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.

They are keeping the current starter, and changing the mini rulebook to 7th


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
Is stronghold assault a book that currently exists, or is it something they plan on selling us down the line ?

It exists. Has done for a while now.

 Ascalam wrote:
They are keeping the current starter, and changing the mini rulebook to 7th


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
Is stronghold assault a book that currently exists, or is it something they plan on selling us down the line ?

It exists. Has done for a while now.

wow that sucks, ok off to download the rulebook

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
First, you can drop the aggression. I'm not being pugilistic and I'm not trying to convert you to the game. I don't know you and if you decide to play Star Wars, 40k, Warmahordes, etc etc. it has no effect on me or on my life...and there is no reason to spam emoticons. So, no, I'm not badgering you about playing. You seem very disinterested in the game--so that would be the last person I would want to play against.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been badgered, harrassed and generally chewed out for not wanting to get into Warmachine. I feel I gave it a fair shake (I mean I actually own the rulebook and bought a starter set so it's not like I just read some stuff online and decided to hate the game). I've just run into too many unagreeable fans who can't understand that sometimes people don't like the things they like and won't drop it. That was quite honestly not aggression, that was me going out of my way to eliminate any possibility I could be talked into the game before I had to go down that road. AGAIN. I've been there, got the t-shirt and don't want to go back.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
The reason I ask--is that I've seen that repeated a few times and it's nonsensical to me. Half of "Page 5" is dedicated to winning graciously, losing graciously and not diminishing another player because you beat him at toy soldiers. In fact, to paraphrase as I don't have the page in front of me, I believe it states "..we all come here out of a common need to play/have fun so give respect to each other". That's pretty much the best gaming attitude I can imagine. So, if I see that (what I believe) misrepresented--I usually ask what about Page 5 upsets someone--as it's usually the mythology of Page 5 more than the actual content.

Even if you want to call it tounge in cheek frankly there is just stuff I don't like about the tone of the way page 5 is. From accusing people who've ever said something was too powerful of being "wussies" to refering to people as "ruthless bastards" and "cold-hearted killers" doesn't sell me on the community. Even in jest it sounds like they're saying the game only attracts the most emotionally screwed up and sociopathic of players. That doesn't sell me on the game, that tells me I should have the cops on speed-dial with someone breaks out a Warmachine army because they're unhinged and might hurt someone.

3,4 and 5 aren't bad, they're actually good points but the whole thing being topped off with "Play like you've got a pair" just whiplashes it back to the same adolescent, testosterone laiden tone that just doesn't sell me on the game. I don't want a game that tells me that I should be mentally ripping someone limb from limb, regardless of the tone. It just doesn't sell me on the game and is just one of a number of things that just kept me from really getting into the game.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
How this relates to 40k (and the new rule set) is that with what we've seen leaked so far--we can see two different companies having two, very real, differences on game design. One is "Have a pint, you can make it fair" the other is "We'll make everything fair, anything goes because of that". I used to be a believer in the "Just make it fair"..until I realized there was so much grey in "fair" that I felt like I was doing the job of game design just to play a game. It appears this rule set is more of the same. Anyways...

40k's approach has been like that for literally decades now. They don't sell an "aggressive" game. They sell one where the "Spirit of the Game" says that you should try and make the game enjoyable for yourself and your opponent. Now, could it use a much better ruleset to go with that? Sure. But the more laid back and less aggressive style GW has isn't a bad one. The style is fine, the substance needs more work.

Well I think all the 7th edition bits and bobs have been found. Now its down to people studying the codices to find out anything more.

The ever changing game of 40k is yet again, changing.

I don't think you guys are entirely at odds here... you acknowledge the problem as one, it's just the reaction that is different. Put up with the crap for the good moments, or good moments ruined by too much putting up with crap. Frankly personally I don't see a problem with either perspective so long as it is your perspective and not something you use to judge others and cause even more conflict.

For the record, I have no interest in playing WarMahordes. Heard it's a good system, but I just don't like the aesthetics which is a big part of it for me. So, there is generally the same spectrum of preference among the Mods as there is in the rest of the users...

Anyways, this thread is getting a bit nuts. Everyone needs to calm down, right away or the party will be over. The release of a new edition is guaranteed to bring out the most entrenched people in both camps, and you are most definitely going to face all the 'greatest hits' comments from both white knights and haters. Repeatedly. If you can't live with that, you probably shouldn't be reading this thread anymore lol. Yes I know it sucks that some people are so black and white, but it doesn't change that they exist and however unproductive it may be, everyone has a right to their opinions... all you have to do is be polite about it. So, please, let's get back to addressing arguments and not he quality or intent of the person posting them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Not sure why people say it doesnt have rules for ADL?

It has rules for "Defense line" and "Gun emplacement"

Which is pretty much the rules for ADL now

It doesn't have the rules for taking one in your army though.

True, but it has what it is, just not points. Not sure why it wasnt added in the terrain in the back of the book

To sell you more rule books/data slates!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashikenshin wrote:

 Ascalam wrote:
They are keeping the current starter, and changing the mini rulebook to 7th


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
Is stronghold assault a book that currently exists, or is it something they plan on selling us down the line ?

It exists. Has done for a while now.

wow that sucks, ok off to download the rulebook

SEE!

Darkwynn wrote:
Anyone else feel ripped off?

Nope - not at all. Didn't buy into it, so nothing lost.

Lots to sell though!

 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?

Because they went from getting a 10-12 from a 6 to pen to getting a 10 from a 6 to pen. It's a clear and unnecessary nerf, and only someone as unbelievably stupid as GW's rule authors could think that it's a good idea.

Also, the fact that sniper rifles were already bad against vehicles is kind of the point. They were garbage already and nobody used them, so making them even worse makes no sense at all.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
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

I'll stop ignoring the prospect of GW doing anything right when they start to show some hint that they're capable of doing something right other than through blind luck. So far GW haven't demonstrated that they're any better at writing rules than the average 5 year old smearing paint all over a sheet of paper.

 Peregrine wrote:


Because they went from getting a 10-12 from a 6 to pen to getting a 10 from a 6 to pen. It's a clear and unnecessary nerf, and only someone as unbelievably stupid as GW's rule authors could think that it's a good idea.

I suppose I see it making perfect sense. Penning vehicles with snipers was obviously an unintended side effect of giving them rending, even if as you said "nobody took them."

Sometimes a "nerf" is there to remove an unintended consequence, like say a 60pt unit having a semi-reliable way to explode xenos transports.

Then there's a separate discussion to be had whether finding edge cases being closed that barely anyone used anyway is an actual "nerf." Personally I don't think it is. The way I use the term is seeing a demonstrable reduction in effectiveness to something that was previously widely used. Otherwise it feels like getting upset for the sake of being upset.

I asked this previously in the but about Daemons automatically getting their Chosen Gods Primaris, if that's true and they pick another disclipine they can never get Focus, but that would mean they could never take the Primaris power unless the rule for replacing a roll with the Primaris power is still in place. Is this correct?

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

Because they went from getting a 10-12 from a 6 to pen to getting a 10 from a 6 to pen. It's a clear and unnecessary nerf, and only someone as unbelievably stupid as GW's rule authors could think that it's a good idea.

Also, the fact that sniper rifles were already bad against vehicles is kind of the point. They were garbage already and nobody used them, so making them even worse makes no sense at all.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
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

I'll stop ignoring the prospect of GW doing anything right when they start to show some hint that they're capable of doing something right other than through blind luck. So far GW haven't demonstrated that they're any better at writing rules than the average 5 year old smearing paint all over a sheet of paper.

Why should a Sniper Rifle be able to damage a vehicle? They are antipersonnel weapons primarily, and can damage/disable light vehicles. Nerfing Sniper Rifles against vehicles is actually a really good idea. The problem is they didn't help it at it's primary job of taking out weapons specialists and the enemies leadership.

I can see a sniper rifle being used to, say, kill the pilot or a gunner through a window or port hole. Penetrating the armor, like rolling a 1 for an armor save, doesn't necessarily mean punching through the armor but rather hitting somewhere the armor isn't protecting.

But more importantly, the problem isn't so much they're worse at anti-tank, but that they made a weak weapon weaker and gave nothing to compensate for it.

Why did sniper rifles need something to compensate for the change to rending? It's already an amazing weapon as is.

Given it's a free upgrade to an already cheap squad it's already able wound MC in a way few free weapons can, it has 36" range which is well above average, it can precise shot and becomes AP2 on 16% of wounds.

The sniper rifle is only "weak" when you've become conditioned to the reliability of S4 AP4 rapid fire bolters.

Edit: I should say that maybe my mileage using and facing snipers is different to others. I run 10 man scout squads with snipers and have faced them, it always seems my scout squads earn their points back -- sometimes more.

 Auswin wrote:
Penning vehicles with snipers was obviously an unintended side effect of giving them rending, even if as you said "nobody took them."

No it wasn't, because the description of sniper rifles even talked about how rending represents hitting vulnerable parts of the target (fuel tanks, sensors, etc) and rules-wise the only reason to have sniper rifles count as STR 3 against vehicles (instead of just STR 1 or whatever) is a deliberate choice to give them a small chance of damaging a vehicle.

Sometimes a "nerf" is there to remove an unintended consequence, like say a 60pt unit having a semi-reliable way to explode xenos transports.

You have a strange definition of "semi-reliable" if that counts.

Then there's a separate discussion to be had whether finding edge cases being closed that barely anyone used anyway is an actual "nerf."

Except, as explained above, it isn't an accidental edge case. And the only reason sniper rifles aren't widely used is that they're too weak. Only a absolute idiot like GW's rule authors would look at a rarely-used weapon and think "what this really needs is to be even weaker".

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Why should a Sniper Rifle be able to damage a vehicle?

Because putting a bullet into the lens on the targeting system for the main gun on a tank (a "weapon destroyed" result from a penetrating hit) doesn't care about the vehicle's armor. Rending represents that kind of unlikely hit to a weak spot on the tank. You won't do it consistently (either fluff-wise or in the game), but it can happen.

Meh, it is what it is. We wont convince each other on this one.

You seem very attached to the "GW rules writers are idiots" narrative and appear to view everything through that lens.

I tend to think that some of the stuff is flawed and they don't play test enough to iron out the kinks, but most of the stuff is totally serviceable and fine except for some weird outliers.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I can see a sniper rifle being used to, say, kill the pilot or a gunner through a window or port hole. Penetrating the armor, like rolling a 1 for an armor save, doesn't necessarily mean punching through the armor but rather hitting somewhere the armor isn't protecting.

But more importantly, the problem isn't so much they're worse at anti-tank, but that they made a weak weapon weaker and gave nothing to compensate for it.

Games Workshop's 5th Edition Rulebook wrote:Against vehicles, sniper weapons count as Strength 3, which, combined with the rending rule, represents their chances of successfully hitting exposed crew, vision ports, fuel or ammo storage, etc.

Snipers vs. Vehicles was not and has never been an "unintended consequence" as some posters are suggesting. They've just decided to weaken them for no reason.

Honestly, I don't care because my main army (GK) doesn't have them. However I will disagree with anyone who claims that this is anything other than an unnecessary nerf.

 Auswin wrote:
It's already an amazing weapon as is.

No, it really isn't. It's a terrible weapon that only sees occasional use when you don't want to invest the points required to get a melta or plasma gun (or the unit can't take real weapons instead).

I run 10 man scout squads with snipers and have faced them, it always seems my scout squads earn their points back -- sometimes more.

Only because they're dirt cheap objective campers (in an army that otherwise doesn't have any cheap bodies) where any kills they inflict are a nice bonus. If you look at sniper rifles on any other unit they're a garbage weapon that nobody takes. The fact that sniper scouts are a way to make your objective campers contribute a bit of shooting shouldn't be used to justify nerfing an already weak option for every other unit that can take it.

Like I said earlier, funny things happen when "unnecessary" equates to "it doesn't affect MY army."

Lose a unit of blasterborn and a venom to an explosion result from a sniper rend, then see the rest of the unit run off the table and suddenly that cheap unit that "nobody uses" tripled its value out of the gate.

Whatever fluffy justification they had for hitting weak points had major implications to some xenos armies with low AV transports, especially when paired with infiltrate.

 Auswin wrote:
You seem very attached to the "GW rules writers are idiots" narrative and appear to view everything through that lens.

That's because GW's rule authors are idiots. They consistently make stupid changes that pretty much everyone else can immediately recognize as a bad idea, and they don't seem to even understand that they have a problem. The only other explanation is that they just don't give a about the quality of their work and throw something together in 15 minutes before the deadline so they can get back to watching porn and playing WoW.

but most of the stuff is totally serviceable and fine except for some weird outliers.

Only if you have low standards. "It is possible to play the game" shouldn't be sufficient to consider a game designer a competent professional. Judged by more demanding standards GW's rules fall laughably short.

I know it has been posted that wounds from challenges roll over to the unit, but more importantly in my mind, it works vice versa, once every other model is destroyed, the units wounds will apply to the challenge. No more having a challenged Nob making a whole unit of Boyz sitting around waiting for the combat to stop

Has anyone answered what upgrades summoned daemons like the bloodthirster can take? e.g. daemonic rewards, instruments and banners for plaguebearers? Im referring to the malefic rules that allow bringing in daemons

I think my standards are fine, really. More that I recognize the well worn trope of "I know better than those idiots" which seeps its way into everything people invest time into.

"My favorite TV show had a crap ending, I could have written better."

"The ending to video game "X" was trash... I could have done better."

"Book three in (insert series) was terrible does (insert writer) even know what they're doing anymore?"

It comes from a good place because it's being passionate about something you care about, but the resulted arrogance tends to be the same too.

Leerjawise wrote:
I know it has been posted that wounds from challenges roll over to the unit, but more importantly in my mind, it works vice versa, once every other model is destroyed, the units wounds will apply to the challenge. No more having a challenged Nob making a whole unit of Boyz sitting around waiting for the combat to stop

It only goes one way. They clearly state that models not in a challenge cannot allocate wounds into a challenge.

not to inject some reality into our plastic doodsmen discussion, but modern sniper rifles have gone waaaaay past being mainly for anti-personnel. the NTW-20 is a 20mm sniper rifle developed (primarily) by south africa and is used to blow up aircraft on the ground, fuel trucks, and light armored vehicles in addition to vaporizing regular guys. this thing came out in the early 90's, and there are larger weapons today.

so, no. it's not unrealistic/unexpected for an in-game sniper rifle to be able to damage the same kind of targets in the 41st millennium, but GW does what GW wants to do. they're like the honey badger of the wargaming world.

Hollismason wrote:
I asked this previously in the but about Daemons automatically getting their Chosen Gods Primaris, if that's true and they pick another disclipine they can never get Focus, but that would mean they could never take the Primaris power unless the rule for replacing a roll with the Primaris power is still in place. Is this correct?

It seems like it. I mean, because of how Chaos (well at least the Marines, I'd need to look at Daemons more closely to answer definitely) manifests powers they can't specialize in one school so they get a free Primaris to match their God. That is unless the free Primaris counts as generating a power from their respective tables allowing them to still specialize.

In short: I don't know but I'd play it by the least advantageous interpretation until we get it FAQ'd........in 2026.

 gigasnail wrote:
but GW does what GW wants to do. they're like the honey badger of the wargaming world.

Or as we say around here... "they're the heldrake of the wargaming world"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I asked this previously in the but about Daemons automatically getting their Chosen Gods Primaris, if that's true and they pick another disclipine they can never get Focus, but that would mean they could never take the Primaris power unless the rule for replacing a roll with the Primaris power is still in place. Is this correct?

It seems like it. I mean, because of how Chaos (well at least the Marines, I'd need to look at Daemons more closely to answer definitely) manifests powers they can't specialize in one school so they get a free Primaris to match their God. That is unless the free Primaris counts as generating a power from their respective tables allowing them to still specialize.

In short: I don't know but I'd play it by the least advantageous interpretation until we get it FAQ'd........in 2026.

So the option to replace a power with the primaris is still in? (I won't get my book until monday).

 Lobukia wrote:


So the option to replace a power with the primaris is still in? (I won't get my book until monday).

Yea, page 23, 2nd column, first sentence of the first paragraph.

 Auswin wrote:
Lose a unit of blasterborn and a venom to an explosion result from a sniper rend, then see the rest of the unit run off the table and suddenly that cheap unit that "nobody uses" tripled its value out of the gate.

Yes, and you know what also does that? Pretty much anything with any kind of heavy weapon. You're looking at an unlikely outcome (assuming no cover that's a 2% chance per sniper rifle shot, so your 60 point scout squad has only a 9% chance of doing it under ideal circumstances) and acting like it's an average outcome. And you're also assuming that destroying the transport also means destroying the unit, which reduces the odds of it happening even more.

Whatever fluffy justification they had for hitting weak points had major implications to some xenos armies with low AV transports, especially when paired with infiltrate.

So what? Autocannons have major implications to some xenos armies, should we nerf them as well? Should we nerf pulse rifles to only count as STR 1 against vehicles because otherwise Tau can kill vehicles? After all, a 60-point squad of fire warriors is even better at killing AV 10 than a 60-point squad of sniper scouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Auswin wrote:
It comes from a good place because it's being passionate about something you care about, but the resulted arrogance tends to be the same too.

Except in this case it isn't arrogance because GW really is that incompetent. It's more like going to your local restaurant and getting a plate of moldy food with shards of broken glass in it and thinking "you know, I could probably cook something better for myself".

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:


So the option to replace a power with the primaris is still in? (I won't get my book until monday).

Yea, page 23, 2nd column, first sentence of the first paragraph.

Thank you good sir, my chaos casters were getting a little nervous

 Lobukia wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:


So the option to replace a power with the primaris is still in? (I won't get my book until monday).

Yea, page 23, 2nd column, first sentence of the first paragraph.

Thank you good sir, my chaos casters were getting a little nervous

The thing is though, if you generate all your powers from the same tree to get FOcus, you're stuck with your rolls