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.

Kyutaru wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

We are still referring to the same rulebook, right? Forget playing the game, have you guys even read the book yet?

"Unless otherwise noted, all Psykers, other than those belonging in the Tyranids Faction (p.118) can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline"

"Psykers with the Daemon special rule can manifest Malefic powers as they would any other psychic power, but they cannot generate Sanctic powers at all.
All other Psykers that attempt to manifest Malefic powers suffer Perils of the Warp (p.25) on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not."

Nothing forbids a Herald from taking the Daemonology powers so they fall into the category demanded by this new discipline that "everyone" gets to use it.

Except Tyranids because feth those guys.

Could you imagine Tervigons and Mono-Tzeentch allies? ALL THE FREE UNITS!

The gobbeling is the natural result of competetiong, and players moving to games that fit their own tastes better. one game cannot fit everyone.

And the fact you can "meet up the president of PP" is also because they are currently relatively small, and the most important thing for him TO do, is good public relations, rather then managing a huge cooperation.

Its all quite simple and natural.

 TheKbob wrote:

Could you imagine Tervigons and Mono-Tzeentch allies? ALL THE FREE UNITS!

Nothing stops you from being able to do that!

But I don't want to give up my Thousand Sons... I love their laser guns too much.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The gobbeling is the natural result of competetiong, and players moving to games that fit their own tastes better. one game cannot fit everyone.

And the fact you can "meet up the president of PP" is also because they are currently relatively small, and the most important thing for him TO do, is good public relations, rather then managing a huge cooperation.

Its all quite simple and natural.

Outside of whatever you're meandering about, a balanced game is better for all players. Only Games Workshop games have a distinct fissure between a competitive and non-competitive mindset because everything is so busted.

Any other wargame does not have this fissure in their ranks. But sure, keep arguing like the other side is the "bad guy."

I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

Then go live by, nobody called you to post here.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

And my point still stands. No other game has this fissure making you're "different tastes" things irrelevant. If the game was better designed, no one would have to worry about "will my opponent thing I'm a WAAC loser for playing X, Y, or Z units?".

 BoomWolf wrote:
The gobbeling is the natural result of competetiong, and players moving to games that fit their own tastes better. one game cannot fit everyone.

And the fact you can "meet up the president of PP" is also because they are currently relatively small, and the most important thing for him TO do, is good public relations, rather then managing a huge cooperation.

Its all quite simple and natural.

Jeeze. Are you getting paid by GW? GW just can't do wrong in your eyes can they? Your level of GW apologetics is pretty epic.

Privateer Press isn't "small" by any definition for a gaming company.

If you're getting paid by GW maybe ask for a raise? You deserve it.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

Which is why we should leave "your" game alone?

I was gonna sugar coat it, but feth it, you're a hypocrite. That whole "seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by" thing. Because you've not done that at all [/sarcasm]. But please, keep othering people with legitimate complaints though if it makes you feel better.

I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

Every single bash so far except that, was based around the whole "random is good" ideal, who is not only optional, but a matter of personal taste.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

What assumptions? Did you even read the post I made above? You can quote it right out of the book. No one is assuming Heralds get Daemonology, the book SAYS they get daemonology.

Oh, and daemonology isn't the only broken psyker power. Invisibility, which we already KNOW several units are capable of getting, is beyond broken in and of itself. You just don't see as many complaints about it because it's not a Primaris power and only Be'lakor and his friends can reliably use it. But when placed on a Fateweaver, the chances of dealing a wound to that Fateweaver are 1 in over 1200.

I would strongly encourage you to actually read the rules before saying there's nothing wrong with them.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

Every single bash so far except that, was based around the whole "random is good" ideal, who is not only optional, but a matter of personal taste.

In terms of game design, random is bad. But to digress, rather the onus of proof is on your argument.

We can look at the past 12 months of Games Workshop releases. They have been slipshod, haphazard, poorly supported, and some appearing to be plain sucker purchases. We still have a codex that doesn't work and auto-loses the game.

No, the burden of proof is to show that 7E is indeed balanced given the track record of the company. Past history and dash of rationality dictates this. So please, prove to us 7E is a better game. Because that's the proof I need to spend $85 on rules versus a Woldwrath for my Circle.

Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Everything that was wrong with 6th and has remained.
Zero shooting nerfs.
Zero assault buffs.
Certain types of assault build being further nerfed.
Psychic phase.
More random in a game that requires very few random aspects.
"Forge the Narrative" excuse.
Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.
Further propagation of the terrible balance issues in 6th via FOC, Dataslate, Ally, Supplement and mini'dex (INQ, LOTD, ETC) abuse.
Superheavies in normal games, but no clarification for Forgeworld.

Just off the top of my head. An then we get to GW's actual practices, ignoring the internet like it doesn't exist, the bull pricing overall, double bull pricing in AUS, so on.

Yes, some of those are optional, but now it's legitimate to run Calgar, Swarmlord and a Riptide in the same army. What. The. Balls. I just... I'm done. That would never, ever happen in... Right, I'm sorry, I'm just not forging hard enough.

Forge a damn narrative all you want, 7th is just all the wrong steps 6th took doubled over.

Don't worry though Wolfy, the rest of us (that's "them") will probably go play Infinity or something.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.

Hey, slow your roll just a bit. Rippers are now super scoring units. Thus you can bring 80 pts worth of rippers for your troops, thus spamming everything else. I believe I made a Tyranids army at 1850 that was Skyblight + more FMCs to be 4 Tyrands, 2 Harpies, 2 Crones, 3x10 Gargoyles, and ripper swarms to round it out. Something like 7 super scoring units and 8 FMCs.

Also, I plan on running a new Tyranids list. 4x Ripper Broods, 4 Dakka Flyrants, 4x Tyrannofexes. NIDZILLA IS BACK!

Personally I think there's some instances where Unbound makes sense:

* All Terminator/1st Company
* Ork Kult of Speed
* Tyranids + IG (Genestealer Cults!)
* Nidzilla

but the fact it's not restricted and is quite literally "Buy anything you like, and feel free to use it" is just disgusting and quite literally pisses on 30 years of background. In fact for all the crap he gets I'm even more disgusted that Jervis Johnson actually let something like that slide seeing as he's been with GW for most of those 30 years and is one of the "founding fathers" of 40k.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

Every single bash so far except that, was based around the whole "random is good" ideal, who is not only optional, but a matter of personal taste.

Unbound armies are horrible from a balance/strategy perspective. Anyone with half a brain can figure this out. Jervis Jhonson doesn't hence why the rule is in the book.

Not to be overly picky, but you could always do a 1st company/all termies by using counts as DA.

I partially agree on the rest, as you could always house rule something/fan dex it, though admittedly this makes it a little more acceptable for pick-up/league/tourney play.

 BoomWolf wrote:

lets look at MTG for example. we got the "standard", "extended", "EDH", "commander", "archnemesis", "FFA", "THG", "empror" and tons of other list-restriction types, or alternate mods that throw the "normal" pacing of the game to the wind, you can even combine several game types at once to create new types (emperor archnemesis, extended FFA, EDH standard....) and it WORKS.

Munchkin? there are a bazillion expansions with various degrees of matching between theme, you will usually play one of them, but even then you need to choose what version, and may players mix and match versions (apocalypse+cothulu, space+axe cop, bits+basic, any other combo you can come up with), play a game where even the rules don't quite stay the same, and everyone has a blast.

If we want to use these as examples of what makes a game work, your argument doesn't hold water, and not just because the 2 business models are so radically different. (We're not counting Munchkin because that is a game designed to be silly tongue in cheek, and best played when drunk.)

With MTG, despite the masses of different types of play, the core rules are not changing in any of them. For the most part it's just a restriction on what cards can be played (Legacy, Standard, Modern, etc.), changing a few minor gameplay aspects, (Commander). THG and Emperor are casual player created multiplayer formats (mostly from veteran players that get bored with playing the same stuff over and over) that are applied to which ever card restrictions there are. Then, to further things to make it "work", WotC actively bans cards that create broken and relatively unfun combos that dominate a format. Yes it's a bit of a retroactive approach, and it makes maintaining a relative balance across multiple formats, it keeps things balanced. GW, should in theory, be able to do similar things with routine FAQ's. They don't.

WotC makes sure to word things very cut and dry to avoid the whole RAI/RAW crap GW goes through.

There is also the aspect that MTG has a constant flow of new product, which makes the process of balance a bit more difficult. In a year there will be over 700 new cards out. 40k, for the most part has a relatively static unit composition, which in theory should make things so much more easy to keep balanced. The fact that there are so many thing that are not points to poor rule writing and incompetence.



And for something (hobbywise) that takes as much investment as 40k does, these issue make it so much of a problem.

And I don't think that the majority of us that are really having problems with this edition are having these reactions because of smaller rules changes. Taking the new Sniper rules as an example, non of us are freaking out over things like that. Those types of changes bring up some "whys?" depending on the severity of the changes, but that's what happens with edition changes. Rules can change, and we adapt.

What we are having issues with are that many of the rule changes are not sound. Whether it was the change to random assault ranges coupled with the other changes in assault in 6th, the addition of more random aspects of the game, or the change that everything (for the most part) is scoring creates and entire balance issue that wouldn't be there if there was adequate play testing, and GW had any respect for their customer base. Then, tacked on with how poorly so much of things are written and the amount of typos that it seems that GW doesn't use an editor overall makes more problems, and the way things are more pointed towards house rules being the solution which further fragments things.

A great example for how the workings need to be looked at is with the CCB. Because now the rider and chariot are considered one "model", even if I didn't get to choose if the rider or the chariot gets hit, a Phase Shifter allows the CCB to have the 3++ save as well because of the term "model" in the shifter rules.

And to really start to top things off, since the player base and profit margins have been slowly declining, the thinly veiled money grabs are pushing people over. First with the inclusion of allies which encouraged people to buy more, then to an extent the addition of flyers, then with the inclusion of Superheavies and Lords of War, then the addition of things like the imperial Knights, and now with the absolutely bonkers ability for so many armies to be able to summon multitudes of models that require the purchase of not only those models but the codex needed to pay them. And then there's the even more thinly veiled money grab of Unbound armies that screams "Buy all of the expensive things to make you win." There is a whole lot of pay to win going on, and people don't want to further support a hobby/company that continues to do these things.

While yes, I agree that certain builds benefit from unbound, I think the players of those vs "Ten Riptides and a Revenant" builds are going to be the minority, severely so.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
While yes, I agree that certain builds benefit from unbound, I think the players of those vs "Ten Riptides and a Revenant" builds are going to be the minority, severely so.

My lists that I offered weren't unbound, but battle forged using the multiple combined arms detachments. So you're still "legal". That's the funny part.

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Did I NOT tell you that this HABIT of CAPITALIZING RANDOM WORDS is a pain to READ as this helpful EXAGGERATION of your typing QUIRKS should DEMONSTRATE?

stop being a jerk, if you can't read through a few capitalized words without rupturing a blood vessel, take a break.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
While yes, I agree that certain builds benefit from unbound, I think the players of those vs "Ten Riptides and a Revenant" builds are going to be the minority, severely so.

I agree with the fact that they will probably be a minority as the community will hate it, the fact that it is enabled (consent not withstanding) in the rule book is pushing things a little to far and pushes the amount of negotiations before a game longer. And the fact that so many battle forged armies can do very similar things makes it worse.

bullyboy wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Did I NOT tell you that this HABIT of CAPITALIZING RANDOM WORDS is a pain to READ as this helpful EXAGGERATION of your typing QUIRKS should DEMONSTRATE?

stop being a jerk, if you can't read through a few capitalized words without rupturing a blood vessel, take a break.

He(she?) can stand up for him)her?)self. One of the rules is that one use proper spelling and grammar at all times, and random capitalization is not certainly not proper as per the rules of the English language.

As an aside, capitalize the first letter in every sentence.

Yours proudly:

I can, chose not too, too much of a pointless argument.

I abandon this whole arguement. its a pointless one and we will not reach an agreement at any point.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Everything that was wrong with 6th and has remained.
Zero shooting nerfs.
Zero assault buffs.
Certain types of assault build being further nerfed.
Psychic phase.
More random in a game that requires very few random aspects.
"Forge the Narrative" excuse.
Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.
Further propagation of the terrible balance issues in 6th via FOC, Dataslate, Ally, Supplement and mini'dex (INQ, LOTD, ETC) abuse.
Superheavies in normal games, but no clarification for Forgeworld.

Just off the top of my head.

It sounds like you haven't actually read the new rules yet and just went by the opinions of cynics on internet forums.

Jink causes you to have to snapshot, so shooting was nerfed slightly in this regard.

Charging through difficult terrain is 2D6-2 rather than the lesser 2 of 3D6. On average I think it is just about the same, but probably makes it easier to get longer charges off. I'd like to see someone do the numbers on it.

I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1 (Heldrake only does one hit per vector strike because its a flyer, not a FMC) and are Ap2 instead of Ap3. It's harder to assault with them, but what Tyranid player is assaulting with his FMC's? Grounding tests only happen once per phase too, so now FMC's won't be taking S9 Ap2 wounds from markerlights. Tyranids can now actually take allys that can score, although can't deploy within 12".

The way a lot of people are whining in here you would think that Taudar wasn't done away with. Ally rules are fairly permissive now, but they can't buff each other nearly as well. O'vesa star is gone as well.

Strength D was also nerfed to account for it being more common in "standard" games. Now it only ignores invulns and cover on the roll of a 6. It's still pretty nasty, but seems to be a little more specialized towards larger targets.

One day (and maybe 1 or 2 games) after the official release of the rulebook is too soon to make sweeping generalizations (you should actually get a hold of the rules to read for yourself eventually). In an ideal world where they could fix all balance issues with the press of a button, people would still piss themselves.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I can, chose not too, too much of a pointless argument.

I abandon this whole arguement. its a pointless one and we will not reach an agreement at any point.

I accept your concession of defeat.

 Truth118 wrote:


I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1

Everything I have read is that Vector Striking is one hit on ground targets and D3 on flying targets.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Truth118 wrote:


I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1

Everything I have read is that Vector Striking is one hit on ground targets and D3 on flying targets.

Pg. 174 "...nominate one enemy unit not locked in combat that the model has moved over that turn. That unit takes 1 hit (if the unit is an enemy Flyer in Zoom mode, or an enemy Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, it instead takes D3 hits).

I'm sorry then, I got that wrong. I first read it as the Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature doing the D3 hits.

 Truth118 wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Everything that was wrong with 6th and has remained.
Zero shooting nerfs.
Zero assault buffs.
Certain types of assault build being further nerfed.
Psychic phase.
More random in a game that requires very few random aspects.
"Forge the Narrative" excuse.
Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.
Further propagation of the terrible balance issues in 6th via FOC, Dataslate, Ally, Supplement and mini'dex (INQ, LOTD, ETC) abuse.
Superheavies in normal games, but no clarification for Forgeworld.

Just off the top of my head.

It sounds like you haven't actually read the new rules yet and just went by the opinions of cynics on internet forums.

Jink causes you to have to snapshot, so shooting was nerfed slightly in this regard.

Charging through difficult terrain is 2D6-2 rather than the lesser 2 of 3D6. On average I think it is just about the same, but probably makes it easier to get longer charges off. I'd like to see someone do the numbers on it.

I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1 (Heldrake only does one hit per vector strike because its a flyer, not a FMC) and are Ap2 instead of Ap3. It's harder to assault with them, but what Tyranid player is assaulting with his FMC's? Grounding tests only happen once per phase too, so now FMC's won't be taking S9 Ap2 wounds from markerlights. Tyranids can now actually take allys that can score, although can't deploy within 12".

The way a lot of people are whining in here you would think that Taudar wasn't done away with. Ally rules are fairly permissive now, but they can't buff each other nearly as well. O'vesa star is gone as well.

One day (and maybe 1 or 2 games) after the official release of the rulebook is too soon to make sweeping generalizations (you should actually get a hold of the rules to read for yourself eventually). In an ideal world where they could fix all balance issues with the press of a button, people would still piss themselves.

You GW apologists are all the same. Insult anyone that doesn't think GW's stuff doesn't stink. We are whiners because we point out how gakky this edition is, from the timing, to the obvious cash grab, to the poorly written rules.

You claim the jink change is a legitimate nerf to shooting? Really? By your own admittance no change to charge but somehow the argument that assault armies still wont have a place in the game is invalid? Really? You should try looking at the world through something other than your "GW is awesome no matter what and anyone else that disagrees is a whinner, take my money plzzzz" goggles.

Thank you Dreznar.

Truth118: I like how you assume I've not read or own the rulebook. Nice sweeping disregard of my argument based on a false assumption.

I have nothing to add at this time. Dreznar nailed it.