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 wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

Spoletta wrote:The new missile lock USR is kinda strange.

It no longer mentions missiles, but it works on any weapon with the single shot rule, and as already spoilered it twinlinks if you don't have an area.

Spoletta wrote:If you have both scout and infiltration you can first infiltrate and then move.

Only to aircraft or to ANY single shot? That would make Tentaclids, Hunter-Seeker and Seeker missiles AWESOME (and much more cost-effective)

And I think an scout/infiltrate unit was already able to infiltrate and then scout in 6th

It doesn't mention aircraft, neither it did in 6E, also those missile don't have the missile lock rule. Sure the DA flyer will twinlink against ground targets.

Ah. Thought any single-use weapon would get Missile Lock now (as I bolded up there).

WayneTheGame wrote:
So have they actually done anything to alleviate the fact that each Codex has a couple of units that are crazy OP that you always want to take, and a lot of units that suck so badly it's pointless to take them? I've read a lot of changes about the rules, and Unbound, but nothing addressing the actual issues of the game that penalizes someone, for example, for wanting to take regular CSMs instead of Plague Marines (or not wanting anything Nurgle in general), or not wanting Heldrakes, or liking Fire Warriors instead of going Farsight Bomb.

Am I right in that none of that has changed (yet, at any rate)?

Frankly you're talking about issues with codexes more than with the core rules there.

Spoletta wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

Spoletta wrote:The new missile lock USR is kinda strange.

It no longer mentions missiles, but it works on any weapon with the single shot rule, and as already spoilered it twinlinks if you don't have an area.

Spoletta wrote:If you have both scout and infiltration you can first infiltrate and then move.

Only to aircraft or to ANY single shot? That would make Tentaclids, Hunter-Seeker and Seeker missiles AWESOME (and much more cost-effective)

And I think an scout/infiltrate unit was already able to infiltrate and then scout in 6th

It doesn't mention aircraft, neither it did in 6E, also those missile don't have the missile lock rule. Sure the DA flyer will twinlink against ground targets.

Also we have some changes on barrage:

1) No longer pinning
2) It can shoot under minimum range if it is direct fire.

Oh man barrage lost the pinning USR? That explains the points drop on Biovores, then.

I'm a little upset to see that two-handed weapon will continue to be a lazy and poorly thought out USR.

It just doesn't make sense -- if someone's swinging a bloody great two-handed sword or ax there should be an advantage to it, not just "no +1 A."

Yes I'm looking at you, Sanguinary Guard.

Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

 rabidguineapig wrote:
If anyone tried to tell me that my battle brother wasn't able to disembark from an ally's transport, I'd smack them upside the head. That doesn't need a FAQ, just some common sense...

It is well establish that Hive Tyrants can join but not Leave Tyrant Guard like an IC because of similar language. GW even confirmed it in a FAQ with the previous Tyranid Codex.

Any changes to the reroll rules? Specifically concerning rules like Preferred Enemy requiring a 1 to grant the reroll but (allegedly) granting a blanket reroll entitlement for blast scatter rolls.

mercury14 wrote:
Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

Weapons that specifically have the "Pinning" special rule. Like Whirlwinds.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

Weapons that specifically have the "Pinning" special rule. Like Whirlwinds.

Or being inside an exploding vehicle?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

Weapons that specifically have the "Pinning" special rule. Like Whirlwinds.

Or being inside an exploding vehicle?

Or certain Psychic Powers (hi Broodlord!).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

Weapons that specifically have the "Pinning" special rule. Like Whirlwinds.

Whirlwinds do not have the pinning rule

On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.

Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.

People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.

Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?

So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.

- H8

This seems like a trend.

Strafing run lost pinning.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

Weapons that specifically have the "Pinning" special rule. Like Whirlwinds.

Or being inside an exploding vehicle?

Or certain Psychic Powers (hi Broodlord!).

Does a wreck still cause a pinning check?

tag8833 wrote:
A buddy of mine pointed out an interesting twist to the Battle Brothers Rules:

Spoiler:

You can embark in an allies transport, but you can't disembark. I guess your Battle Brothers Lock you in.

My guess is T-minus 9 months before this gets FAQed.

U\m, embarked units gain permission to disembark. No need for FAQ

 ClockworkZion wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

Weapons that specifically have the "Pinning" special rule. Like Whirlwinds.

Assault Carbines became more interesting to forward express FW teams

Hatemonger wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

According to the guys at my FLGS (in the USA), they were apparently told (by GW) that they could start selling at 1pm today. We were all a little surprised by this, given that GW has been quite a bit more strict about street dates in the last year or two.

- H8

Just got a call from my FLGS and they have my copy waiting, gonna pick it up on my way home from work today. Not sure if they give two feths about any restriction GW might set though...

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Barrage doesn't pin. Sniper doesn't pin. Does anything new pin to replace these things or does GW just hate pinning now?

Weapons that specifically have the "Pinning" special rule. Like Whirlwinds.

Whirlwinds do not have the pinning rule

My mistake. I must be thinking of another template thing that Marines have.

 Garion wrote:

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?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I am pointing out that it is even worse. You can take a CSM detachment, but lets say the Hellbrute in Crimson Slaughter has better stats, you can use that one in the CSM FOC.

Spoletta wrote:
This seems like a trend.

Strafing run lost pinning.

So they buff Pinning but then nerf it by taking it away from all the normal methods of causing the test....

Hatemonger wrote:
On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.

Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.

People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.

Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?

So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.

- H8

I agree with this point of view. They need to increase sales, and letting you use whatever you want helps that. If they monitor what is selling more and less, they could work on those least-selling models to improve its appearance (first reason to a newcomer to buy) and its rules (to keep people buying it)

 tetrisphreak wrote:


Oh man barrage lost the pinning USR? That explains the points drop on Biovores, then.

Good thing living artillery gives it back. Go team formations.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Any changes to the reroll rules? Specifically concerning rules like Preferred Enemy requiring a 1 to grant the reroll but (allegedly) granting a blanket reroll entitlement for blast scatter rolls.

At a first glance it doesn't seem to let preferred enemy reroll blasts, but i'm not expert enough with rules to assure that.

Also while i was looking for that i noticed this in the reroll section:

" If a combination of rules would make you reroll both the failure and success of a roll then don't reroll at all" Will this solve the Coteaz vs Coteaz problem?

coredump wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear. I am pointing out that it is even worse. You can take a CSM detachment, but lets say the Hellbrute in Crimson Slaughter has better stats, you can use that one in the CSM FOC.

I've been asking around about this. If we can mix and match units in the same Detachment, can we select Relics from both Codex and Supplement in the same Detachment? Instead of using 2 detachments for a CM with Shield Eternal and other with a CM bearing Gorgon's Chains (Raukaan supp), can I spend my 2 HQ slots in the same Detachment, one with a Shield Eternal CM and the other one with Gorgon's Chain?

Hatemonger wrote:
On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.

Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.

People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.

Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?

So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.

- H8

While the structure of the rules can lead to thinking about this, in my neck of the woods new players are not so, glassy-eyed, so to speak. The rules don't matter to attracting new players here to 40k because they can't stop laughing hard enough at the ridiculous pricing of the models and the game book itself. Especially when they are intelligent enough to see the prices on almost all other full color wargame rulebooks being in the $30-$40 range. Secondly, nobody here is playing 40k at the store anymore - 6th edition took good care of that. So new players are being exposed more to Bolt Action, Flames of War, and a regular smattering of skirmish games like Hell Dorado, Infinity and Malifaux. The rules are more what are driving many veteran players away. The stupidly high pricing is what is keeping many new players away. As one of these kids once said to an old fart like me as he held a $30 plastic space librarian and an $11 metal model from another game, "Dude, no game is so good to spend $30 on a cheap plastic guy."

I think the other very big thing that is preventing the inlfux of new blood is GW's decision to eliminate the onboarding games. I think many longer term veterans probably got into 40k the same way - through one of the original gateway games. I got into GW through Talisman and into 40k through Space Hulk. A good friend of mind found his way into 40k through Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus. These were inexpensive ways to get into the GW hobby. But new players today are immediately faced with the daunting task of an overly-complex game with a very expensive army building proposition staring at them from day one. There is nothing to get them started with the thought, "While I am in now, might as well keep going," like many did with Space Hulk or other gateway games.

Additionally, many players can barely build an army from the store anymore because GW moved so much direct. Look at HQ models, more than 95% of them are only available through GW direct. So that is another deterrent. In fact, it seems GW has put up a lot of deterrents lately to attracting new players, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that there are so few.

So while veterans may still get the glassy-eyes over the models, new players have a much greater selection of models (and games) to select from for wargaming than many of us did when we started and thus GW models do not make them drool - the high pricing has them making more of a "ooohh, really" sound more than anything.

Hatemonger wrote:
On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.

Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.

People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.

Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?

So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.

- H8

Interesting commentary. As a new player I can see the points here. Finding an HQ unit was a problem initially for my Tau army. At first I had no battlesuits and only Inf with no Etherials. I was going to just use a fire warrior as a fireblade. Now of course I have some battlesuits, so I have a model to use as a Commander.

Luckily for me, I have a good job, but this game has wrecked my gaming budget. I have played all of 2 turns and spent over $450 now. For that $450 I can do 500 points of Space Marines (but no current Codex), 500 points of Orks (with no Codex yet), and abut 1,000 points of Tau. That is a pretty high bar to entry.

For the money I spent on Warhammer 40K I could have backed probably 6 to 8 great board games on Kickstarter, Bought 4 big box FFG games, or started a new RPG with tons of supplements. I could have gotten back into heroclix too. The worst part is there is a ton more stuff I want to buy for Warhammer 40K. Sigh.

One good thing is that at least in our area one game store runs 500 point mission nights every Tuesday. There were like 15 people (3 of us new BTW) the only time I have made it there. So at least with 40K I know I will have people to play with. (Unlike a lot of my kickstartered board games that I love but never play...)

Good post H8!
Thanks,
Duncan

So...

1) does wrecking a vehicle cause pinning checks to be made in 7e?

2) after a vehicle explosion are there craters or is the unit left hanging naked in the breeze?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
This seems like a trend.

Strafing run lost pinning.

So they buff Pinning but then nerf it by taking it away from all the normal methods of causing the test....

How is pinning buffed?

Hatemonger wrote:
On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.

...

So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.

- H8

I agree that a new edition with more freedom opens up chances for new players. It becomes more "I like these kits" and not "I have to adhere to these rules -- what kits can I have?"

I think a huge part of the perceived lack of new players is that we saw a huge influx of players in 5th edition and that wave has fallen off. There isn't much 40k stuff that breaches into the realm of public consciousness, but Dawn of War 2 had a HUGE hand in making people interested in the hobby and expanding from there. There's been a good three year lull since any other media came out that put 40k back in the spotlight.

Honestly, GW need a proper marketing team and a better social media presence. The board game space is booming right now and there's a gap in the market where they can make 40k a gateway drug into the full hobby if they play it out right. The price point of the starter boxes are fine by our crazy standards, but they need to find a way to get something on the shelves in the $30-40 range where it can become an impulse buy, while also ensuring a game can be 1-1.5 hrs long and played together.

Wrecked transports cause a pinning check.

mercury14 wrote:
So...

1) does wrecking a vehicle cause pinning checks to be made in 7e?

2) after a vehicle explosion are there craters or is the unit left hanging naked in the breeze?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
This seems like a trend.

Strafing run lost pinning.

So they buff Pinning but then nerf it by taking it away from all the normal methods of causing the test....

How is pinning buffed?

The whole "can't shoot OW when GtG" piece. Its a buff for assault armies, but unfortunately, it looks like most methods to actually cause pinning tests have been removed.