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.

Question: i heard a rumor that if your opponent dispels a power no other caster in your army can cast it. is that true?

example: I have 3 PrimarisPsykers MSLV2 each with Prescience, My opponent dispels the first attempt now my 2-3 Primaris may not even attempt it.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Question: i heard a rumor that if your opponent dispels a power no other caster in your army can cast it. is that true?

example: I have 3 PrimarisPsykers MSLV2 each with Prescience, My opponent dispels the first attempt now my 2-3 Primaris may not even attempt it.

I don't know what Primaris Psykers are so I'll attempt to cover all bases.

From reading the BRB, if the power is nullified, that particular character is unable to try again to cast that spell that psychic phase.
If the psyker is part of a multiple-psyker unit (such as brotherhood of psykers/sorcerers) then none of the members of that particular group may use the power again that phase.
If you have separate units/models and one is denied, that doesn't stop the other one casting it if they also have the power.

- Terrain rules have changed, in that they've removed the whole terrain density deployment process. The book basically says to set the board up in such a way that both players are happy with it (good luck with that). In addition, you now deploy fortifications with your army, not when you put terrain on the board, meaning that you can deploy your ADL without having the opponent plop an obstacle right in front of it. (i felt the old rules were fine and more tourney friendly, but as always GW wants to give tournaments the finger)

I don't think you went far enough with this explanation. Area terrain is gone. Poof. No more. With the exception of Craters, ruins, and rubble, (which each grant a specific save for just being in it) this are no generic "Area Terrain" rules anymore. So, my old forests and such that we'd designate as area terrain will only grant cover saves if the model is 25% obscured.

This change is HUGE for my gaming group, and for tournaments I've played in.

 kronk wrote:

- Terrain rules have changed, in that they've removed the whole terrain density deployment process. The book basically says to set the board up in such a way that both players are happy with it (good luck with that). In addition, you now deploy fortifications with your army, not when you put terrain on the board, meaning that you can deploy your ADL without having the opponent plop an obstacle right in front of it. (i felt the old rules were fine and more tourney friendly, but as always GW wants to give tournaments the finger)

I don't think you went far enough with this explanation. Area terrain is gone. Poof. No more. With the exception of Craters, ruins, and rubble, (which each grant a specific save for just being in it) this are no generic "Area Terrain" rules anymore. So, my old forests and such that we'd designate as area terrain will only grant cover saves if the model is 25% obscured.

This change is HUGE for my gaming group, and for tournaments I've played in.

Thanks. Have added your point to the list.

The rules for mysterious forests are still there though, arent they? No idea why GW omitted the one-liner of having all types of forest confer a 5+ cover save.

 Wulfmar wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Question: i heard a rumor that if your opponent dispels a power no other caster in your army can cast it. is that true?

example: I have 3 PrimarisPsykers MSLV2 each with Prescience, My opponent dispels the first attempt now my 2-3 Primaris may not even attempt it.

I don't know what Primaris Psykers are so I'll attempt to cover all bases.

From reading the BRB, if the power is nullified, that particular character is unable to try again to cast that spell that psychic phase.
If the psyker is part of a multiple-psyker unit (such as brotherhood of psykers/sorcerers) then none of the members of that particular group may use the power again that phase.
If you have separate units/models and one is denied, that doesn't stop the other one casting it if they also have the power.

Thanks...

Primaris Psykers may have a new name in the new Imperial Guard codex (AM)

 Sir Arun wrote:


- you can now pop a transport and then charge its occupants, all with the same unit. So a multimelta dreads/hellbrutes just got a whole lot better.

Been able to do that since 5th. What's new is that you can now charge the disembarked unit with ANY unit that shot at the transport instead of just the one that destroyed the transport.

- The Psychic Phase. Okay so the good thing is, Leadership isnt an issue anymore (I always found it weird that leadership determined a psyker's ability to cast spells), but on the other hand having all spells going off on a set value (4+ per warp charge) is mundane. Basically, you get a pool of dice (D6+number of mastery levels of all psykers in your army) at the start of the game (instead of at the start of every turn - again, this would have been far more fun) and manifest powers by rolling any number of dice you want from the pool (no risk, no fun, right?), and if enough dice come up 4 or higher to equal or exceed the warp charge cost of the test you're taking, it goes off.

Ummm, it is at the beginning of each psychic phase, so each player turn...

- Malefic daemonology (SCREW you gw, seriously screw you. Having a 2000 point chaos daemon army and being able to summon 2000 more points into the battlefield is where the fun ends. having eldar farseers summon daemonettes and SM libbys summon bloodthirsters is also utter fluffrape. I have no words to describe how much of a nerdrage I am having right now)

Yep, complete agreement.

 Sir Arun wrote:



- Flying Monstrous Creatures can no longer assault on the turn they change flight modes (this is a fair balance, because in 6th ed, apart from the grounding thing, there really was little reason for you to field a footslogging Tyrant when you could field a flying one. 90% of Nid players had a Flyrant as HQ. We need more variety)

Here you are wrong, with this change stuff like Reaper Flyrants are dead, and no one is going to take a footslogging Tyrant, a Dakka Flyrants is way superior. This, along the change to Smash, has reduced variety even more for the nids.

Had a chance to read the 7th Ed rules to see if it would bring me back to 40k as I've stopped playing since X-Wing came out. The result? Nope, not gonna happen. Guess it's time to liquidate all of my 40k stuff and leave the game permanently.

For the most part I'm happy with this edition.

There are certainly a few things that I'm coming to terms with like "scoring buildings". I'm not entirely sure why a building should score but a flying monstrous creature can't.

Seems to me that either a flying MC should score or buildings shouldn't.

Agree with almost everything except denying powers that dont target you. That NEEDED to be in the game to mitigate the stupid 2++ save bs. At least you might be able to deny powers that create the 2++ now. The barrage change that you can only target the top level is kind of nice to me. I hated it that a single piece of plastic or clay roofing could stop a basilisk shell. We have bunker buster rounds right now and DKoK have been specifically mentioned in fluff as using them, so finally we get them in game. The lack of differentiating which level is the problem.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Question: i heard a rumor that if your opponent dispels a power no other caster in your army can cast it. is that true?
example: I have 3 PrimarisPsykers MSLV2 each with Prescience, My opponent dispels the first attempt now my 2-3 Primaris may not even attempt it.

Now that Prescience is ML 2, and you probably need 4 dice to cast it successfully, you 3 Primaris Psykers can probably only attempt it 1-2 times a turn anyway, so that rule about the dispell not being allowed to manifest another power from the unit probably isnt the biggest concern.

An interesting Witchfire change. It looks like Beams no longer lose a point of Strength for every model they hit.
A nice buff for Doombolt for CSM.

You know, it's almost like they are going back to 2nd edition type stuff. More random charts, a psychic phase, loose force organization chart.

I'm wondering when codex's roll out if the heroes will be more powerful?

 zephoid wrote:
Agree with almost everything except denying powers that dont target you. That NEEDED to be in the game to mitigate the stupid 2++ save bs.

You need to roll 6 dice for every 1 of his succeses, say invisibility that would be 12 dice to have a 50-50 chance of dispelling it. Might as well no be there really.

Yeah but you get to use your full warp pool to deny it, so you could just throw 30 dice at a power each turn and negate at least one of them.

Prior to 7th edition, you had zero chance of negating anything. Even a 50/50 chance is infinitely better than a 0% chance.

Kyutaru wrote:
Yeah but you get to use your full warp pool to deny it, so you could just throw 30 dice at a power each turn and negate at least one of them.

Prior to 7th edition, you had zero chance of negating anything. Even a 50/50 chance is infinitely better than a 0% chance.

Who says you are going to have 30 dice, at 1500 thats a lot psi. Demons/gk might pull it off, but not the rest, hence the whole issue.

So this is a review? Just read without actually playing games?

Isn't this what most people complain about GW doing not play testing their game, but yet people can review stuff without actually playing the game?

How do you review a video game? By playing it. So why are people not playing the games before doing a review? I find it funny people will complain about what GW does and then they just do the same thing.

Sir Arun wrote:- you can now pop a transport and then charge its occupants, all with the same unit. So a multimelta dreads/hellbrutes just got a whole lot better.

This was true before.

Sir Arun wrote:The good

I generally agree. Especially about the stupid FMC rules.

Sir Arun wrote: Enjoy your colossal Master of the Fleet nerf, AM players.

That only applies to people who were reading the rule against the blatant RAI in the first place. If you weren't reading for advantage, then nothing has changed.

Sir Arun wrote: Every unit is scoring, with the exception of anything that is flying - dropping down to gliding/hovering makes them scoring again, however. (okay what the hell. ever since 5th edition troops have gotten some form of importance and worthiness. people just used to min/max beforehand to get a legal FoC and then spam their favorite FoC slots. Nobody bothered with troops before 5th. Now again, nobody will.)

I'm not quite that pessimistic, myself. In 4th ed, troops were irrelevant because of missions. The missions they have now still make troops useful. That FoC slot still gives you the most bodies for the cheapest price, which is still useful even in a world of everybody scoring.

Sir Arun wrote:You can ally with Come the Apocalypse now, just have to deploy more than 12" apart.

Allies were a joke to begin with. Now they're just a little less pretentious about it. Just don't play with people who engage in blatant ally abuse if it bothers you that much. Now, it will just be easier to identify.

Sir Arun wrote:- Being able to deny the witch on powers that arent targeting you.

I actually kind of like this. It was more than annoying that my "I kill you" spells could be magically stopped, but prescience, which, let's be honest, wasn't much different than a witchfire ability, could be cast as often as you wanted without anything I could do about it.

Of course, they could have also handled this by getting rid of deny the witch altogether. In any case, I'm glad this was cleaned up.

Sir Arun wrote:- Imperium best bro alliance.

I'll refer to the earlier comment about allies.

Also, the old sometimes some marines like others and sometimes others don't was stupid. Especially if you were GK, who couldn't ally with guardsmen any better than they could with necron. In a way, what the new ally chart does best is purge some of Mat Ward's retconning from the game.

My only real annoyance is that they made it harder to run traitor guard. That would be pretty house-ruleable.

Sir Arun wrote: Vehicle damage table having explodes only on a 7+ (*sigh* great. this will only convince people to go even more down the line of glancing vehicles to death using multi-shot mid-strength weapons than taking single shot high strength weapons. It also is another nail in the coffin for Railsides in the Rail vs. HYMP debate and for Vanquishers in the Pask Punisher debate)

Once again, I think you're missing the forest through the trees.

Having vehicle and monstrous creature rules become more similar to each other is a good thing. This goes in that direction while still giving a nod to real anti-tank weapons. This strikes a pretty good balance, actually.

The only thing they need to do now is to come up with some way to handle the discrepancy between the fact that a riptide gets a 2+ armor save and a leman russ gets nothing.

Sir Arun wrote:the restriction that barrage weapons can only target top levels of buildings is gone

- the restriction that a blast or template weapon can only target one level is also gone.

- the two rules above combined now allows you to place your marker always on the topmost level for maximum carnage, as long as you can reach it with the range of your weapon

A much, much needed fix.

Ruins were way, WAY too strong last edition (and, let's be honest, 5th ed as well), and blast and template weapons were made much to weak as a result. This does a nice job of fixing both problems with a few small changes.

Because before, when you fired your deathstrike missile at a ruin, and everyone on the lower level was absolutely a-okay fine? Glad to see that go.

Sir Arun wrote: Every vehicle is scoring.

Jink is no longer a flat 5+ save for moving, it now works exactly how evasion works for fliers (even when you are stationary!). If you choose Jink, you get a flat 4+ cover save

This would be my only real complaint.

Mech gunlines have dominated 40k for far too long, and they just now decided to make mech gunlines even better, especially by giving a boost to skimmers. The snap-fire restriction is a fake nerf - it won't influence much - while that 4+ cover with ways of making it 3+ cover in some cases is smacking of regressing towards 4th ed's SMF.

And, of course, they did nothing at all to help the traditional ways of handling mech gunlines, like fixing assault...

Here's my two cents:
Competive, balanced 40k has never, ever existed. I have only been playing since 5th, but I also have heard stories of rhino-Spam being unbeatable, 10-man Wolf Guard squads all with Assault Cannons and CMLs, herohammer, etc.
In 5th, I played through unstoppable Tyranids, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Biker Nobs, and others I can't recall.
In 6th, we started off with unbeatable Helldrakes and Necron Crescents. Then we had White Scars and Taudar.

There has NEVER been balanced 40k, and so I look at these rules only for their non-competetive potential. And that seems to be around in spades.
Homebrew SM chapters are super easy now, since you can pick and choose the units you like from every SM codex. Genestealer Cults are possible. Dogs and cats lying together. They're starting to reward players for avoiding spam and taking organized armies. There are just so many options that you can have all kinds of fun with a little creativity.
Is it balanced? No. Never has been, never will be.
Does it have huge potential for non-competetive play? Yes.
Is it better than any other editions? Too early to tell.

Let's see how 7th is in a few months...

Edit - Nm

Sir Arun wrote:


The Good:

Let's take a look at the good things first, shall we? And there a quite a few tidbits that I appreciate.

- No more Taudar. (this is awesome. Two top tier armies combining and abusing each other to dominate 6th's meta have finally been dealt with. And by dealt with, I do not mean nerfed into oblivion - both Tau and Eldar are still top tier armies with solid codexes that have almost no useless units at all. They will continue to perform well, just not so well as to leave everyone else raging)

- No more Marinetau. (while not as obvious as the Taudar alliance, marinetau also had many exploits such as a buffmander allowing a gravstar to re-roll all failed hits and grant them ignores cover while tanking wounds, or an Honor Guard providing Tau with some much needed elite close combat power. And you just couldnt go wrong putting Divination Tiggy in the middle of a Firewariror gunline that is "enhanced" by an Ethereal. Fluffwise Space Marines and Tau also would be allies of convenience, at best, but I am glad GW has stayed true to the grimdark lore and made them desperate allies now. Suffer not the xenos to live!)

I know that it is tough to find the good, but really?

How can you call the blatant cash grad of a new edition just to fix the problem they created by not following any form of game design metric.
GW could have just as easily faq'ed a fix to the tau-dar/ultratau problem....but they didn't.

So far 7th ed seems to be the 40k equivalent of 8th ed fantasy that many of predicted it to be. And we all know that 8th ed has been attributed as the reason for WFB's collapse.

[quote=Ailaros 596657 6873518 fe521ef049cf08dfe48f5a43cc4f107d.jpg

And, of course, they did nothing at all to help the traditional ways of handling mech gunlines, like fixing assault...

OK, I just finished reading the rulebook, and I have a conclussion: I deeply dislike this edition. I will try it a little more but the first impression is a really bad one.

Reasons: eight of them. The most important ones are 1, 2 and 3.
1. Background. The one-page change: the Empire is good!


2. Background. Blatant copy paste.


3. Background. Time of Ending. Changes in the timeline.


4, 5, 6 & 7: The Game. These are preliminary thoughts, so I expect to be proven wrong in some of them


8: Advertising.
As others have said, the Rulebook is full of it. Books from Black Library, recent releases.... There is a place for this.


Conclussion:
- The background is 95% the same (word by fething word and drawing by fething drawing) and the 5% changed reeks of Ward unleashed and pooping all over the background. Perhaps it is not him, but then we have a copycat.
- The game is 90% the same, with a few changes I am not sure about. Some of them, (in a first view, and in my opinion) seem rather awful. I need to play more games though.

Good things:
1: Some rules have been reworded and actually make sense now. I get the impression the book is better written now.
2: I like how here and there the writers talk about narrative and house-ruling. Some effort has been done to reduce frictions between the players.

So the Imperium and SM are not Nazis anymore? You mean we can't compare the Emperor as worse than Hitler, Stalin and everyone else combined now?

There is a point where we are told that the Imperium is 'cruel and bloody' (not 'the cruellest and most bloody' regime ever). But this is necessary to fight evil.

It reeks of heroism everywhere.

This has been a progressive change in the setting, so it is more like another step.

The final part of the Timeline is almost unreadable: victory after victory of the brave heroes of mankind. Many of the 'dark' entries are gone, or reduced to a single line. And many more added. There are SPACE MARINES everywhere in the new entries. And they always win.

 da001 wrote:
There is a point where we are told that the Imperium is 'cruel and bloody' (not 'the cruellest and most bloody' regime ever). But this is necessary to fight evil.

It reeks of heroism everywhere.

This has been a progressive change in the setting, so it is more like another step.

The final part of the Timeline is almost unreadable: victory after victory of the brave heroes of mankind. Many of the 'dark' entries are gone, or reduced to a single line. And many more added. There are SPACE MARINES everywhere in the new entries. And they always win.

Just when I thought 7th couldn't sound any less appealing than it already did, I find out about changes to the fluff.

I am staggered by how GW seems to actively despise what I like.

so when there's no change to the fluff, people complain about everything stagnating.

and when there is change to the fluff, people complain it is ruining the setting.

personally, I like the imperium driving back the evil instead of collapsing in on itself, so take that, heretics!

however, I do find the lack of Goge Vandire in the fluff appaling.

 Sir Arun wrote:
so when there's no change to the fluff, people complain about everything stagnating.

and when there is change to the fluff, people complain it is ruining the setting.

personally, I like the imperium driving back the evil instead of collapsing in on itself, so take that, heretics!

however, I do find the lack of Goge Vandire in the fluff appaling.

Sorry, I'm here to play Grimdark Battles in the Far Future, not Captain Space Marine, universal police.

Just... I'm actually out of words for this. GW hates us. It's official.

Games-Workshop modern fluff - about as entertaining as herpes