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.

**Nem**

Didn't people say the same sort of thing with escalation? Then the tournaments they were allowed in they didn't dominate like people thought?

**Accolade**

Nem wrote:
Didn't people say the same sort of thing with escalation? Then the tournaments they were allowed in they didn't dominate like people thought?

I mean, in the way that tournaments typically forbid escalation, it didn't make much of an impact.

**Leth**

It was the opposite escalation caused a lot of problems and was in general not enjoyed. However I think the changes to D weapons will make it not as much of an issue.

Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?

**tetrisphreak**

Anybody have a rundown of all the tactical objectives?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leth wrote:
It was the opposite escalation caused a lot of problems and was in general not enjoyed. However I think the changes to D weapons will make it not as much of an issue.

Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?

D weapons (mostly) allowing saves is a great change.

**puma713**

techsoldaten wrote:
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.

Well said. I would hazard a guess that a lot of gamers that have left the game (veterans especially) feel this way. I know I do.

**Crimson**

Leth wrote:

Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?

Battle Brothers can repair each other's vehicles, which is nice. I definitely need to get an Enginseer to accompany my Knight now.

**tag8833**

Uriels_Flame wrote:
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.

I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.

I have a poll going in the General Thread. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596201.page

Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.

One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.

**Hollismason**

Edit: Ignore I don't know why it double posted that.

**Nem**

I would hope at least smaller tournaments will keep it open for a while so we can see exactly how it effects the game rather than taking one look and 'hells no'. While it's easier to build spammy well kitted lists, it's also easier to build a hard counter to each.

**Hollismason**

Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.

**tetrisphreak**

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.

Why not? For "balance"?

Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

**rigeld2**

tetrisphreak wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.

Why not? For "balance"?

Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

Yes, knights are balanced. Screamer Star could be dealt with. O'Vesa totes won all kinds of tournaments...

**Hollismason**

text removed.

Reds8n

**Nem**

tetrisphreak wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.

Why not? For "balance"?

Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

Now, everyone has the chance of bringing broken nyhah

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

This could be a contender for silliest question of the year, but do you have to take allies in 7th?

I've been involved in the hobby since the 1980s and my approach to 40k has always been simple i.e if I want to go guard, I'll go guard. If I want to go Eldar, I'll go Eldar, and so on. But now, it seems to be another horrible mish-mash of stuff. It's probably been pointed out before, but part of the game balance was that every army had its strengths and weaknesses. That was part of the fun for me. Working out how to tactically compensate for those weaknesses.

Nowadays, it seems if your army is lacking in anti-tank, or close combat etc, you can just pick something from somebody else's faction to cover that deficiency, thus defeating the whole purpose of separate factions. I've nothing against armies allying with each other for fun scenarios or whatever, but this seems a step to far.

Or I am barking up the wrong tree here?

**tetrisphreak**

I'm none of those things actually.

The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde army will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.

Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.

**buddha**

For those that have the book are the same 3 fortifications in the nook or have they made any changes? Thanks.

**Fishboy**

Crimson wrote:
Leth wrote:

Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?

Battle Brothers can repair each other's vehicles, which is nice. I definitely need to get an Enginseer to accompany my Knight now.

You could name him Target heheh. First easy kill of the game.

So in my opinion it looks like 40k Radio got this right too. From what I am seeing the main changes seem to be Psy and Allies right.

**Hollismason**

tetrisphreak wrote:

I'm none of those things actually.

The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.

Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.

The design team did not play 7th.

**Accolade**

Hollismason wrote:
tetrisphreak wrote:

I'm none of those things actually.

The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.

Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.

The design team did not play 7th.

But the "thousands of games'! Surely you jest!

**Leth**

Fishboy wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Leth wrote:

Anything in the repair rules preventing you from repairing allied vehicles?

Battle Brothers can repair each other's vehicles, which is nice. I definitely need to get an Enginseer to accompany my Knight now.

You could name him Target heheh. First easy kill of the game.

So in my opinion it looks like 40k Radio got this right too. From what I am seeing the main changes seem to be Psy and Allies right.

Screw that I plan to bring my techmarine double servitor squad with my knights where one techmarine and one master of the forge in a landraider with a unit of servitors both jump out and repair stuff on a two+.

**SeanDrake**

tag8833 wrote:
Uriels_Flame wrote:
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.

I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.

I have a poll going in the General Thread. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596201.page

Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.

One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.

I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.

**tetrisphreak**

rigeld2 wrote:
tetrisphreak wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.

Why not? For "balance"?

Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

Yes, knights are balanced. Screamer Star could be dealt with. O'Vesa totes won all kinds of tournaments...

If I bring horde orks or endless swarm tyranids vs an imperial knight list, I won't have the tools to take any of my opponents models down. Does this make knights broken and OP? I guess not, but I might feel that way mid game. It's just a bad matchup game, that can occur currently. Players spamming heldrakes can get tabled turn 1 and lose. Riptide spam could feasibly run across centurion grav-spam.

Just a couple examples from the top of my head. And btw locally I've seen O'Vesa star dominate - I was even guilty of using it once and I felt dirty.

**alphaecho**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This could be a contender for silliest question of the year, but do you have to take allies in 7th?

I've been involved in the hobby since the 1980s and my approach to 40k has always been simple i.e if I want to go guard, I'll go guard. If I want to go Eldar, I'll go Eldar, and so on. But now, it seems to be another horrible mish-mash of stuff. It's probably been pointed out before, but part of the game balance was that every army had its strengths and weaknesses. That was part of the fun for me. Working out how to tactically compensate for those weaknesses.

Nowadays, it seems if your army is lacking in anti-tank, or close combat etc, you can just pick something from somebody else's faction to cover that deficiency, thus defeating the whole purpose of separate factions. I've nothing against armies allying with each other for fun scenarios or whatever, but this seems a step to far.

Or I am barking up the wrong tree here?

Nope, you don't have to take allies. I'm the same as you, if I'm playing Guard then its Guard all the way.

I didn't even take allies in 2nd Ed when you were allowed.

**Super Newb**

For those who have the rulebook. Who precisely, generates warp charges?

Some people are wondering about the wording and how that interacts with GK's psychic pilot, brotherhood of psykers, or any model who has psychic powers but isn't specifically labeled a 'psyker' beyond that.

**ClassicCarraway**

Hollismason wrote:
tetrisphreak wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.

Why not? For "balance"?

Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

You are either High on paint fumes, mentally handicapped or you are a mentally handicapped person high on paint fumes, but you are certainly one of those three if you can't understand why TOs and Tournaments want to create a enviroment that is at least marginally balanced so that their players have a good time. A unbalanced game doesn't encourage people to come to tournaments.

This suck it up and pull up your bootstraps argument is terrible and you are a terrible person. If I had a time machine and could travel back in time to kill Hitler or kill myself before I read that I'd kill Hitler, but I would think about it for a really long time before hand.

I think the problem that you run into is that those elite armies that were not heavily impacted by the new rules will continue to be elite and continue to dominate if TOs remove all of the FOC shenanigans because other armies don't have the basic FOC builds capable of standing up to them and will need Unbound or triple BF detachments just to stand a chance.

The new FOC/Unbound rules serve a dual purpose, but sadly, heavily botches one of them. The first (and likely primary) purpose is to allow us fluff-bunnies to field the type of armies we only read about (my first Unbound will be a true Inquisition Death Watch army, with elements from Codex: Inquisition, Grey Knights, Space Marines, and AM/IG!), and I think it succeeds in that purpose. But the second purpose (I think anyway) was to allow the less than elite armies a fighting chance in organized play. Of course, GW's overly optimistic outlook of the hobby tends to cloud over the harsh realities of TFG, who is going to abuse the absolute dog-pee out of the new FOC structure, which in turn is going to make those elite armies even more elite, which is going to lead to TOs making a decision to allow just a basic single FOC with Allied detatchment. Its a slipperly slope to be sure because I can't help but think future codecies will be written with the new FOC in mind (and would explain some of the more recent releases' perceived blandness).

**Thud**

tetrisphreak wrote:

I'm none of those things actually.

The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.

Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.

Several issues about tournaments. First of all, the organizers are usually fronting some serious cash, so they need to get people to attend. Look at Adepticon: "regular 40k" championship had 256 participants; the other one that allowed Escalation had.... 13. TOs will be conservative because they have money on the line.

As for balance, ever heard of the Nirvana fallacy? Just because you, as a TO, can't make 40k perfectly balanced it doesn't mean you shouldn't make it less ridiculous than it is. What TOs will probably need to do is to implement limits that stop the arms race getting out of hand, both for the sake of player who are interested in attending and having a good time without switching armies every five minutes, but also for the tournaments to be actually financially viable. I know, for my sake, I won't be going to any events that have no restrictions. No chance. And I'm fairly confident I'm not the only one. So, does that leave enough players to enable the event to take place? Maybe? Maybe not? Talk is easy, but I'm not the one with thousands of dollars on the line. Are you?

And as for the classic "you haven't even tried it yet!" argument - really? I haven't tried exposing my junk to a cop either. Still feeling fairly certain I'd be arrested if I did.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

alphaecho wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This could be a contender for silliest question of the year, but do you have to take allies in 7th?

I've been involved in the hobby since the 1980s and my approach to 40k has always been simple i.e if I want to go guard, I'll go guard. If I want to go Eldar, I'll go Eldar, and so on. But now, it seems to be another horrible mish-mash of stuff. It's probably been pointed out before, but part of the game balance was that every army had its strengths and weaknesses. That was part of the fun for me. Working out how to tactically compensate for those weaknesses.

Nowadays, it seems if your army is lacking in anti-tank, or close combat etc, you can just pick something from somebody else's faction to cover that deficiency, thus defeating the whole purpose of separate factions. I've nothing against armies allying with each other for fun scenarios or whatever, but this seems a step to far.

Or I am barking up the wrong tree here?

Nope, you don't have to take allies. I'm the same as you, if I'm playing Guard then its Guard all the way.

I didn't even take allies in 2nd Ed when you were allowed.

Cheers for that. It looks like you and I will be the only people in 40k picking a force from just the one codex!

**rigeld2**

tetrisphreak wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
tetrisphreak wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
Yeah.. no tournament is going to let you do what they have set out in the FOC.

Why not? For "balance"?

Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

Yes, knights are balanced. Screamer Star could be dealt with. O'Vesa totes won all kinds of tournaments...

If I bring horde orks or endless swarm tyranids vs an imperial knight list, I won't have the tools to take any of my opponents models down. Does this make knights broken and OP? I guess not, but I might feel that way mid game. It's just a bad matchup game, that can occur currently. Players spamming heldrakes can get tabled turn 1 and lose. Riptide spam could feasibly run across centurion grav-spam.

Just a couple examples from the top of my head. And btw locally I've seen O'Vesa star dominate - I was even guilty of using it once and I felt dirty.

Horde orks/Nids is a bad matchup for Knights... But opposite to the way you presented. Knights would have a hard time against Horde.
And sure - bad matchup a happen. How does that make those armies "unbalanced"?

I'd rather face O'Vesa star than quite a few other lists.

**Mymearan**

Does anyone know if the digital Rulebook will be released at midnight in all time zones? How is this usually handled?