's still allowing random number to determine outcome of the game in a very direct manner, that's before mentioning that even cards themselves contain stuff like "get 1d3 points for...".

 Bonde wrote:

 Thud wrote:

 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.

I know it's a bit late, but I simply have to quote this part, since I find it very true in a lot of cases. My issue is with the way GW have been doing their codexes since 6th ed hit, is that two very casual people can collect rather random armies of great looking miniatures that they also find cool fluff wise, but the armies that the miniatures will build, will likely be no where near close in regards to power level on the table. For example: I have a small, elite, blinged out BA jump pack army, and all the pretty miniatures with cool gear will never get used, because they are utterly worthless on the table. They can't even remotely compete against anything else from 6th edition. The army is not even that old, but I have miniatures worth about the same as a WM or FoW army collecting dust, because taking them in a game is pointless.

This is why I said earlier when you play almost any other miniature wargame out there you realize just how very bad Warhammer 40k is as a game. I would even go so far as to say it is now the worst rule set available on the market, yet they are expecting everyone to pay an astronomical premium as if it were the best on the market. GW is trying to sell you a Ford Focus at the price of an Aston Martin DB9, and so many are eating this up like sliced bread. Really does amaze me sometimes.

So far, everything that is known about 7th edition doesn't look like it is going to change this even one iota, but rather just layer on more junk on an already lousy system. Honestly, 40k is collapsing under it's own weight at this point and I don't see 7th edition doing anything to stop or change it.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 Bonde wrote:

 Thud wrote:

 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.

I know it's a bit late, but I simply have to quote this part, since I find it very true in a lot of cases. My issue is with the way GW have been doing their codexes since 6th ed hit, is that two very casual people can collect rather random armies of great looking miniatures that they also find cool fluff wise, but the armies that the miniatures will build, will likely be no where near close in regards to power level on the table. For example: I have a small, elite, blinged out BA jump pack army, and all the pretty miniatures with cool gear will never get used, because they are utterly worthless on the table. They can't even remotely compete against anything else from 6th edition. The army is not even that old, but I have miniatures worth about the same as a WM or FoW army collecting dust, because taking them in a game is pointless.

This is why I said earlier when you play almost any other miniature wargame out there you realize just how very bad Warhammer 40k is as a game. I would even go so far as to say it is now the worst rule set available on the market, yet they are expecting everyone to pay an astronomical premium as if it were the best on the market. GW is trying to sell you a Ford Focus at the price of an Aston Martin DB9, and so many are eating this up like sliced bread. Really does amaze me sometimes.

So far, everything that is known about 7th edition doesn't look like it is going to change this even one iota, but rather just layer on more junk on an already lousy system. Honestly, 40k is collapsing under it's own weight at this point and I don't see 7th edition doing anything to stop or change it.

Well i think it sounds like a lot of fun ( as it is intended to be) and look forward to playing it.

Some guy posted this on /tg:

I had two hours with this new rulebook this arvy and youre all going to disappointed how little has actually changed. The biggest most extreme stuff was in the wd last week. New missions and psychic phase other than that it's tweaks so insignificant you'll not notice them until someone calls you out on you doing the wrong thing a few months from now.

>snap shots are only -2bs
That's a made-up rumour.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Although honestly, I think GW should give up the ghost and make the game into a modular RPG system. It seems they're headed that way- forging a narrative, requiring opponent's permission, and the extra rules bloat(warlord traits and challenges spring foremost in my mind). A build your own rules system for playing 40k. Have a streamlined set, with optional extra content to add to your game.

So back to Rogue Trader then?

Isn't that where we're headed anyway?

 xttz wrote:
Some guy posted this on /tg:

I had two hours with this new rulebook this arvy and youre all going to disappointed how little has actually changed. The biggest most extreme stuff was in the wd last week. New missions and psychic phase other than that it's tweaks so insignificant you'll not notice them until someone calls you out on you doing the wrong thing a few months from now.

>snap shots are only -2bs
That's a made-up rumour.

The big question will be will people be $85 disappointed or $340 really disappointed....

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bonesnapper wrote:
To me that sounds extremely fair since both players have the chance to pick up the free points (provided none of them has rigged the deck ..).

It's "fair" in the sense that both players have the same chance of getting game-winning luck, but when your opponent draws easy VP and you don't it's not going to be a very enjoyable game.

As a partial fix, perhaps after you "play" an objective card, it remains in place and your opponent can score the same the next turn? Play the "capture objective 3" card and score points, then your opponent has to try to reclaim it and can score the same points if he does so. Play the "kill x units" card, and know that your opponent is just going to get those same points back if you don't protect your army. Could actually be interesting like that, and a bit more fair than "I got good cards, I win". Obviously the cards you draw would still make a difference, but you'd have to be far more tactical in how you use them.

Or we could try it a few times and see how it goes before declaring it broken instead of imagining the worst case scenario when we only know what less than 1/2 the cards say?

Also how is pulling a few gakky cards any different than rolling some gakky dice? It happens you can play around it or sit there and pout.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Funny, for me and most people i know, it's easier to keep straight in the movement phase.

It's easier to remember in a shooting phase that you already ran that unit in the previous phase than it is to just run the unit in the shooting phase?


To each his own, I guess.

I think this really varies as to what army your playing.

Grey Knights.... run in the shooting phase.

Green Tide.... for the love of god, PLEASE move and run at the same time so you are not double moving 100+ models per turn.

And in 4Chan idiots chased off the guy who had read the new rulebook...

 Green is Best! wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Funny, for me and most people i know, it's easier to keep straight in the movement phase.

It's easier to remember in a shooting phase that you already ran that unit in the previous phase than it is to just run the unit in the shooting phase?


To each his own, I guess.

I think this really varies as to what army your playing.

Grey Knights.... run in the shooting phase.

Green Tide.... for the love of god, PLEASE move and run at the same time so you are not double moving 100+ models per turn.

Short of killing things(or not killing something) I always know what I am running in the shooting phase. Hell I really like doing it in the movement phase as I am more likely to forget to do it in the shooting phase.

 Crimson wrote:
And in 4Chan idiots chased off the guy who had read the new rulebook...

..who might have possibly read the new rulebook but forgot to take pictures or post any proof?

That's usually the case.

The other half of the 7E equation is the necessary Day One FAQs.

Will they be available Day One, that's the first check.

Second, do they address the actual issues that are within the books, regardless of edition change.

Third, how do they change the books with the edition.

This is almost as important or more than any rule change the new big rule book brings. If we have really seen the big changes as they stand now, then that's bad. None of that is showing an $85 value. If the FAQs are delayed, that's extremely bad as some units will be unplayable within the framework. I'll definately be soaking in the FAQs and reading the change summaries here and other

I'll be backing up copies of the 6E FAQs later today. Anyone know where I can get the 5E FAQs?

Looks like there are delays with the Munitorium edition. It won't be available for collection until Wednesday 28th due to an issue with it.

I imagine all the people who ordered one will be 10% annoyed and 90% quite happy about the result.

meh, it's not like GW has every done launch day delivery for me anyway.

Loopstah wrote:
Looks like there are delays with the Munitorium edition. It won't be available for collection until Wednesday 28th due to an issue with it.

I imagine all the people who ordered one will be 10% annoyed and 90% quite happy about the result.

Random delays help people Forge the Narrative in their day to day life in addition to the random tables in the game itself.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Although honestly, I think GW should give up the ghost and make the game into a modular RPG system. It seems they're headed that way- forging a narrative, requiring opponent's permission, and the extra rules bloat(warlord traits and challenges spring foremost in my mind). A build your own rules system for playing 40k. Have a streamlined set, with optional extra content to add to your game.

So back to Rogue Trader then?

Isn't that where we're headed anyway?

+1 FOR THE TRUTH