I removed Nafka from my Blog Dashboard feed becuase it overan my inbox, but it seems I miss interesting rumours :P
Picking this up from Rathstars Ramblings:
http://rathstarramblings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/7th-edition-rumours-and-quick-hobby.html
And apparent confirmation from Nafka:
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/7th-edition-release-date.html
So..... 24th of May for Pre-orders? (31st for release) 7th Edition 40k......
Thoughts?....
No way. 6th is barely out yet. Only a couple of years. Doesnt it tend to run 4-5 years before getting a new one?
This seems to put a different spin on it
http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/04/rip-6th-edition.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talkwargaming+%28TalkWargaming%29
A 6.5 edition including the rules for Stronghold and Escalation and such like.
I'm more surprised (and grateful) that there are no rumors of a new edition of fantasy. I suppose if it isn't broken, fix it, and... 40k is certainly broken. That said I still believe that this rumor is just wishlisting by people who hate the direction 40k has taken.
I think it more likely to be a 6.5ed rather than 7th ed. Especially since rathatar states hes quoting naftka who is well known for being wrong or kind of right. 6.5 makes more sense.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on April 28, 2014, 11:06:34 PM
No way. 6th is barely out yet. Only a couple of years. Doesnt it tend to run 4-5 years before getting a new one?
This seems to put a different spin on it
http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/04/rip-6th-edition.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talkwargaming+%28TalkWargaming%29
A 6.5 edition including the rules for Stronghold and Escalation and such like.
Well, according to some sources, the Big Rulebooks are being pulled from their Brick & Mortars, and it is unavailable for purchase on the website for most nations.
What that means? *shrug* Who can say but them.
Non-corporate stores that stock GW are still allowed to order and stock the big rulebook (as of yesterday). Typically when the release is getting very close GW will buy back any stock that the shop has of the book. We might be getting close, but nothing is confirmed yet.
Remember the last edition of Fantasy was rather short as well; as soon as daemons were released onto the tournament circuit GW moved quickly to replace the edition. It is very possible this edition will be coming to a close given how broken the tournament circuit is.
Quote from: Alcibiates on April 29, 2014, 04:27:30 PM
Non-corporate stores that stock GW are still allowed to order and stock the big rulebook (as of yesterday). Typically when the release is getting very close GW will buy back any stock that the shop has of the book. We might be getting close, but nothing is confirmed yet.
Remember the last edition of Fantasy was rather short as well; as soon as daemons were released onto the tournament circuit GW moved quickly to replace the edition. It is very possible this edition will be coming to a close given how broken the tournament circuit is.
Fantasy was 4 full years between 7th and 8th Edition, preceeded by 6th which was long enough to revamp every army, introduce Ogres, and do Dwarfs a second time. This rumor has 40K 6th around 23 months. Quite a difference.
I've heard that 3rd Edition got a bit of an update midway through, this could be akin to that.
I've seen rumors that run from, FAQs and minor adjustments included, to a total army build revamp.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on April 28, 2014, 11:06:34 PM
No way. 6th is barely out yet. Only a couple of years. Doesnt it tend to run 4-5 years before getting a new one?
Four years is the standard cycle. Correction, this is what it became, it wasn't like this until fourth edition was released.
Regarding the issue itself, there's a lot of energy being expended on various sites about whether this is genuine. I prefer the wait and see until it's confirmed by GW approach.
Quote from: Charistoph on April 29, 2014, 05:11:12 PM
<snip>
Fantasy was 4 full years between 7th and 8th Edition, preceeded by 6th which was long enough to revamp every army, introduce Ogres, and do Dwarfs a second time. This rumor has 40K 6th around 23 months. Quite a difference.
I've heard that 3rd Edition got a bit of an update midway through, this could be akin to that.
I've seen rumors that run from, FAQs and minor adjustments included, to a total army build revamp.
My consideration is that Fantasy 7th edition was slated to be longer than that--but the daemons army book created significant problems that have to be addressed. The allies rules have created significant problems that need to be addressed, and I do not think that GW addressing a significant issue two years after the issue was unearthed is unreasonable--either I think we are going to get a new rulebook or the update to the rules will make allies no longer legal at lower point levels.
Often we see new editions that are basically just updates to the old edition, which seems reasonable to me. Getting a 7th edition of 40k that is essentially 6.5 seems fine--whether we actually get a 6.5 or a 7 that is 6.5 in essence is yet to be seen, but something big is on the horizon before the end of the month, and that makes me excited :)
Quote from: Alcibiates on April 30, 2014, 01:47:09 PM
My consideration is that Fantasy 7th edition was slated to be longer than that--but the daemons army book created significant problems that have to be addressed. The allies rules have created significant problems that need to be addressed, and I do not think that GW addressing a significant issue two years after the issue was unearthed is unreasonable--either I think we are going to get a new rulebook or the update to the rules will make allies no longer legal at lower point levels.
Often we see new editions that are basically just updates to the old edition, which seems reasonable to me. Getting a 7th edition of 40k that is essentially 6.5 seems fine--whether we actually get a 6.5 or a 7 that is 6.5 in essence is yet to be seen, but something big is on the horizon before the end of the month, and that makes me excited :)
8th Edition did a lot more to the game than just "fix" Daemons. And if it was just Allies as a problem, a quick Errata would fix that in a jiffy.
No, more is being done if this is a big enough release to replace the book than just a concern about Allies, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.
Still, I don't want to get caught up in Pancake rumors, those were bad enough last time that I have no interest in repeating the experience (and it was bad at my LGS). I took the same position as Irisado as with 6th's launch, wait and see, and I see no reason to change that philosophy at this point.
GW don't release Errata/FAQs to rebalance units. They don't really seem to do anything to balance the game at all...
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on April 30, 2014, 03:38:49 PM
GW don't release Errata/FAQs to rebalance units. They don't really seem to do anything to balance the game at all...
I'll tell my Command Squads and Bikers that their ability to take Special Weapons was a pipe dream, then.
You're talking about Dark Angels? That was an error, not a balance issue.
For example, you'll never see them amend points values to a significant degree unless it's in a new Codex.
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on April 30, 2014, 04:21:42 PM
You're talking about Dark Angels? That was an error, not a balance issue.
For example, you'll never see them amend points values to a significant degree unless it's in a new Codex.
Space Marines, actually. And they did adjust Helbrutes points, but not significantly. Black Templars did see some significant changes to their balancing before this codex as well, while missing others, oddly.
Wasn't the Hellbrute changed because some codexes said one cost and others said a different cost?
Similar happened with other rulebooks, and people arguing Vindicators weren't Ordnance, or Wave Serpents were AV 2...
Aside from total fuckups, they don't correct issues in rulebooks anymore. They did, once, back in 6th Ed Fantasy (Dark Elves got quite the errata...) but not now.
Want there an announcement or rumour that 40k was going to get a living rulebook? Could that be what this is?
I don't see how that is going to work unless they are going to charge very little. Reprinting the whole damn book is going to be rediculously expensive for the consumer.
It works if they go purely digital. But the problem is they have no way of getting feed back from the players.
That would also screw them because they are saying "Get a tablet/smartphone or don't play."
And would essentially show that they;re not sticking to their Declared Business model :P
[edit]
New post in my inbox from another blogger, and is interesting food for though on the subject:
http://h2lat40k.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/predictions-for-65-or-7th-or-it-can-2nd.html
I'd like to draw your attention to this:
http://imgur.com/a/Kbyu1#1 (http://imgur.com/a/Kbyu1#1)
Apparantly, the date is set for the 24th of May. Also, the force organisation chart is going to at best be made optional, or at worst disappear entirely. To quote the above image: "can now make an army composed entirely of forgefiends, helldrakes and defilers."
If it's optional and carries some penalty for doing so, then it's almost certainly still a bad idea but I'll see how it goes. If they just remove the FOC altogether and give rise to a horde of Riptide armies or similar stupidity, then I might finally give up defending GW and quit.
Well, that doesn't sound good, if you want an army composed entirely of monstrous creatures go and play apocalypse. Hopefully these 'Unbound armies' will be limited in their use and suffer horrific penalties.
Looking at the other stuff, the Tactical Objectives look like an interesting game dynamic but it remains to be seen how balanced it is (far easier to assassinate an Astra Company Commander than a Hive Tyrant ect.)
The psychic phase looks distinctly fantasy and whilst I do approve of a perils of the warp table, I'm not sure I want psychic powers to become too big a part of this game system (he says looking at the zero psykers throughout his three 40k armies).
I'll probably just say I'll only face someone who follows the original FOC.
Quote from: Narric on May 06, 2014, 07:32:34 AM
I'll probably just say I'll only face someone who follows the original FOC.
This, but i'll also be glad to face someone in a friendly/casual game who has a nice fluffy theme and isnt abusing whatever cheese he can muster.
Fluffy lists I guess can be an exception. They'd have to really convince me if the List smells of cheese though.
I guess I wouldn't mind being able to field a Crisis army without having to take Farsight. Although frankly I quite like Farsight.
Although a Shadowsun Stealth Cadre could be cool.
It's back to second edition we go, based on what I've read. Mission cards and the revised psychic system are all very reminiscent of that edition. I had to laugh about how GW are dressing this up as new. I'm not saying that these ideas are bad, some of them could be quite good, but it's anything but new.
What does concern me is the the information in White Dwarf about removing the FOC. This is a really bad idea, and while it's only optional, it's basically license to field very unbalanced armies, which is not at all good for the game. I'm not impressed.
QuoteI guess I wouldn't mind being able to field a Crisis army without having to take Farsight. Although frankly I quite like Farsight.
You already can, Farsight isn't necessary to take Crisis Suits as Troops, merely running the Farsight Enclaves supplement is sufficient.
I thought Farsight was required to unlock them as Troops?
Quote from: Irisado on May 06, 2014, 10:33:21 AM
It's back to second edition we go, based on what I've read. Mission cards and the revised psychic system are all very reminiscent of that edition. I had to laugh about how GW are dressing this up as new. I'm not saying that these ideas are bad, some of them could be quite good, but it's anything but new.
What does concern me is the the information in White Dwarf about removing the FOC. This is a really bad idea, and while it's only optional, it's basically license to field very unbalanced armies, which is not at all good for the game. I'm not impressed.
The really funny part about this is that this has always been an option, but some people just need it in print before they will consider it.
Heck, my LGS runs oddball FOC tournaments all the time. It's not uncommon for us to have an FOC requirement of 3 Elites, and that's it, you don't have to take an HQ (though, I think you still need a Warlord) or Troops if you don't want to.
The only true limit to your games is what you and your friends agree to play with.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on May 06, 2014, 03:28:41 PM
I thought Farsight was required to unlock them as Troops?
Nope, you can have a barebones Commander if you want. The 7 do require Farsight, though.
Huh. Awesome. Well at least I would be able to have a Stealth Cadre. Kinda tricky to use but could be nice and fluffy.
I can see some really cool unbound armies but only of someone cool is playing them. You know the D bags will bring, d bag list and the cool guys will bring fun lists. I just don't play D bags, and I still won't.
Quote from: Charistoph on May 06, 2014, 04:16:24 PM
The really funny part about this is that this has always been an option, but some people just need it in print before they will consider it.
Heck, my LGS runs oddball FOC tournaments all the time. It's not uncommon for us to have an FOC requirement of 3 Elites, and that's it, you don't have to take an HQ (though, I think you still need a Warlord) or Troops if you don't want to.
The only true limit to your games is what you and your friends agree to play with.
Except that it has now been sanctioned by GW, thus more people will be inclined to go down that route than previously was the case.
The other issue is cost. If the new rulebook is going to cost the full whack price of the sixth edition one, then that's unreasonable. To barely get two years out of a very expensive rulebook is taking the 'money, money, money' approach to extremes in my opinion.
I'd love to see the FOC go away. I only play friendly games, so I don't see too much changing, but it does mean my iron warriors could have land raiders, obliterators, and vindicators. Hell, maybe I will run that army composed of forgefiends, helldrakes, and defilers.
The Harrower has enlightened me to rumours pointing to Blood Angels being the first 40k Codex of this "New Edition." Adding it here to save confusing multi-thread discussion :P
http://dedard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-blood-angels-codex-rumors.html
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/blood-angels-rumors-for-7th-edition.html
Seems no new "Super Units" but there will be a new Predator. I'm going to assume Plasma Predator. I think Forge World has a name for that variant :P there will also be a new unit/kit called "Blood Brothers." Blood Angels who survived the Black Rage and regained their "Humanity" maybe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JnMByJVUow&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JnMByJVUow&feature=youtu.be)
GW has released a video discussing some of the FOC changes.
So they really don't give a fuck any more. "Oh yeah, we care about our game. What's that? You want to be able to bring six Land Raiders as a 1,500pt army? Sure! I'm sure your opponent will be bringing enough anti-tank to handle that bullshit! Oh, you want a pure-Flyer army without having to forewarn your opponent and make sure he actually brought Flak? I don't see why that's an issue!"
Just... just pathetic really.
A pure Land Raider army would be laughably easy to beat, and a pure Flier army loses turn one when nothing's on the board.
This hysteria over an optional game mode is hilarious.
I'll simple decline someone wanting to play with a stupid unbound army like ful LR or Flier.
However, I'd want to try the unbound army set for a Rough Rider forse of of guard. I believe Jayne mentioned a full Shadowsun/Stealth Suit army, which is also cool. These "Fluffy" lists are exactly what unbound is for, and I support that aspect. However, we all know there will be gamers who just want to win at all costs, and they're going to bring whatever powerhouse list they can dream of.
In a sense, this update may essentially split the hobby into those that play for fun, and those that play to win, probably more so then is evident now.
I don't personally think the "Formations" are really needed for 40k, as Unbound pretty much allows it anyway, without paying extra points. Formation SRs may add something for the cost, but iirc most Apoc formations added 300pts+ which can be spent on more useful/versatile upgrades.
I don't buy that way of thinking, simply because we've always been able to throw the rules out of the window - you just couldn't do it without prior consent.
There is a general attitude amongst most of the gaming community, especially the "competitive" community, that as long as it's rules legal it's acceptable. The reason nobody tried bringing a pure Rough Rider or Storm Trooper army to GW stores or whatever is because it wasn't rules legal. Now it is. That doesn't encourage the "fun" gamers to make fun lists - they did that already. It just encourages the arseholes to find new ways to be even bigger arseholes.
You can just get a Militarum Tempestus codex and have a whole Storm Trooper army though. With a complete FOC.
You can take 5 Riptides, 4 Heldrakes, 15 Leman Russes or 3 Wraithknights in the current game. Most don't because it's a pretty terrible idea.
Also I genuinely laughed at the idea of a full Rough Riders squadron being scary to face.
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on May 14, 2014, 07:30:09 AM
Also I genuinely laughed at the idea of a full Rough Riders squadron being scary to face.
I don't want to field it becuase its scary, but becuase I think it would look cool :P I'd also probably use all the different Spec-weapons to see which is truly the best for Rough Riders.
I've always had a soft spot for "mounted" armies, hence why my old SM force was White Scars themed.
It seems this is confirmed. There is no point pissing and moaning about it anymore.
The best solution is to chat with your opponent before hand, find out if they're playing a Git list or not. Fun lists like a 'First Company' or 'Rough Riders' are fine, as they are fluffy, but if its douchy like 'all Riptides', then just refuse to play them...
I'm sure there's a psychological study to be done here. The intersection of casual, "role-play"-ish thinking when handed over to an environment of number-crunching willy-wavers.
That's not aimed at anyone here, but looking at various forums I'm finding it mildly interesting there's almost a straight split between those who think fluff and those who turn instantly to spamming. An analysis of the background to how these came into the hobby could be intriguing. I mean, I came in via FRP so I'm perhaps biased to story, and was influenced by the battle reports of yore that seemed to have a similar ethos. I'm sure there are an equally large number who don't really care and will just soldier on with the current army though. Not like I've really got the cash or the space to do much more than tinker with the old space elves!
Is it a ploy to promote buying more stuff? Doubtless. I've not really thought about it but a few minutes thinking gives a few things, but (and here's the thing) they'd ultimately all be "counts-as", if I could find decent models for the concept. I'd also be hesitant to have it as my "permanent" army list as so many would be situational ("yeah, so that last shell blew open the craftworld zoo."). I would like to think that - rather than losing their minds - the studio has a combined 'design goal' of this plus trying to encourage players to think outside the "1500 pts, Cleanse, go" straitjacket. I quite like Jervis' idea of scenario packs, but equally aware that they'd be analysed, stripped bare and used horribly out of context if good.
In short? I'm not entirely sure the modern 40k audience has either sufficient imagination or sufficient restraint to really make this work. 'Battlefield' instant deathmatch and Warsong Gulch "never mind the flag, check my DPS" e-peen seem the limit (and I say that as someone with fond memories in both) Some of the old "classic" books and modules would probably get utterly slammed in today's environment. The most common competitor mentioned for the game? One where an essential maxim isn't "have fun with your mates", it's "play to crush". The current F/SF gaming paradigm in a nutshell. Even X-Wing is plagued with internet squadron lists and points analysis matrices. It's Star Wars, for god's sake!
Or maybe I'm just not getting any younger and becoming a crotchety old git. That's pretty likely too ;D
Power gamers exploit every edition of the rules, so there's nothing new in that respect. What is different is that the rulebook will make it easier for them to field unbalanced and overpowered lists. This is a shift back towards second edition, where the percentages system could be exploited more easily than the more rigid FOC system (note that the FOC system is far from perfect though).
The whole thing about competitive players doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I only play against a friend or two for fun, but I still aim to win, so in that sense both me and my friends are competitive. The term competitive has been hijacked by a small minority, mainly bloggers, as a style of game play which involves fielding the most powerful/overpowered, and usually boring spam lists possible for each army in order to win. That's actually just one facet of competitive. It cannot be used as a universal catch all term as they seem to think that it can. There is no blanket definition of 'competitive' in 40K.
I'm now pretty certain that I've played my last game of 40K for a while now. I don't like what I've seen regarding some of the rule changes, and the new book is likely to be too expensive an investment after only two years with the current one. I'll not moan and complain about it though. I've got plenty of other things that I can do instead of playing 40K :).
Surrendering before the battle's even started, eh? I have a Commissar who 'd like a word...
We're very optimistic here, as the rumours are being parsed from the wish listing, a clearer picture is starting to manifest. I personally think that 7th is going to be pretty good, but we'll know when the book hits.
Not to mention said book is hitting the UK at £50, so my FLGS will have it for £45. I'm really liking GW's improved community interaction here, and the three book setup is very handy for transport.
Irisado, when I say casual, i agree with you. I don't mean that I don't care about the result. When my models hit the table - any game- I'm going for the win. But there are ways and means. I've got to live with myself afterwards after all! I agree that the online dominance of the "win at all costs" mentality is probably a minority (and possibly very much linked to the individualities of the US gaming scene) but it's a very noticeable one that seems to drown many other views out.
To be honest I doubt I'll upgrade immediately but that's down to your other - and extremely good - point about money. Stupid cars and their stupid mechanical gubbins... So far, 40k is still giving me good games. If it doesn't, then *shrug*, I've walked away before...
I must admit, I'm in the cautiously optimistic group.
Yes, the book is likely going to make big changes and alienate some people, which is always a risk.
But, there actually useful changes that have some instances of game balance.
The Psychic Phase implementation is between Movement and Shooting and it makes sense, with armies with a LOT of Psykers enjoying chances at getting buffs but at a chance to perils and really mess themselves over. The Perils table is said to be something akin to the Fantasy Perils table, which includes wonderful things like "Your character and unit are sucked into the void. Remove from Table." So, it's more of a risk vs reward kind of scenario that I can see being more interesting and tactical.
And the rules say specifically that you have to agree to play unbound. If you don't then no, you don't HAVE to play it.
I can see a lot of the rules become underutilized after the first few months, as people find out what their groups want to play.
In the long run, I see Bound (normal FOC) armies with mostly reasonable lists being played. The meta will change and so will the net-lists, but I don't think Unbound will be around except for as an "apocalypse lite" version.
Just my thoughts.
Best,
-BT
I agree with Bigtoof, I really don't see unbound as a problem at all. I don't play with any WAAC players now so I'm sure that wont change with the alternate FOC. I think it does open the door for some cool lists that won't take an entire day to play. Apoc was always a pain cause I could never devote the proper amount of time for a game. Now I can run tons of fast attack options along with my trukks and battlewagon. It won't be overpowered just cool.
I'm also waiting to see how the whole summoning thing works. Would be cool for a psyker in my Traitor Guard army to open a portal to the warp, or be torn apart as he morphs into a daemon.
£50?! Seriously? Frell that noise. They had better do a "Rules Only" Edition. I wont even be touching that until next year regardless.
Spoke to a GW Store dude today. He is not in favour of Unbound, as he knows and has seen beardy bastards in action (Its my old GS, and they did have Power Gamers when I was there.)
Chances are they will release a rules only copy, as the new edition is split into three boks, and that is the reason behind the £5 price increase.o
Something I learned from Sales dude is Flying MC got a bff in the form of only taking a grounding test once per turn, and only if the shoot/attack wounded. This makes them much more survivble then what they currently are.
I also spoke to another gamer (on the other side of town)) about what he was expecting from this update, which was basically a system to swap one slot or slots for additional slots somewhere else in the FOC.* A system which iirc wasused for factions like Chaos MArines Iron Warriors.
The generally off forum note I picked up from these guys is that this new edition will bring out the Beardy Bastards, but at the same time those that just want to play a fluffy list, such as Rough Rider guards, Extra Hammerhead Tau, or Possessed cult Chaos will have more freedom.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on May 16, 2014, 12:07:30 AM
£50?! Seriously? Frell that noise. They had better do a "Rules Only" Edition. I wont even be touching that until next year regardless.
only ~£40 on Total Wargamer dude :P when it comes out.
*btw, he may join the forum in the next couple days. He had heard of us, and I hope I gave the best impression of our community ;)
Quote from: Pilum on May 15, 2014, 12:28:34 PM
Irisado, when I say casual, i agree with you. I don't mean that I don't care about the result. When my models hit the table - any game- I'm going for the win. But there are ways and means. I've got to live with myself afterwards after all! I agree that the online dominance of the "win at all costs" mentality is probably a minority (and possibly very much linked to the individualities of the US gaming scene) but it's a very noticeable one that seems to drown many other views out.
I agree with everything that you've just said here. I remember back in 2010 I had to fight against a wave of those sorts of players from blog land trying to flame and troll everyone on forums who didn't subscribe to their philosophy of playing the game. Thankfully, those days are gone, although the split between forums, blogs, and Facebook has had a very detrimental impact on forum activity just about everywhere.
On the issue of the psychic phase that has been raised by others, I just cannot see how it's going to be positive for the game. Some races don't have very good psychic capability, so run the risk of being crushed by opposing psykers. In addition, one of the reasons why the old psychic phase from second edition was scrapped was because it was far too powerful, and gave psychic powers too much say over the outcome of the game. It was one of the reasons why Eldar were so destructive in second edition. I fear that the wheel is being reinvented here for no good reason.
From what I've read, the mechanics that have been mentioned online don't sound too overpowering, and allow a chance at nullifying previously untouchable powers (ie the buffs like Guide et al). The potential issue with psychics is if they decide that 40k really needs the lunacy that is fantasy's Number 6 spells.
I will concede, though, that I could be missing something here as obviously my view is skewed by my local environment.
Edit: ok, let's work through with some of what I've heard. So each turn you generate d6+total mastery levels of power dice. To dispel you get... Either the number rolled on the dice or an equal total number (I suspect the former). On average half of those dice will fail and for ML 2+ powers the defender just needs enough dispels to drop them below the target number. If someone goes the Ulthwé route it could be a problem but that leads to diminishing returns. Each warlock adds 1 dice but needs 2 to reliably cast. "Psychic battery" warlocks could be an issue but if you're in an environment where someone is thinking of blowing the points on that, chances are they're already running JetSeer and you're already used to dealing with it!
Quote from: Pilum on May 16, 2014, 02:25:41 PM
fantasy's Number 6 spells.
What are you referring to there? I've only just got my rulebook back, so not fully back up to speed.....
The ones you roll a 6 to get. The likes of Black Horror & 13th Spell. Basically all the top-of-the-lore-table "remove army from play" stuff, though to be fair there are enough abominations lower down in some lores iirc. I'll forego my usual frothing on this topic and just say it's another reason for me to avoid 8th.
IIRC mostly of those 6th spells are pretty difficult to cast by lowly wizards, and are pretty much for the 3rd and 4th tier Mages, especially considering their casting roll.
We may see a full overhaul to the way Psychic powers are even used, meaning 40k 6th powers could be uber powerful, but useless to those that can't cast them. That was my understanding of the Primaris Powers at least. So if you had a power that was not useful or can't be used, you can just use a basic power in its place.
True but if they exist, they'll be used, only with the added problem that at least 3 armies have no native psychic support to exploit or defend them. Plus thematically I don't think massive psychic explosions and weirdness really thematically suits 40k barring perhaps some of Chaos - unless the 'new guard' put in their tv/film influences in the way the original designers did and we go full Dragonball.
On the Psychic Phase front, my biggest issue with Fantasy is, and always has been the utter domination of Magic.
To explain the problem: you don't need to counter range with range; you don't need to counter artillery with artillery; but if your opponent has Magic you pretty much have to bring Magic yourself.
I do not want Psychic Powers to go the same way, but I'm pretty sure they will.
Unlike Fantasy however, everybody has a "Ward Save" in the form of Deny the Witch rolls. This may not be much, but it is technically more than Fantasy's defences against magic.
It would be better if Deny the Witch had more buffs and bains. Why don't most Eldar shields confer a boost to the models DtW roll, for instance?
Another counter to Psykers in 40k is that volume of fire can take them out, or simply enough Precision shots to take out the Psyker more reliably.
I'm more opposed to the fluff aspect of it. In my mind at least, psykers are supposed to be really rare. Obviously some armies like Chaos and Eldar will have plenty, but I dislike the idea that they are common enough that they deserve their own phase. Everyone can move, most models can shoot and everyone can fight in melee. Having a phase just for a few models doesn't seem right to me. It's be like having a separate phase for sorting out reserves, or a dogfighting phase for flyers.
I am hoping that the non Psyker armies will get some kind of resistance buff or something like that.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on May 16, 2014, 08:03:57 PM
I am hoping that the non Psyker armies will get some kind of resistance buff or something like that.
Shouldn't Necrons technically be immune to the entire Telepathy Lore? :P
And I agree. I know Dwarfs had an improved base Ward Save against Magic attacks (not sure what the latest army book says on that though)
But if you think about it, Eldar should be even more resilient than them all due to their natural psychic leanings. I'm sure everyone on the Craft World would have gone through training to protect their minds, especially when you're a race who have Daemons from the warp hunting you down for the rest of eternity....
Quote from: Mabbz on May 16, 2014, 07:40:38 PM
I'm more opposed to the fluff aspect of it. In my mind at least, psykers are supposed to be really rare. Obviously some armies like Chaos and Eldar will have plenty, but I dislike the idea that they are common enough that they deserve their own phase. Everyone can move, most models can shoot and everyone can fight in melee. Having a phase just for a few models doesn't seem right to me. It's be like having a separate phase for sorting out reserves, or a dogfighting phase for flyers.
Most race do only have access to a handful of Psykers. The trouble is unlike Fantasy they have access to a large amount of armour and survivability upgrades....
One issue will be Grey Knight players essentially have an entire phase dedicated to them messing other peoples
plans up, rather than just having a othersized selection of Psychic and anti-psychic weaponry and wargear.....
Actually Mabbz, I'm quite comfortable with "common" psykers in 40k - because the environment we use them in (the battlefield) is one where you can bet yer butt ALL races are going to throw in ANYTHING that might give them an edge.
Now that's just 40k. As in "the game of far flung battles in the distant future". Not Necromunda. Not as a role play setting (Dark Heresy gets a limited pass here with the nature of the standard, assumed group). Maybe not so much Epic save as a modifier to command rolls or some sort of low key effect like that. But for "the key moment of a wider conflict"? Yeah. I can buy that.
More "game-y", I keep forgetting that some powers are cast at the very start of the turn, not when you finally get round to activating the psyker's model (doh! The perils of playing multiple rulesets!) so a separate phase suits me quite well!
Narric, this may be my bias talking, but I like those ideas. But then I have a soft spot for the old systems of Eldar having their own unique powers, nothing from any more 'mainstream' lores but they always work. Always. No psi points. No test. "I use <power>". And lo, it came to pass. I doubt we'll go back to that though - I get the feeling that the current zeitgeist is to try to break up 'death stars' like JetSeer. Maybe if warlocks and Farseers also went right back to 1st and were barely capable civvies with really tasty powers and kit but then that goes against the other spirit that "character = Conan".
(Wider musing) I think the catch is that for various gameplay and commercial reasons, it's very difficult to make factions as dominant as they should be in certain areas according to the mythos. You don't want to unwittingly spend the cash on a Somali warlord's gang to find everyone else is rocking ultramodern NATO stuff. I mean, take Necrons (and to a limited extent post-Fall, Eldar), you're facing opponents who once REALLY let the galaxy burn. A reason why, as horrible to face as they were, the limited necron fleet in BFG felt oddly right - with the added horror that, at first, these were just light cruisers and frigates (iirc), what the heck were the large capital ships capable of? I suppose we could hand wave this as (mentioned above with the psychics) what we play is when it doesn't go nicely to plan for either side.
Tau, Necrons and Dark Eldar don't have any Psykers at all.
However, everyone else is capable of bringing a couple along at least, so the Psychic Phase will see use.
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on May 16, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
Tau, Necrons and Dark Eldar don't have any Psykers at all.
However, everyone else is capable of bringing a couple along at least, so the Psychic Phase will see use.
Black Templars, too. But all have at least one method of bring a Psyker or two along via Allies.
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on May 16, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
Tau, Necrons and Dark Eldar don't have any Psykers at all.
However, everyone else is capable of bringing a couple along at least, so the Psychic Phase will see use.
Necrons are machines and the last trace of an Organic unit were removed when Pariahs become the Preatorians (or whichever unit they techniclly became). This is why I say Necrons should technically be immune to Telepathy. The more independant constructs are essentially just more complex machines with greater memory and improved processes, rather than an organic brain that would be suseptable to telepathy.
Quote from: Charistoph on May 16, 2014, 11:05:19 PM
Black Templars, too. But all have at least one method of bring a Psyker or two along via Allies.
It was my understanding that even the latest incarnation of BTs couldn't take Psyker allies, with perhaps the sole exception being Grey Knights.
As long as Psykers don't become more powerful I'm fine with the Psychic Phase; it is kind of irksome to have to remember you cast certain powers before movement, then others in the shooting phase or whathaveyou.
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on May 16, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
Tau, Necrons and Dark Eldar don't have any Psykers at all.
However, everyone else is capable of bringing a couple along at least, so the Psychic Phase will see use.
According to old lore, Kroot can be psykers, but this is old 3rd ed stuff. They also had a race of psykers as allies in BFG.
Quote from: Narric on May 16, 2014, 11:09:14 PM.
Quote from: Charistoph on May 16, 2014, 11:05:19 PM
Black Templars, too. But all have at least one method of bring a Psyker or two along via Allies.
It was my understanding that even the latest incarnation of BTs couldn't take Psyker allies, with perhaps the sole exception being Grey Knights.
That was the last codex, but some still follow it, including myself. The current lore is a little less passionate and more pragmatic.
As for rules, we just can't purchase Librarians for our Detachments.
Well, I've pre-ordered my copy, I was hesitant but then I found Total Wargamer selling it for £35 instead of GW's £50.
Back to the topic of psykers, I always saw it as the realm of fantasy and I don't like the idea of it becoming a big part of 40k. I'm fine with it being there in small doses but I don't want it to effectively become a requirement. My Astras don't have any psykers, neither do my Chaos, plus I have Tau. Are all three armies destined to lose simply because I have no psykers/psychic defense?
Also something that I don't think I've seen here yet, the webcomic 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' has suggested that Space Marines and Tau are no longer BFFs and now the only groups of 'Battle Brothers' are; 'the Imperials', 'Eldar and Dark Eldar' and 'the Ruinous Powers of Chaos'. That won't affect my current CSM-Daemon alliance but it could mess things up for other people (if this is it then it removes a lot of support for Tau-Eldar armies).
Psychic powers are actually much harder to get off now, and Blessings can be denied as well. If anything, that's a bit of a nerf for Psykers.
I agree that Psychic powers are actually going to be harder to get off, as you now need at least 1 4+ roll to get a power off, which means that you'll need to roll 2 dice from your pool (on average) to get it off. Your opponent will have a pretty good chance of denying powers that he really doesn't want going off.
The big armies that I can see dominating the psychic phase are Daemons, as the Horrors give levels based on their unit size, and all of the Greater Daemons can take levels, and Grey Knights as most units are level 1. Eldar can also do it if they take Seer Councils, and it might actually be worth taking walking double councils if things get pretty hairy out there. Since it appears that if you get Primaris free if you take all of your powers from a singe discipline, all of the level 1's get two powers, which is pretty nice.
In terms of fluff, this is actually sort of nice, as it really makes the three big psychic heavy armies feel like they can do something special. If the powers stay about the same, then it doesn't look like things are going to be TOO bad, as none are really that dangerous. Although, seeing 20 dice thrown into the Tzeench primaris would be pretty hilarious, if only for the assured chance that the unit will not be doing too well after perils..
Oh, and I think this edition will also be the return of tank shock, as you can now wrest control of objectives using vehicles! And troop vehicles can grab objectives from other non-troops...
Best,
-BT
A 50page preview is available for viewing, if people are interested:
http://dedard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/7th-edition-preview.html
The new allies matrix is below. They've really cut down on the co-operation; the only battle brothers are all Imperial armies with each other, Eldar with Dark Eldar and Chaos Marines with Daemons. I'm not entirely pleased that IG are just as inflexible as the rest of the Imperium, since there was plenty of scope for fluffy lists like chaos guard that are now impossible, but at least this should cut down on the more cheesy alliances.
Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/kklogXx.jpg)
I dont see what was wrong with the old matrix.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on May 21, 2014, 02:32:57 AM
I dont see what was wrong with the old matrix.
Personally, I always thought Necrons allying with anyone was not very fluffy. I think one problem was some factions were akin to the town bycycle, especially when you consider armies like guard having pretty much what everyone wants (anti-flyer from the Basilisk, and access to plenty of big guns)
In terms of veriety, I feel this new matrix is going to choke a fair number of people who go for fluffy or interesting lists.
That said, you could technically just go for an Unbound army if you really want to field an army exactly how you want.
New Necrons worked liked that though. They would ally with almost anyone if it brought them closer to their own ends. Old Necrons it would have been silly.
Quoteanti-flyer from the Basilisk
I'm going to assume you meant the Vendetta gunship, because Basilisks can't even hit Fliers.
Also, I was building a Gue'vesa regiment that would have been a hybrid Tau/Guard list representing tiers within the Gue'vesa hierarchy, but now that's just not possible without everyone attacking each other. Thanks GW, I'll just stop buying more Guard now...
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on May 21, 2014, 09:48:39 AM
New Necrons worked liked that though. They would ally with almost anyone if it brought them closer to their own ends. Old Necrons it would have been silly.
Or just use Mindshackle Scarabs as a reason...
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on May 21, 2014, 03:13:07 PM
Quoteanti-flyer from the Basilisk
I'm going to assume you meant the Vendetta gunship, because Basilisks can't even hit Fliers.
Or Hydra...
Still, Guard were one of the best ones to have Ally with anyone mostly due to the number of Traitor and Chaos Regiments in the fluff being backed by Chaos or Xenos.
Taking a Hydra for anti-air? Pffffffff. :P
Also lumping all the disparate factions of the Imperium together feels lazy. Within the Imperium, not everyone is SBFFs with all the other departments, Space Wolves and Inquisition are AoC at best.
Annoying that to play my almost finished traitor guard army I have to play unbound now. Not sure why they got rid of that alliance, since there is so much fluff behind it.
Unbound still uses Ally rules for interactions, so a Traitor Guard army will start shooting itself and tear itself apart.
To me, this feels like GW is imposing a bi-annual subscription fee for people who wish to continue playing the hobby. Eventually they're just not going to let veterans play the game anymore whatsoever! :P
So, has anyone had a look through the new book yet? What's changed that we didn't already know about?
I don't have the book yet but on BOLS someone said the restrictions to Apoc allies is that they have to deploy 12" apart. I could put my daemons far away from the guardsman. That or I could take a bunch of psyker s and summon my daemons.
Hu Jin Tau of "Warhammer Tau", JJ of "How to Lose at 40k" and Rathstar of "Rathstars Ramblings" have all done blog posts on their impressions on the new edition.
http://warhammer-tau-army.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-rules-and-possibly-new-problems-for.html
http://h2lat40k.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/7th-ed-first-impressions-aka-longer-you.html
http://rathstarramblings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/tau-dark-eldar-in-7th-edition-small.html
Interesting reads, all of them.
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40k-Dark-Vengeance
Isn't it a little odd that GW are still selling Dark Vengeance with the old rulebook in it?
Quote from: Sorck on May 28, 2014, 12:15:03 PM
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40k-Dark-Vengeance
Isn't it a little odd that GW are still selling Dark Vengeance with the old rulebook in it?
One rumor is that the mini-rulebook will be/has been changed instead of creating a whole new set.
Quote from: Charistoph on May 28, 2014, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: Sorck on May 28, 2014, 12:15:03 PM
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40k-Dark-Vengeance
Isn't it a little odd that GW are still selling Dark Vengeance with the old rulebook in it?
One rumor is that the mini-rulebook will be/has been changed instead of creating a whole new set.
Hasn't happened yet, the DV box description tells people to go and buy the new rulebook seperately.
It is a nice set though, so I can see why they don't want to be rid of it just yet, especially given that it's only a couple of years old.
I think they could use it as an opportunity to run two different starter sets. That way they spread the news gamers across another army or two.
I certainly think they should either change the mini rulebook or take it out and take £5 or £10 off the price.
Having been a GW customer for...a long time, I cant see them reducing the price. Ever. They will probably take the 6th rules out and sell it for the same price. Maybe even another price hike for the Australasia region just to be safe.
To be fair, the 6th Ed rules are okay for casual players new to the game, to learn the basics. After that, they can look into updating to the new edition if they want.
I think im going to walk away now. GW have take the piss with this now. Its too expensive.
You don't have to walk away for good. Why not just take this edition off? Or stick to playing sixth if you've recently bought the rulebook (assuming your friends also don't want to fork out for a new rulebook).
I've read some of the changes in the new rulebook, and while a lot of people seem to be impressed by them, I think that they cause more problems than they solve. The psychic phase, in particular, won't do armies with psychic defence a lot of favours, and it's too much like Fantasy's system for my liking.
Why not wait for the inevitable cheaper small rulebooks to flood EBay from whatever starter kit succeeds Dark Vengeance?
Quote from: CoffeeGrunt on May 29, 2014, 03:58:01 PM
Why not wait for the inevitable cheaper small rulebooks to flood EBay from whatever starter kit succeeds Dark Vengeance?
Rumours are saying that there will not be one. The current thought is that in the new starter set will be a basic rule set to enable beginners to pick up the very basics and play simplified games with their toys from the box, but they will then have to buy the £50 BRB for the full rules...
@CoffeeGrunt
As damnable as that is of a move from GW, it does make sense. Beginners do not need to know every little detail of how the game plays. When to do stuff, and how to do stuff. It technically does save GW money in printing the booklets. It reminds me of the Battle for Skull Pass Box set, which gave the basest rules and a small practice playthrough of just that phase.
After a while the player will gain a small collection, and hopefully find a supportive GC to learn about more deeper mechanics. This'll give them an idea of the full game they're buying into, and then they will potentially buy the full rulebook.
It makes the game more open to younger players, though out of experience I will say that is not always a good thing. Most younger players under 14 likely won't care about sportsmanship, or if their army is legal.
Yeah, I have seen a game between two (maybe) 11-12 year olds. One army consisted of Abbadon, 3 Landraiders and Marneus Calgar. And the rules seemed to be "Ok, I shoot you, you died"
Now a legal army list, that!
I just got back from a 12+ hour 40k day with my local club and some guests from the club a state over. Between today and earlier this week, I've a couple 7th ed games under my belt and have watched just as many more played. To be frank, I very much like 7th ed.
Yes, the rules aren't perfect; what game system is? It does stream-line some rules, makes a few rules halfway realistic, and, so far, has proven to require very little in the way of house-rules. Notably from today's gaming: Nightfight and the new vehicle damage chart.
My club has both WAAC tourney players, fluff gurus, and all shades in between. And we're all signing its praises so far (though I admittedly cringe whenever I think about how mean Invisibility + X can be now...).
The only change / ruling that was on the table was if we should allow 'Unbound" armies in our local tournaments. For the next few weeks, we're going to allow it and see how the meta shifts.
As appealing as the prospect is, the loss of 'objective secured' and the warlord trait re-roll are massive penalties. Not to mention the possible loss of the warlord trait if you don't field a character. "Congratulations, you fielded 10 Riptides. Good luck with tabling your opponent, because you're sure as heck not going to keep your objectives."
-Kur'os