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.

**Drakmord**

MadmanMSU wrote:
I think the most massive change this edition is the fact that everything can score. Personally, I'm seeing a massive shift away from troops to elites. Elites have always been better, with their downside being that they were either non-scoring or too expensive (FOC swapping shenanigans aside). But now you can just take the bare minimum for troops and throw all the scoring elites in you want.

Yes, troops will be able to secure objectives, but honestly, most of the time an elite unit will just wipe that troops out anyway. This results in things like:

Chaos. Now they can get their elite troops for scoring without having to pay the HQ tax. Scoring Oblits.

Tau. Crisis suits can score now. So can riptides.

Grey Knights. Scoring dreadknights and psyfledreads, without having to take Mordrak. Scoring purifiers.

Scoring Landraiders.

Deathwing that score without having to pay 200 points for Belial.

Etc etc etc.

This has got me thinking about Trazyn's scoring ability not doing anything now. Maybe they'll make it Objective Secured?

**undertow**

Sigvatr wrote:
Until 7th, psychic powers were almost risk-free to cast with LD 10 running around all over the place.

Who would have expected a nerf to free buffs? Weird.

And yes, I really can't feel any sympathy for people angry about psykers being nerfed when at the same time, some armies don't even have access to any psykers.

If only those armies that didn't have access to Psykers were compensated somehow, like with greater shooting capability or something.

**streamdragon**

SeanDrake wrote:
MadmanMSU wrote:
Read this, want to know if someone can confirm:

Edit: Nevermind.

No Escape
If a template hits a buildings fire point or an open topped vehicle and there's a unit embarked inside, then in addition to any other effects that unit takes D6 hits at weapons str and ap.

Good thing my Ork Boyz can bail out of their trukks quickly...

Red Corsair wrote:
I was teasing. Honestly if I get tabled I feel like a loser. Period. Semantics aside you got your ass handed to you

I dunno, could always be that "heroic last stand" thing. Sure, you got tabled, but your dudes managed to hold on long enough to (insert forged narrative here).

Granted, it'd depend on which turn you got wiped out. Turn 2, I can't imagine any narrative that doesn't end with "and then they all died like little wimps".

**Sigvatr**

undertow wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Until 7th, psychic powers were almost risk-free to cast with LD 10 running around all over the place.

Who would have expected a nerf to free buffs? Weird.

And yes, I really can't feel any sympathy for people angry about psykers being nerfed when at the same time, some armies don't even have access to any psykers.

If only those armies that didn't have access to Psykers were compensated somehow, like with greater shooting capability or something.

Maybe with their army's next respective codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

optometris wrote:
I welcome the extra randomness. It forces you to act more tactfully during the game

I don't understand this. Randomness adds nothing but randomness...

**Crablezworth**

Sigvatr wrote:
undertow wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Until 7th, psychic powers were almost risk-free to cast with LD 10 running around all over the place.

Who would have expected a nerf to free buffs? Weird.

And yes, I really can't feel any sympathy for people angry about psykers being nerfed when at the same time, some armies don't even have access to any psykers.

If only those armies that didn't have access to Psykers were compensated somehow, like with greater shooting capability or something.

Maybe with their army's next respective codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

optometris wrote:
I welcome the extra randomness. It forces you to act more tactfully during the game

I don't understand this. Randomness adds nothing but randomness...

Agreed, here's the definition of a tactic

tac·tic

/ˈtaktik/

noun

noun: tactic; plural noun: tactics

an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

Notice how it doesn't say random end?

tac·ti·cal

/ˈtaktikəl/

adjective

adjective: tactical

of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.

Again, not random.

strat·e·gy

/ˈstratəjē/

noun

noun: strategy; plural noun: strategies

a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.

If the overall aim (goal, objective) changes all the time, I can't see that "increasing" the tactical nature of the game. Random of the sake of it is bad.

**Lord Yayula**

SeanDrake wrote:
mercury14 wrote:
SeanDrake, can bikes assault after they jink? Thanks.

Nothing mentioned one way or the other under bikes or jink rules.

That sounds like restriction free to assault, that is great... so IF turbo boost is the same I can move 12" with the bikes, turbo boost another 12" on 1st turn, if shot jink for a 4+ cover and on my turn assault pretty much anything on the other side of the table. Which would actually be exactly the same as it is know but with some tasty witchfire shots from the sorcerer.

**ClockworkZion**

The big thing I see the Maelstrom of War missions doing is discouraging castling up and actually moving to achieve certain objectives.

Sure it's random, but it's not a horrible kind of random and should do a lot to break up the monotony of sitting across the table from a gunline (yes I know some people like playing with those kind of lists, but not many people like playing against those kind of lists).

**Anpu42**

Has there been any real changes to Cavalry, I don't expect any, but I have not seen anything about them.

Is Bjorn still 3 HP?

**Crablezworth**

ClockworkZion wrote:
The big thing I see the Maelstrom of War missions doing is discouraging castling up and actually moving to achieve certain objectives.

Sure it's random, but it's not a horrible kind of random and should do a lot to break up the monotony of sitting across the table from a gunline (yes I know some people like playing with those kind of lists, but not many people like playing against those kind of lists).

Except that it's the kind of random that can reward gunline.

"oh look, capture objective 3, it just so happens objective 3 is in my deployment zone"

Yeah..

**ClockworkZion**

Crablezworth wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
The big thing I see the Maelstrom of War missions doing is discouraging castling up and actually moving to achieve certain objectives.

Sure it's random, but it's not a horrible kind of random and should do a lot to break up the monotony of sitting across the table from a gunline (yes I know some people like playing with those kind of lists, but not many people like playing against those kind of lists).

Except that it's the kind of random that can reward gunline.

"oh look, capture objective 3, it just so happens objective 3 is in my deployment zone"

Yeah..

Which is partially helped by objectives being placed before deployment (and table sides are determined) encouraging players to put them out of the deployment zones to prevent giving away free points turn 1.

**TableTopJosh**

Any idea to how Runic weapons for Rune Priests will work in 7th?

**Crablezworth**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
The big thing I see the Maelstrom of War missions doing is discouraging castling up and actually moving to achieve certain objectives.

Sure it's random, but it's not a horrible kind of random and should do a lot to break up the monotony of sitting across the table from a gunline (yes I know some people like playing with those kind of lists, but not many people like playing against those kind of lists).

Except that it's the kind of random that can reward gunline.

"oh look, capture objective 3, it just so happens objective 3 is in my deployment zone"

Yeah..

Which is partially helped by objectives being placed before deployment (and table sides are determined) encouraging players to put them out of the deployment zones to prevent giving away free points turn 1.

There are cards for more than one objective. Back where we started.

**Sigvatr**

Maelstrom is a separate issue though. It will not be used for competitive play anyway as it relies on randomness way too much, but for casuals, it might be fun. If you want to find out who is the better player, however, steer away from Maelstrom and Unfun as far as you can and house-rule the rest, e.g. using more than 1 FOC.

**oldone**

I'm starting to think the army that benefit the most from the changes to 40k is deamons really for example Bloodcrusher can now get back eternal warrior (not my tyranid warriors though that would make them useful

) + they gain a 4+ feel no pain, if they also can gain invisibility it truly means to fear them + random addition you can buff them with ,ie scouting, AW rerolls to hit, addition to inv save to name a few. what do people think maybe not top tier but could be fun

**spartanlegion**

undertow wrote:
spartanlegion wrote:
MajorStoffer wrote:
undertow wrote:
Iechine wrote:
So...Shadows in the Warp, from a codex just a few months old is now useless?
I'd relax a bit if I were you. Expect a FAQ on release day or shortly thereafter.

I'm in a similar situation with Tzeentch Daemons getting +3 to Ld for Psychic checks. I'm not freaking out ... yet.

It's been 1 year, 1 month and 5 days since the last FAQ.

Faqs, were in fact, abandoned by GW because they were starting to write 7th edition 13 months ago. They basically gave up on 6th (in under a year from its release no less), quietly, knowing what was going down. Our new universal faq is "Roll 1d6. If it is 1-3 you are right & 4-6 your opponent is correct." (BTW, that ain't a joke.)

That rule (The Most Important Rule) is unchanged from 6th Ed. It's not new.

yeah, it's a rule & now the answer to any and all faqs too!

**ClockworkZion**

Crablezworth wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
The big thing I see the Maelstrom of War missions doing is discouraging castling up and actually moving to achieve certain objectives.

Sure it's random, but it's not a horrible kind of random and should do a lot to break up the monotony of sitting across the table from a gunline (yes I know some people like playing with those kind of lists, but not many people like playing against those kind of lists).

Except that it's the kind of random that can reward gunline.

"oh look, capture objective 3, it just so happens objective 3 is in my deployment zone"

Yeah..

Which is partially helped by objectives being placed before deployment (and table sides are determined) encouraging players to put them out of the deployment zones to prevent giving away free points turn 1.

There are cards for more than one objective. Back where we started.

That doesn't disprove my point about not putting objectives inside deployment zones.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TableTopJosh wrote:
Any idea to how Runic weapons for Rune Priests will work in 7th?

That will be a FAQ issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:
Maelstrom is a separate issue though. It will not be used for competitive play anyway as it relies on randomness way too much, but for casuals, it might be fun. If you want to find out who is the better player, however, steer away from Maelstrom and Unfun as far as you can and house-rule the rest, e.g. using more than 1 FOC.

If you REALLY want to see who the better player is then mirror match or play a more tactical/competetive game that isn't horribly unbalanced. All winning 40k proves is who got luckier that game or abused their codex the best (or both).

**SeanDrake**

Unbound is taking a lot of underserved flak as after looking at the rules, a bound list can be as abusive and spamy as unbound easily and gets a bonus for it.

**spartanlegion**

Knowing faqs stopped about a year before 7th comes out, that's a good litmus test for 7th faqs. When they stop, 1 year count down to 8th...

**Sigvatr**

Why wouldn't you put objectives in deployment zones? Might just as well be you who gets the free VP.

**ClockworkZion**

SeanDrake wrote:
Unbound is taking a lot of underserved flak as after looking at the rules, a bound list can be as abusive and spamy as unbound easily and gets a bonus for it.

Well unbound doesn't have totake say six troops to run three detachments, but yes people are likely assuming too much about unbound.

**MadmanMSU**

spartanlegion wrote:
Knowing faqs stopped about a year before 7th comes out, that's a good litmus test for 7th faqs. When they stop, 1 year count down to 8th...

I'm just amazed it took them a year to come up with 7th edition. A YEAR.

**Sigvatr**

ClockworkZion wrote:

If you REALLY want to see who the better player is then mirror match or play a more tactical/competetive game that isn't horribly unbalanced. All winning 40k proves is who got luckier that game or abused their codex the best (or both).

...or who can throw more money at GW!

**SeanDrake**

Off to watch TV will pop back later for anymore questions

**ClockworkZion**

Sigvatr wrote:
Why wouldn't you put objectives in deployment zones? Might just as well be you who gets the free VP.

Because randumb means you can screw yourself over that way. It's smarter to be safe than sorry, especially if you're the only one who puts an objective in a deployment zone and then your opponent takes that table side.

Too many risks and it's frankly just better to not put them in the deployment zone when you look at all the potential ways you can shoot yourself in the foot with them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MadmanMSU wrote:
spartanlegion wrote:
Knowing faqs stopped about a year before 7th comes out, that's a good litmus test for 7th faqs. When they stop, 1 year count down to 8th...

I'm just amazed it took them a year to come up with 7th edition. A YEAR.

Probably longer than that honestly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

If you REALLY want to see who the better player is then mirror match or play a more tactical/competetive game that isn't horribly unbalanced. All winning 40k proves is who got luckier that game or abused their codex the best (or both).

...or who can throw more money at GW!

Which goes back to the codex abuse thing. 40k is not a game you play to prove who is "best".

**Sigvatr**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Why wouldn't you put objectives in deployment zones? Might just as well be you who gets the free VP.

Because randumb means you can screw yourself over that way. It's smarter to be safe than sorry, especially if you're the only one who puts an objective in a deployment zone and then your opponent takes that table side.

Too many risks and it's frankly just better to not put them in the deployment zone when you look at all the potential ways you can shoot yourself in the foot with them.

It depends on your army. If you got a gunline, placing them mid-field won't be much of a help. On the other hand, placing them in the deployment zones allows you to remain stationary and still get VP.

**insaniak**

Sinful Hero wrote:
PapaSoul wrote:
Can anyone tell me what the vortex special rule is? It's now part of the vortex of doom psychic power which is strength D vortex

Iirc the marker doesn't go away, it keeps scattering every turn.

Yay for 2nd edition!

Is there any change to using grenades in combat against MCs and walkers?

**Idolator**

Over on another thread, there was some discussion on the possibility of purchasing just the rules by themselves at some future date.

I figure that if GW was planning to do this, that they would have placed a bar code/sku on the backs of each individual book in the set of three. Is there anyone out there with access to the books that could check on this for me?

The only reason to place these on the back, as far as I can tell, would be for the purpose of possible individual sale. It would also allow for the company to create a revenue stream from those that didn't/couldn't spend the larger sum for the three book release without having to do any additional work or printing.

Someone please check. I will love you forever.

**spartanlegion**

MadmanMSU wrote:
spartanlegion wrote:
Knowing faqs stopped about a year before 7th comes out, that's a good litmus test for 7th faqs. When they stop, 1 year count down to 8th...

I'm just amazed it took them a year to come up with 7th edition. A YEAR.

true that.

**ClockworkZion**

Sigvatr wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Why wouldn't you put objectives in deployment zones? Might just as well be you who gets the free VP.

Because randumb means you can screw yourself over that way. It's smarter to be safe than sorry, especially if you're the only one who puts an objective in a deployment zone and then your opponent takes that table side.

Too many risks and it's frankly just better to not put them in the deployment zone when you look at all the potential ways you can shoot yourself in the foot with them.

It depends on your army. If you got a gunline, placing them mid-field won't be much of a help. On the other hand, placing them in the deployment zones allows you to remain stationary and still get VP.

50% of the time your opponent will get that deployment zone though. Objectives THEN deployment. That's why it's a bad idea.

**MarkyMark**

Idolator wrote:
Over on another thread, there was some discussion on the possibility of purchasing just the rules by themselves at some future date.

I figure that if GW was planning to do this, that they would have placed a bar code/sku on the backs of each individual book in the set of three. Is there anyone out there with access to the books that could check on this for me?

The only reason to place these on the back, as far as I can tell, would be for the purpose of possible individual sale. It would also allow for the company to create a revenue stream from those that didn't/couldn't spend the larger sum for the three book release without having to do any additional work or printing.

Someone please check. I will love you forever.

No bar code on the books, just the slip case. There is only a ISBN on the slip case as well not the books.