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.

Thanks. So essentially area terrain does still exist just not as a distinct entity.

You resolve as you would have in 6th. There is no focus fire rule

 Kanluwen wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Wait, if forests, woods, jungles and such aren't listed does this mean that the Tyranid Warlord Trait number 1 Natures bane is now useless... well, more so than it currently is.

That listing is for "Battlefield Debris", which makes sense to be a different category from "Natural Formations" or whatever they call trees and the like.

Phew, thanks for clearing that up. Was a bit worried for a moment there!

Yeah nids would be screwed without natures bane!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any changes to vehicle and unit movement at all? Are jetbikes still able to move 48"?
Any clarification on mixed units e.g. sniper drone units being able to jetpack move?
Thanks

So those with the book - how is the formatting? Was splitting the rules off a good thing in terms of portability etc?

OK finished reading the rules and while I am not totally impressed, I would say that under all the bloat and crap there is a good game struggling to get out.

There are some nice touches like flamers being used for building clearance buy firing through firing points, and torching the ocupents of open topped vehicles.

But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
So those with the book - how is the formatting? Was splitting the rules off a good thing in terms of portability etc?

The splitting is a double edged sword on the one hand it makes it slightly more practical to carry, but even just the rules is still a hefty hardback book which is bigger than any other systems book which includes fluff and army lists.

But it also shows you how much paper is wasted in the other 2 books printing the same stuff as they always recycle for the main rulebook and what is essentaly a hardback copy of visions.

SeanDrake wrote:
[...]

But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.

Let's call Andy Chambers about that... oh wait. Well, only two years until the next edition!

 Symbio Joe wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
[...]

But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.

Let's call Andy Chambers about that... oh wait. Well, only two years until the next edition!

One year!
It will escalate into hyperinflation like Zimbabwe Dollar

SeanDrake wrote:
OK finished reading the rules and while I am not totally impressed, I would say that under all the bloat and crap there is a good game struggling to get out.
...
But I honestly think that this will be the last edition of 40k as is, the next edition is going to need a full overhaul or it will collapse under it's own weight.

Yeah, I agree, the rules look a lot more complex, to the point where they might need an overhaul. Just in reading the language in the screencaps, with the different kinds of force organizations... I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.

The overhaul might need to happen to the gaming system itself. Lords of War and Fortifications really change the game, and (since everything is so expensive) it's really not practical for people to keep up with one another's choices. If the models were cheaper, or the rules themselves were structured in a way that puts some constraints around certain choices, it would be different. But it looks like an honest TAAC army costs upwards of $3k these days, for most factions. And man, if someone starts bringing titans, then you are really screwed in the wallet.

While the new rules interest me, I am going to sit this one out and wait to see what happens with that new edition. I am content just with modelling for the moment. TBH, most of the close friends I regularly play with have decided they are done and gone so far as to sell their armies. We just had a poker night instead of heading to the FLGS, there was something satisfying in it's simplicity. Leaves a lot more time for talking to one another instead of dissecting the nuances of rules that are just getting more complex.

I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.

I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.

GoonBandito wrote:

I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.

I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.

Yeah, and people would cry about rules writing if they just put 'Just build an army and run with it.'

GoonBandito wrote:

I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.

I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.

Or the needs for rules apparently.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

GoonBandito wrote:

I miss the days when you just built an army. Having to pick the type of army, and understand the implications there, is probably a little more effort than what's it's worth.

I know people have a hate-on for Unbound... But that is literally what Unbound lets you do - build an army and don't worry about restrictions.

Or the needs for rules apparently.

Other than, y'know...

No mixing and matching units outside your ally choices, the requirement to actually still use the "unit entries" as they exist, etc.

Any change to grenades? Still 1 per unit when thrown, ect?

 einlanzer wrote:
Any change to grenades? Still 1 per unit when thrown, ect?

Assault Grenades are the same. Defensive Grenades are different: you can throw a Defensive Grenade as a 8", S1, AP-, Assault1, Blast, Blind. Defensive Grenades also don't give Stealth for being within 8" of a shooting attack anymore. Melta Bombs are also listed as being able to be used against Buildings and Gun Emplacements, as well as Vehicles and MC.

Okay, so the new Damage on Passengers is a Ld test on all shaken, stunned, weap destroyed, AND immobilized pens or snap shots... But what about Explosions? Just a pinning test? or is it pinning, and then a Ld for shaken?

The first half sounded alright (till I noticed all the other damage results added...) And no more crater to sit in? Hmmm...

MarkyMark wrote:
You resolve as you would have in 6th. There is no focus fire rule

Wait- no more focus fire?

For Shaken/Stunned/Immobilized/Weapon Destroyed the unit inside gets to make a LD test to avoid only taking snapshots. If a transport uses it's Jink Save does the unit inside snapshot also, and do they also get a LD test to avoid it?

Did skimmers retain the move the minimum distance to avoid ending on an enemy model rule? Did it change to include deep striking?

Any news on Battleforged benefits?

Stratos wrote:
Any news on Battleforged benefits?

We have seen them. Re roll warlord trait and objective secured for troops choices.

Can someone who has read it explain the new FOC.

Does this mean that you can have as many FOCs as you want as long as their the same faction or like how does it work at all?

Can I have 1 HQ, 2 Troops, then take another 1HQ 2 Troops?

http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/biggest-change-in-7th.html

That explains it Hollis.

So it was said that models in base contact for any reason are locked in combat. Does this possibly mean mawlocs can arrive locked in combat with their terror from the deep rule???

Edit - just saw the Mawloc rule precludes base contact. Never mind.

MarkyMark wrote:
http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/biggest-change-in-7th.html

That explains it Hollis.

Wow... holy crapballs.

Sooo that uh.. that is .. O_o

I mean I guess I understand it but that's just broken.

I'm glad they removed the crater thing from an exploding vehicle. Too many people not putting something down because they were lazy and then later trying to sneak something in an open spot for a cover save because a vehicle was there

I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.

So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.

Good luck with those pick up games though.

Isn't LVO a GW run event, so at GWs own event they have to fix their rules?

No LVO is run by frontline gaming an independent.

I remember all the whining a year or two back about the force org chart and how it limited the game. Looks like the whiners got their way and it upset a load of people.