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.

**Spoletta**

Oh this one is good! It is specified that you can assault stuff you can't hurt!!

**ClassicCarraway**

I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.

**coredump**

Garion wrote:
I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment

all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.

So it look like we can make armies like this

1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)

2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction

3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction

One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction

Am I missing something?

You *are* missing something... Faction != codex. So for your 2nd detachment, you can mix and match from Tau and Farsight, because both books are in the same faction. 3rd detachment can mix and match between CSM and Crimson SLaughter.

etc..

**Spoletta**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.

That rule seems copy pasted.

**Garion**

coredump wrote:
Garion wrote:
I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment

all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.

So it look like we can make armies like this

1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)

2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction

3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction

One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction

Am I missing something?

You *are* missing something... Faction != codex. So for your 2nd detachment, you can mix and match from Tau and Farsight, because both books are in the same faction. 3rd detachment can mix and match between CSM and Crimson SLaughter.

etc..

uhm... Tau (codex) and Farsight are in the Tau Faction, CSM (codex) and Crimson are in the CSM Faction so you are basically saying the same thing. Or are you just pointing out that this is even worse than what it look like?

**vadersson**

Vector Strike wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Finally got the book.

Maybe this one wasn't found yet:

GtG does no longer allow overwatch.

Holy crap, my poor Fire Warriors...

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

This does not bode well at all. I think CC just got that boost they wanted...
Ow.
Duncan

**ClassicCarraway**

Spoletta wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.

That rule seems copy pasted.

Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....

**Garion**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.

That rule seems copy pasted.

Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....

Well you could now create a custom deployment procedure so create a new one with a "roll to decide how Everliving work" in there

**ClockworkZion**

vadersson wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Finally got the book.

Maybe this one wasn't found yet:

GtG does no longer allow overwatch.

Holy crap, my poor Fire Warriors...

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

This does not bode well at all. I think CC just got that boost they wanted...
Ow.
Duncan

Hell even the Whirlwind is looking more useful now.

**ClassicCarraway**

Garion wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.

That rule seems copy pasted.

Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....

Well you could now create a custom deployment procedure so create a new one with a "roll to decide how Everliving work" in there

Whats so annoying is, there seems to be alot of rules where they cleared up any ambiguity from what I'm seeing. This one somehow slipped by them when all they had to do was state if special rules that specifically revive a model could be used or not. I don't supposed they included Reanimation Protocols and Everliving in the USR section (with cleaned up wording)?

**Garion**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Garion wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
ClassicCarraway wrote:
I've asked this before to no avail, so 3rd times a charm. Has the wording for Sweeping Advance been cleaned up to end the Everliving Vs. Sweeping Advance debate? Does it provide more specific examples of what can and can't be used or are we still stuck with the "for them the battle is over" fluff rule that is causing such a stir.

That rule seems copy pasted.

Ugh! More arguing with my buddy who plays Necrons....

Well you could now create a custom deployment procedure so create a new one with a "roll to decide how Everliving work" in there

Whats so annoying is, there seems to be alot of rules where they cleared up any ambiguity from what I'm seeing. This one somehow slipped by them when all they had to do was state if special rules that specifically revive a model could be used or not. I don't supposed they included Reanimation Protocols and Everliving in the USR section (with cleaned up wording)?

They did not, sorry :\

**WrentheFaceless**

So when 6th came out, how long after were the FAQ's for 6th?

**rigeld2**

That day iirc.

**WrentheFaceless**

rigeld2 wrote:
That day iirc.

So not unreasonable to expect it today, or tomorrow at the latest?

**rigeld2**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
That day iirc.

So not unreasonable to expect it today, or tomorrow at the latest?

Well, tomorrow (since release is the 24th) right?

**ClassicCarraway**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
That day iirc.

So not unreasonable to expect it today, or tomorrow at the latest?

I can't help but think that Combined Arms detatchments will be one of the first things FAQed.

**Leth**

I would be this evening since it would be a midnight release in Britain, at least that's how I remember it.

**Blacksails**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
That day iirc.

So not unreasonable to expect it today, or tomorrow at the latest?

I can't help but think that Combined Arms detatchments will be one of the first things FAQed.

How so, and why?

If anything, the existence of Unbound shows that GW isn't concerned with FoC's anymore.

**Garion**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
That day iirc.

So not unreasonable to expect it today, or tomorrow at the latest?

I can't help but think that Combined Arms detatchments will be one of the first things FAQed.

I don't think we will get that kind of FAQ soon. If any we will get a typo-related one for the book and the ones for bringing all the codex up to speed with the new edition

**WrentheFaceless**

rigeld2 wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
That day iirc.

So not unreasonable to expect it today, or tomorrow at the latest?

Well, tomorrow (since release is the 24th) right?

The UK has its release after the US? My shop got them today, or is the 24th the Official street date?

**rigeld2**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
The UK has its release after the US? My shop got them today, or is the 24th the Official street date?

Official street date is the 24th afaik.

**Sigvatr**

Puscifer wrote:

You can't impact, shoot then disembark to assault. That was the staple of the CCB. At those points though, I can't see many running it now.

Ah, I gotcha. Well, to be fair, CCB were pretty bad in 6th too and were hardly being used. Necrons have far superior stuff to take out tanks. A CCB was able to take out 1 vehicle and was then immediately blown up if playing against a decent opponent. At at min. 180 pts cost, that's just bad.

**Jburch**

This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.

I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?

**Sigvatr**

Cards are optional.

40k 7th STILL has the normal missions. They cards are ONLY used for the new casual mode "Maelstrom".

**Darkseid**

Does anyone know if some Weapon Profiles changed in the new edition?

Personally I was hoping for a buff for the heavy bolter. Poor gun is not even appreciated when being for 'free'.

**Blacksails**

Jburch wrote:
This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.

I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?

Most of the important info (including info for your question, if I'm not mistaken) is in the first post.

But short answer, no.

**tetrisphreak**

Jburch wrote:
This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.

I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?

You can roll them from a table and keep track with a pen and paper which ones you've scored.

**Garion**

Jburch wrote:
This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.

I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?

They are used in the new 6 "maelstrom of war" missions. But there is a table in the book with all the cards

**tetrisphreak**

Sigvatr wrote:
Cards are optional.

40k 7th STILL has the normal missions. They cards are ONLY used for the new casual mode "Maelstrom".

Any different deployment types? I've seen "standard" deployment but I wondered is there is another variant.

**Spoletta**

Darkseid wrote:
Does anyone know if some Weapon Profiles changed in the new edition?

Personally I was hoping for a buff for the heavy bolter. Poor gun is not even appreciated when being for 'free'.

Heavy bolter is still the same.

Also it is specified that a model attacking with an unwieldy weapon piles in at I1.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:
Jburch wrote:
This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.

I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?

Most of the important info (including info for your question, if I'm not mistaken) is in the first post.

But short answer, no.

Actually if you want to play the maelstrom missions you will need the deck, or at least print it from the book.

The fifth mission requires the deck since the objectives are secret.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
FNP does not work on D strenght.