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.

**Mymearan**

Does anyone Else have problems downloading the iBook? I can't click the little download icon...

**Vector Strike**

Guys, we are able to pick any number of detachments, right? As long as we respect the minimum 1 HQ + 2 Troops from each. And there is no restriction of faction between them, right?
I mean, can I pick a detachment of Space Marines and other of Eldar not using Allies? Or is there a rule preventing you to pick the detachments from another faction, if not allied?

I ask this because if you can, anyone can pick 4 Heralds or a Warlock council, as it is technically your 'primary' detachment... or am I mistaken?

**Mr.Omega**

Edit out - Tone it down a good bit please - MT11

**Slaanesh-Devotee**

Leerjawise wrote:
Haven't seen it posted, but slight IC change, the wording is now "They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or monstrous creatures" instead of the previous vehicle squadron/single model unit wording

I wish they had an exception that let me put heralds on chariots into my cavalcade...

**Thud**

Mr.Omega wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Toburk wrote:
I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?

No, not really I guess.

Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.

Spoletta wrote:
It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.

Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?

Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.

My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!

Pro-tip: when trying to be clever on the internet, it helps if you actually respond to what was said instead of spinning off into strawmanland.

**Xca|iber**

Mr.Omega wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Toburk wrote:
I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?

No, not really I guess.

Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.

Spoletta wrote:
It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.

Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?

Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.

My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!

That is not at all what Peregrine was saying.

**Auswin**

Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?

I mean, ST3+6+D3 ended up being a minimum of 10 and max of 12. I totally get that potential 12 > guaranteed 10, but practically and realistically how often were you really getting rear armor on a vehicle and penning it with sniper rifles.

I guess I'm trying to discern how much of this is "This change hurts me," and how much is "This got demonstrably worse in a very situational condition."

I suspect it's mostly the latter.

**DiabolicAl**

Got book, not checked out rules yet but Fluff and Hobby sections are inferior to 6th in nearly every way.

In fact 90% of the fluff is copy and pasted from 6th. The rest is copy and pasted from Pandorax

Naughty and lazy.

**Brachiaraidos**

EDIT: Disregard, derped.

**buddha**

Some odd things in the rulebook I noticed.

- No fortifications are listed that I could see (might be an idiot). Currently no way to take something like an aegis defense line.

- In the Lord of War section, says some LoW are available in codexes. Likely will see them in codexes moving forward.

- No faction units are mentioned several times in the FOC. Probably wishlisting but perhaps mercenaries in the future?

- Battlefield terrain has "datasheets." Clearly a supplement is in the future I would guess.

- I couldn't stop laughing at the "Impure thoughts" quote with the sister of battle as the picture.

- Walkers have the HoW rule.

- All vehicles are WS1 no matter what in assault which kinda sucks.

- Pretty much every grenade except meltabombs can be thrown.

- Phrase "forging the narrative" comes up as naseum. No Joking, it is pretty much at the beginning of every section.

**OIIIIIIO**

interesting side note .... walkers got HoW SR

**UltraPrime**

Auswin wrote:
Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?

I mean, ST3+6+D3 ended up being a minimum of 10 and max of 12. I totally get that potential 12 > guaranteed 10, but practically and realistically how often were you really getting rear armor on a vehicle and penning it with sniper rifles.

I guess I'm trying to discern how much of this is "This change hurts me," and how much is "This got demonstrably worse in a very situational condition."

I suspect it's mostly the latter.

Yes, I thought same as you.

**Xca|iber**

Auswin wrote:
Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?

I mean, ST3+6+D3 ended up being a minimum of 10 and max of 12. I totally get that potential 12 > guaranteed 10, but practically and realistically how often were you really getting rear armor on a vehicle and penning it with sniper rifles.

I guess I'm trying to discern how much of this is "This change hurts me," and how much is "This got demonstrably worse in a very situational condition."

I suspect it's mostly the latter.

It's mostly "This weapon, which was already pretty terrible, was made worse for no discernible reason."

The only reason a design team would make a weapon less effective (whether overall or against certain targets) is that they believe it is too effective (overall or against those targets). It seems likely that this conclusion was drawn from in-house test games in which sniper rifles were found to be very good at... well something anyway. However, this would indicate that the test games played by the design team do not reflect an intelligent use of the rules/mechanics of the game, hence the derision flung their way.

**Denkstrum**

wow is the hobby book HUGELY disappointing. some nice photos, but basically a hardcover version of the white dwarf of a year ago, including the advertisements for books, novels, and datasheets!

**Thokt**

It's amazing that the type of fire that seems most likely to pin a unit down is unable to do so.

**Swastakowey**

Thokt wrote:
It's amazing that the type of fire that seems most likely to pin a unit down is unable to do so.

All weapons should cause pinning if it has a range.

**Auswin**

I suppose mostly playing Dark Eldar I come from a different perspective, but it was pretty obnoxious to easily lose a transport and potentially a bunch of troops to low-cost snipers because vehicles happen to be made out of paper.

DE are paper, I get that -- heck losing raiders to boltguns suck. However, worst case scenario they'd get wrecked and my troops survived. On no fewer than three occasions I've lost transports and had an explosion result that took out roughly 150 pts from a 60pt scout squad without my opponent having to throw weight of fire or a significant heavy weapon in my direction.

**Mr.Omega**

Xca|iber wrote:
Mr.Omega wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Toburk wrote:
I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?

No, not really I guess.

Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.

Spoletta wrote:
It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.

Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?

Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.

My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!

That is not at all what Peregrine was saying.

I think it adequately summarises the extreme sillyness of how he puts across his point.

Not that's it a particularly good one anyway, because as every Peregrine post like this does, it completely ignores any and all prospect of GW doing anything right at all, which is especially relevant when he's comparing them to fast food workers, which is a clear insult on levels of intelligence.

**Swastakowey**

Agreed my fiancee works at a fast food place, does very well and regularly gets pretty decent bonuses. She is in no way unintelligent.

Just a dirtbag of a thing to say really.

**Crimson**

Removing rending from sniper rifles makes perfect sense; they retained the relevant part of it but should not be able to penetrate tanks. However, removing pinning is questionable, and seems like unnecessary nerf.

**Mr.Omega**

Thud wrote:
Mr.Omega wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Toburk wrote:
I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?

No, not really I guess.

Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.

Spoletta wrote:
It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.

Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?

Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.

My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!

Pro-tip: when trying to be clever on the internet, it helps if you actually respond to what was said instead of spinning off into strawmanland.

Pro-tip: When looking for an excuse to cry "strawman, strawman!" You should probably distinguish between when the flaws of an attitude are pointed out rather than the flaws of an argument.

What Peregrine says is probably true in regards to the unneeded nature of the nerf itself, but his attitude is just poor and ignores the overall picture.

**Auswin**

Crimson wrote:
Removing rending from sniper rifles makes perfect sense; they retained the relevant part of it but should not be able to penetrate tanks. However, removing pinning is questionable, and seems like unnecessary nerf.

This, I totally get. Removing pinning doesn't make sense.

I suppose ultimately I just feel like sometimes (and GW certainly is guilty of this) too many players look at everything from an imperium-centric point of view.

Like, yes your 60pt scout squad took a hit -- but my 45 pt base Kabalite Warrior squad would kill for better leadership, S4/T4, a 36" weapon that can be AP2 on a 6 and 4+ armor.

**Sir Arun**

It's an insult to the hard working fast food workers to be compared to the like of GW designers

**Swastakowey**

Sir Arun wrote:
It's an insult to the hard working fast food workers to be compared to the like of GW designers

Haha thats pretty funny.

**Kelly502**

Has anyone played through a battle or two yet? If so how did it go?

**no_to_co**

Mymearan wrote:
Does anyone Else have problems downloading the iBook? I can't click the little download icon...

Argh! Where is the iPad version? Still says pre-order.

**Davor**

no_to_co wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
Does anyone Else have problems downloading the iBook? I can't click the little download icon...

Argh! Where is the iPad version? Still says pre-order.

Pre-order for me as well. Is it time zone related? So after midnight you have to wait?

**adamsouza**

no_to_co wrote:
Argh! Where is the iPad version? Still says pre-order.

You will have to wait.

It was important for the PDF version to available so it could be leaked worldwide and convince people it's worth seperating them from their $85 to get the hardcopy.

---------

One question for those who have a copy in hand, what size is the book ?

I don't recall what put the idea in my head, but I'm worried I'll be dropping $85 for 3 little journal sized books

**shade1313**

buddha wrote:
Some odd things in the rulebook I noticed.

- No fortifications are listed that I could see (might be an idiot). Currently no way to take something like an aegis defense line.

- I.

I seem to recall a line talking about fortifications being in Stronghold Assault, and to consult that book.

**buddha**

shade1313 wrote:
buddha wrote:
Some odd things in the rulebook I noticed.

- No fortifications are listed that I could see (might be an idiot). Currently no way to take something like an aegis defense line.

- I.

I seem to recall a line talking about fortifications being in Stronghold Assault, and to consult that book.

It does. I'm just surprised it didn't have the standard fortifications as listed in the 6th BRB in it. Without the stronghold assault book, no way to take fortifications currently. Kinda a douche move actually.