7th ed in hand

[Acaelus]

Book Arrived to day, Not too much change most Rumors seem true

[Mr Mystery]

Consolidate into combat? Sweeping advance into combat?

[Acaelus]

See Attached

[Mr Mystery]

Cool.

But please, be careful with posting pics. It's likely to violate Forum rules :)

[daboarder]

Consolidate into combat? Sweeping advance into combat?
NOPE
Charge still 2d6
and no charging out of stationary vehicles

[IronZOGZ]

+1 to what Mr. Mystery said. But we're grateful you proved you have it after that bull**** on Faeit.

So - glutton for punishment - will you confirm that Ignores Cover and Snap Shots are unchanged? It will really break my heart if GW didn't fix those...

[Caitsidhe]

Consolidate into combat? Sweeping advance into combat?

Nope. Assault is still like pulling teeth. Of course, everyone can take a detachment of that one SM unit that can deep strike and assault in the same turn. You can expect a lot of that going forward. I've already started doing up my recently falling assault troops for that purpose.

[Mr Mystery]

Ignores Cover was broken? I was under the impression it did what it said on the tin, and ignored cover saves?

Ditto snap shots. Even with mass firing, BS1 is nothing to write home about. You sure you're not thinking of Tau snap shots being horrible?

[daboarder]

+1 to what Mr. Mystery said. But we're grateful you proved you have it after that bull**** on Faeit.

So - glutton for punishment - will you confirm that Ignores Cover and Snap Shots are unchanged? It will really break my heart if GW didn't fix those...
Completely unchanged

[IronZOGZ]

Ignores Cover was broken? I was under the impression it did what it said on the tin, and ignored cover saves?

Ditto snap shots. Even with mass firing, BS1 is nothing to write home about. You sure you're not thinking of Tau snap shots being horrible?

Apologies - I wasn't clear. I meant those rules are horrible and should be adjusted to the rumoured -2 to BS for Snap Shots and -2 to cover saves for Ignores Cover rather than... flat out ignoring cover. I would like to lose slightly less to Helldrakes...

[Caitsidhe]

Apologies - I wasn't clear. I meant those rules are horrible and should be adjusted to the rumoured -2 to BS for Snap Shots and -2 to cover saves for Ignores Cover rather than... flat out ignoring cover. I would like to lose slightly less to Helldrakes...

You probably still might lose less to them. Unless they Faq it otherwise, Helldrakes have to drop into hover to fire their weapon now.

[daboarder]

Cast invis then, because Vector strike got buffed to AP2 and you need 7s on a pen to pop a heldrake now


you probably still might lose less to them. Unless they faq it otherwise, helldrakes have to drop into hover to fire their weapon now.

WHAT?

[eldargal]

I think that would be a bad change to snap shots, changing Ignores cover like that wouldn't be so bad though.

[IronZOGZ]

Completely unchanged

Seems like all they did with this "edition" was make psychic a really big ... bad... deal. Looking forward to never getting off a power again but otherwise everything wrong with the game stays wrong.

[daboarder]

Seems like all they did with this "edition" was make psychic a really big ... bad... deal. Looking forward to never getting off a power again but otherwise everything wrong with the game stays wrong.

that is pretty much all they did, if you havent heard then odds are the rest is unchanged

oh and ATSKNF no longer give the 3' free movement

[Caitsidhe]

Cast invis then, because Vector strike got buffed to AP2 and you need 7s on a pen to pop a heldrake now



WHAT?

It appears that Fliers can't fire at Ground Targets except Snapshots. Since a Template cannot fire as a Snapshot, it means no Baleflamer unless they go to Hover unless the Faq they release (quickly I hope) says otherwise.

[IronZOGZ]

You probably still might lose less to them. Unless they Faq it otherwise, Helldrakes have to drop into hover to fire their weapon now.

Please clarify. If this is true I'll stop complaining immediately. Jesus give me something against those ****ers.

****Edit****

You answered before I posted my question.

Wait though... I thought fliers got to choose if they have Skyfire or not? Can we get clarification from the person holding the book?

[Acaelus]

+1 to what Mr. Mystery said. But we're grateful you proved you have it after that bull**** on Faeit.

So - glutton for punishment - will you confirm that Ignores Cover and Snap Shots are unchanged? It will really break my heart if GW didn't fix those...

Yeah I thought it best to prove i have the book to avoid yesterdays situation.

Ignore cover still means no cover saves allowed :P. Snap Shot BS1 unless BS0

[daboarder]

It appears that Fliers can't fire at Ground Targets except Snapshots. Since a Template cannot fire as a Snapshot, it means no Baleflamer unless they go to Hover unless the Faq they release (quickly I hope) says otherwise.
pretty sure fliers still get to CHOOSE to have skyfire, they dont get stuck with it.

EDIT: kirby clarified, skyfire is optional for fliers

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno.

Ignores Cover works about right in my mind. After all, let's consider the really sneaky, pain in the bum cover cover units. Most times cover is just an alternate 5+ or 4+ save for your troops. Nice enough, but not exactly that difficult for your opponent to deal with. But start dropping in Stealth and that other one the name of which I can never remember, and suddenly you're troops are harder to drop than a Terminator, because at least with a Terminator I can fire a lascannon at them, reducing their save somewhat. And the horrendous cover save can be applied to otherwise lightly armoured horde units. Ignores Cover weapons are the balance to that. They let your opponent deal more effectively against dug in units, on account that's what they're for.

The whole -2 to cover thing would just make big blobs all stealthed up nigh on impossible to deal with.

[Caitsidhe]

Please clarify. If this is true I'll stop complaining immediately. Jesus give me something against those ****ers.

I said it appears from what is stated on 3++ that Fliers can no longer fire at ground targets except for Snap Shots. I say it "appears" because I don't have the book yet myself and I'm only going by what I read there in a brief answer. If so, a Faq would be required to allow the Helldrake to fire its Baleflamer at the ground. :) Don't get too excited. They will probably Faq it, or the Helldrakes will just drop to Hover as there is no reason not to have a swarm of them now.

[daboarder]

Your going to hate invisible blobs then mystery.

they only get snap shoted against


I said it appears from what is stated on 3++ that Fliers can no longer fire at ground targets except for Snap Shots. I say it "appears" because I don't have the book yet myself and I'm only going by what I read there in a brief answer. If so, a Faq would be required to allow the Helldrake to fire its Baleflamer at the ground. :) Don't get too excited. They will probably Faq it, or the Helldrakes will just drop to Hover as there is no reason not to have a swarm of them now.

Kirby just posted on the second page of comments that fliers can choose. so no hovering required

[Caitsidhe]

pretty sure fliers still get to CHOOSE to have skyfire, they dont get stuck with it.

EDIT: kirby clarified, skyfire is optional for fliers

Ah... didn't see the clarification, only read the first bit. So yes... Helldrakes still hoover up everything but Terminators. And now a Battleforged Army (not even Unbound) can have a LOT of them. Fun, fun, fun.

[Mr Mystery]

Will just have to do my damnedest to make sure I nullify that power then :p

[eldargal]

Ah... didn't see the clarification, only read the first bit. So yes... Helldrakes still hoover up everything but Terminators. And now a Battleforged Army (not even Unbound) can have a LOT of them. Fun, fun, fun.

So don't play unbound armies with lots of Helldrakes.

[Acaelus]

Please clarify. If this is true I'll stop complaining immediately. Jesus give me something against those ****ers.

****Edit****

You answered before I posted my question.

Wait though... I thought fliers got to choose if they have Skyfire or not? Can we get clarification from the person holding the book?

Fliers can chose sky fire in the shooting phase

[daboarder]

Will just have to do my damnedest to make sure I nullify that power then :p

good luck, your going to need it. (and I mean that honestly, that one is scary rough)


Fliers can chose sky fire in the shooting phase

Sorry acaelus, kirby beat you to it, but thank you anyway

[IronZOGZ]

Fliers can chose sky fire in the shooting phase

Ugh. For about 30 seconds I had hope. Nevermind. GW didn't fix anything. Just took away my psychic (Eldar player) so I actually have fewer weapons to deal with the ****ing turkey. Awesome.

[Caitsidhe]

Fiddling with things I see one could easily take a cheap Sorcerer and two Cultist units and three Helldrakes per Detachment. This could be done twice for six Helldrakes without breaking a sweat and still remain Battle Forged. :D It even leaves some points for upgrades and Obliterators if you want them. *1850 of course.

[daboarder]

Ugh. For about 30 seconds I had hope. Nevermind. GW didn't fix anything. Just took away my psychic (Eldar player) so I actually have fewer weapons to deal with the ****ing turkey. Awesome.

Dont worry, eldar will be fine, just run dual seerstars, or mass invis, or a revenant

[Defenestratus]

I dunno.

Ignores Cover works about right in my mind. After all, let's consider the really sneaky, pain in the bum cover cover units. Most times cover is just an alternate 5+ or 4+ save for your troops. Nice enough, but not exactly that difficult for your opponent to deal with. But start dropping in Stealth and that other one the name of which I can never remember, and suddenly you're troops are harder to drop than a Terminator, because at least with a Terminator I can fire a lascannon at them, reducing their save somewhat. And the horrendous cover save can be applied to otherwise lightly armoured horde units. Ignores Cover weapons are the balance to that. They let your opponent deal more effectively against dug in units, on account that's what they're for.

The whole -2 to cover thing would just make big blobs all stealthed up nigh on impossible to deal with.

On the other hand, weaker toughness, weaker armor save armies who depend on at least some cover in order to survive get totally boned by GW's spamming of the power. Last game I played against IG, I didn't get a SINGLE cover save the entire game. Not a single one. My flyers, serpents and prisms were blown from the sky by prescienced heavy weapons teams.

It was the least fun experience I had playing the game - and it still makes me want to give it all up.

[IronZOGZ]

Acaelus - will you clarify what it means to have the Force psychic discipline? Do I have to "choose" to have Force, and in doing so use up one of my power choices? Or do I get Force just by having a weapon with the Force rule?

[Caitsidhe]

Dont worry, eldar will be fine, just run dual seerstars, or mass invis, or a revenant

Daboarder is quite correct. Nobody is left out in the cold. :D You can easily make things as horrific as you want (and I'm sure everyone will) because without any standards otherwise, Darwin always dictates the lists. Most games will simply be Paper, Rock, Scissors now.

[eldargal]

On the other hand, weaker toughness, weaker armor save armies who depend on at least some cover in order to survive get totally boned by GW's spamming of the power. Last game I played against IG, I didn't get a SINGLE cover save the entire game. Not a single one. My flyers, serpents and prisms were blown from the sky by prescienced heavy weapons teams.

It was the least fun experience I had playing the game - and it still makes me want to give it all up.
Yeah too many weapons ignore cover which really hurts both varieties of Dark Eldar. It needs to be made rarer or nerfed to really be balanced. It's not even something you can just refuse to play because it so prevalent.

[Acaelus]

Acaelus - will you clarify what it means to have the Force psychic discipline? Do I have to "choose" to have Force, and in doing so use up one of my power choices? Or do I get Force just by having a weapon with the Force rule?

If you have a force weapon you automatically know the power as a added bonus

Edit: Not overly clear, Force Weapons give you the Force power to use on top of your normal powers. :)

[eldargal]

Acaelus, is Jink still a cover save? That would be a boost to eldar/dark eldar if our main bloody save went back to being a ++ rather than cover. Betting it hasn't though.

[daboarder]

Yeah too many weapons ignore cover which really hurts both varieties of Dark Eldar. It needs to be made rarer or nerfed to really be balanced. It's not even something you can just refuse to play because it so prevalent.

I think just less of it would be better, the mechanic itself is sound as it, its just far to proliferate

- - - Updated - - -


Acaelus, is Jink still a cover save? That would be a boost to eldar/dark eldar if our main bloody save went back to being a ++ rather than cover. Betting it hasn't though.
Jink is 4+ cover save and must snap shot next turn

[Acaelus]

Acaelus, is Jink still a cover save? That would be a boost to eldar/dark eldar if our main bloody save went back to being a ++ rather than cover. Betting it hasn't though.

Jink is +4 cover

[eldargal]

I think just less of it would be better, the mechanic itself is sound as it, its just far to proliferate
Agreed, it would be preferable.


Jink is +4 cover
4+ save or a 4+ cover safe specifically?

[daboarder]

Agreed, it would be preferable.


4+ save or a 4+ cover safe specifically?

go with what acaelus says in this case

[Acaelus]

Agreed, it would be preferable.


4+ save or a 4+ cover safe specifically?

Must Choose to Jink before rolls to hit, Then 4+ cover save untill next turn with Snap shot

[eldargal]

Oops yeah missed the 'cover' in his comment lol.:p Marginally better but still useless against armies like IG. Thanks Acaelus.

[IronZOGZ]

Eldargal and Defenestratus pointed out exactly why Ignores Cover needed some modification. At least Stupidbelt Commander can't ally with the Marines now.

Sadly, with the reliability of psychic utterly trashed by the adjustments to casting, it doesn't look like my units will have much cover anyway (loving that coin toss for a Warlock to get Shrouding off... not).

I'm concerned about Force appearing to be its own discipline because then units with 1 WC (GK) will have to choose Force or Hammerhand... and they have to write a 40 page FAQ for GK anway.

*** EDIT

Thanks for that Acaelus! Looks good on the Force stuff. Hope they let my GK troops keep Hammerhand stock! +2 Strength now... not that they'll successfully cast it more than once per game...

[Caitsidhe]

Oops yeah missed the 'cover' in his comment lol.:p Marginally better but still useless against armies like IG. Thanks Acaelus.

Useless against lots of armies now. Hell ignoring cover is a power in Divination which will be all the rave. Cover, for the most part, might as well not exist. I haven't gotten to make a cover save all that often anymore myself. Apparently supercharged Invulnerability saves are all that matter. :D

[daboarder]

Eldargal and Defenestratus pointed out exactly why Ignores Cover needed some modification. At least Stupidbelt Commander can't ally with the Marines now.

Sadly, with the reliability of psychic utterly trashed by the adjustments to casting, it doesn't look like my units will have much cover anyway (loving that coin toss for a Warlock to get Shrouding off... not).

its not actually as bad as that. I admit my initial thoughts were wrong on this, but as dispel is negligble and the big powers are generally FAR more powerful psyckers are still a thing.

Sure your not casting lots of little buffs, but you will very reliably be doing things like summoning new units, forcing opponents to snap shot at your units, boosting your invul saves, etc...

[IronZOGZ]

My Dark Reapers have a Farseer with Perfect Timing (the Ignores Cover power) hooked up to them from time to time... It's good but it's just luck if you get it or not.

Unlike Tau, I don't get to just point some flashlights at the bad guys or pay-to-win with a Stupidbelt Commander.

Now that I won't cast any powers reliably, guess it's just more glorious randomness!

[eldargal]

Useless against lots of armies now. Hell ignoring cover is a power in Divination which will be all the rave. Cover, for the most part, might as well not exist. I haven't gotten to make a cover save all that often anymore myself. Apparently supercharged Invulnerability saves are all that matter. :D

You can mitigate the effect by using a lot more tall, LoS blocking terrain to hide behind in lieu of cover saves, but it isn't ideal. Might actually see if my group wants to houserule ignore cover to be -2 instead.

[daboarder]

acaelus can we get some of the details on how area terrain now works, heard a bit of conflict on that

[Acaelus]

acaelus can we get some of the details on how area terrain now works, heard a bit of conflict on that

Lots of Rules regarding Terrain, Anything in specific?

[IronZOGZ]

Difficult terrain, charging through it, dangerous terrain, save conferred by area vs ruins?

***Also, Move Through Cover USR?

[daboarder]

] save conferred by area vs ruins?

***Also, Move Through Cover USR?

This one basically, does area terrain still exist?

[IronZOGZ]

Also - Psychic stuff. Can I use as many power dice as I want when I try to cast or does my Mastery Level affect how many dice I can throw at a power? Are there modifiers that make it EASIER to cast? I heard there are modifiers to make it easier to Deny the Witch...

[daboarder]

Also - Psychic stuff. Can I use as many power dice as I want when I try to cast or does my Mastery Level affect how many dice I can throw at a power? Are there modifiers that make it EASIER to cast? I heard there are modifiers to make it easier to Deny the Witch...

as many as you want, nothing to make it easier. deny modifiers only work for powers that target your units, such as adimantine will giving you +1 to dispel rolls for pyschic powers that target the unit with the special rule

[Harley]

So don't play unbound armies with lots of Helldrakes.

And instead of being TFG that plays with 4 Heldrakes you get to be TFG that won't play against certain lists/people simply out of fear of losing.

Seriously have ran into this and was personally offended "Sorry I won't play you because I've already lost a lot lately"... nothing to do with my list which was fairly balanced. So instead I got to sit around the game store the next 2 hours twiddling my thumbs because everyone else was already in a game.

I sincerely believe that unless someone is an a--hole or just plain unfun to play against you should grow up and play whomever is in your local club, regardless of list because to do otherwise is immature.

That said, a lot of us don't have the luxury of only playing with a small circle of friends and rely on a wide player base for games.

[Caitsidhe]

its not actually as bad as that. I admit my initial thoughts were wrong on this, but as dispel is negligble and the big powers are generally FAR more powerful psyckers are still a thing.

For the record, I was hoping you would be right. The pessimist in me said otherwise, that they wouldn't foist this book on us with really nothing new in it but Psychic powers if people would be able to reliably Deny the Witch. Pretty much I started laughing when I saw the cards yesterday and was just waiting for the other shoe to drop (how unlikely it will be to Deny anything). The entire new "edition" if that is what we want to call it was dreamed up in the marketing department. The meeting went something like this:

Big Important Guy: "Sales dropped. Why haven't people built bigger armies and bought additional armies to use the allies and double Foci we put int?"

Brave Little Voice: "Well sir... it seems the community wants fair games. They didn't embrace double foci and just played smaller games on average. While we have some people who own several armies, it seems most people can't afford to buy wholesale into multiple armies."

Big Important Guy: "That won't do. Fix it."

Brave Little Voice: "Fix it? Umm... balance the game like they are asking?"

Big Important Guy: "Did I say that? I said fix the fact they didn't embrace double foci and larger point games. We don't care about balance. We care about sales."

Brave Little Voice: "Well Sir it is that damn fairness factor. The community just moves to correct or avoid the bloat we put out."

Big Important Guy: "Then don't give them a choice, but make it sound like you are giving them complete choice."

Brave Little Voice: "I don't understand sir?"

Big Important Guy: "Make it so everyone can use everything all the time. Put in some token crap to make it sound like care about balance, but the key thing is that effective lists will require bigger armies, more diverse armies, and break up this notion of there being a CSM player or a SM player. We just want 40K players."

Brave Little Voice: "Ummm ok. I'm sure we can do that."

Big Important Guy: And we want to release a new rulebook. None of this Faq and Errata crap. Sales are down. New rules book always bumps. Just tweak the existing rules barely to let everything in and make psychic powers let them summon more models to the table. Remember this is about more models."

Brave Little Voice: "So what year do we release this new edition?"

Big Important Guy: "What year? Haven't you been listening. I want this in three months."

[daboarder]

HAHAHA OMG can you imagine facing an screamer star that not only has a reliable, easy to cast 2++ re-roll, but is ALSO invisible so you can only snap shot at it (thus protecting it from D-weapons)

HAHAHA

[Caitsidhe]

HAHAHA OMG can you imagine facing an screamer star that not only has a reliable, easy to cast 2++ re-roll, but is ALSO invisible so you can only snap shot at it (thus protecting it from D-weapons)

HAHAHA

We wont' have to imagine it.

[Chris Copeland]

[quote]I sincerely believe that unless someone is an a--hole or just plain unfun to play against you should grow up and play whomever is in your local club, regardless of list because to do otherwise is immature.[quote]

That's the thing: it IS unfun to play against a WAAC three Helldrake list (or a Deathstar with seemingly endless 2+ rerollable invul saves, etc, etc). There is nothing wrong with knowing what you are looking for in a game. Games take about two hours. Who wants to donate two hours as a punching bag to some bloke's power-tourney list? "Not I," said the Duck. "Not I," said the Cat.

[Acaelus]

Difficult terrain, charging through it, dangerous terrain, save conferred by area vs ruins?

***Also, Move Through Cover USR?

Mostly the same, Ruins 4+ cover no matter how much of the model is covered, 5 Building data sheets

MTC is extra D6 and ignore dangerous terrain on the charge you can roll 3 d6 and choose highest

[daboarder]

Mostly the same, Ruins 4+ cover no matter how much of the model is covered, 5 Building data sheets

MTC is extra D6 and ignore dangerous terrain on the charge you can roll 3 d6 and choose highest

huh? 3d6 pick the highest? but difficult terrain is only -2 to distance right? does MTC ignore that?

what im asking is, does a unit with move through cover not only ignore the -2 to charge but ALSO roll 3D6 when it charges through terrain?

[Acaelus]

huh? 3d6 pick the highest? but difficult terrain is only -2 to distance right? does MTC ignore that?

what im asking is, does a unit with move through cover not only ignore the -2 to charge but ALSO roll 3D6 when it charges through terrain?

A unit that has MTC rolls an extra d6 when rolling to move through Difficult terrain and is not slowed when charging through difficult terrain, in most cases this means that when moving a unit rolls 3d6 and picks the highest roll, Also MTC auto pass Dangerous terrain tests

[daboarder]

ok cool cheers


Oh and drop pods guys, they are incontestable scoring....HAHAHA so stupid

[Caitsidhe]

That's the thing: it IS unfun to play against a WAAC three Helldrake list (or a Deathstar with seemingly endless 2+ rerollable invul saves, etc, etc). There is nothing wrong with knowing what you are looking for in a game. Games take about two hours. Who wants to donate two hours as a punching bag to some bloke's power-tourney list? "Not I," said the Duck. "Not I," said the Cat.[/COLOR]

That is part of the problem (that Games Workshop created) Kerstan. A three Helldrake list isn't WAAC. Win at all costs is a person who cheats. Someone who builds lists within the rules framework is just playing the game. It only feels awful and horrible to you, just as it does to me when I run into lists I can't handle at all. There is no baseline. There is no balance. Thus everything is subjective. It is the worst game design ever created.

And we are just getting started....

With the floodgates just opened, you will look back with great fondness on the days when the worst thing you had to worry about was a trio of Helldrakes. The new rules, even those following this bare wisp of Force Organization, make the power combinations of the past look like Fluff armies. If you think I'm engaging in hyperbole, you got another thing coming. :D If anything, I'm understating it. The new Psychic Powers combined with the new Force Organization (which is a joke) means that the crap that was kicking your butt just got better at it... but wait... there is more! :D

I apologize for the enthusiasm, but I assure you that this is a nightmare. How can pick up games be handled when each and every person will have to magically know what is fair and what is not? You will be stuck playing only with people you know well and have carefully worked out parameters with. Event organizers have a nightmare scenario of having to either ignore the new edition entirely or just give up on trying to make anything fair.

[eldargal]

And instead of being TFG that plays with 4 Heldrakes you get to be TFG that won't play against certain lists/people simply out of fear of losing.

Seriously have ran into this and was personally offended "Sorry I won't play you because I've already lost a lot lately"... nothing to do with my list which was fairly balanced. So instead I got to sit around the game store the next 2 hours twiddling my thumbs because everyone else was already in a game.

I sincerely believe that unless someone is an a--hole or just plain unfun to play against you should grow up and play whomever is in your local club, regardless of list because to do otherwise is immature.

That said, a lot of us don't have the luxury of only playing with a small circle of friends and rely on a wide player base for games.
Sure. But if you don't like playing a list with, say, 6 Helldrakes or something then don't, that's all I am saying. You have the power not to have to play lists if you don't think you will enjoy it, no one can force you. Given teh choice between alienating yourself from teh hobby playing games that are no fun and not doing that I would go with not doing that.

[daboarder]

so belakor is now a boss, and auto-knows invis.....

screamer star just broke the game

[Caitsidhe]

so belakor is now a boss, and auto-knows invis.....

screamer star just broke the game

Really? I hadn't gotten that far yet. Yeah... wow.

[Defenestratus]

so belakor is now a boss, and auto-knows invis.....

screamer star just broke the game

And now that terrify doesn't take away fearless, you can't make them run off the board like before :(

[Caitsidhe]

On a good note, 3++ has corrected itself on a misread. You do, at least, get your Psychic ML every turn so those attempting to Deny do get those bonus dice from their ML. Not that this helps that much because given the power of some of these Disciplines you can't afford to ever have them go off. I'm not sure how any of us can afford to keep up with the Psychic Jones.

[daboarder]

On a good note, 3++ has corrected itself on a misread. You do, at least, get your Psychic ML every turn so those attempting to Deny do get those bonus dice from their ML. Not that this helps that much because given the power of some of these Disciplines you can't afford to ever have them go off. I'm not sure how any of us can afford to keep up with the Psychic Jones.

oh ok thats something. so at least other daemon/greyknight armies can stand up to the invisible deathstars. The rest of us are still probably borked though, as they have an insane number of dice to throw at those 2 spells (they only need 4 WCs max)

[IronZOGZ]

When attempting to cast spells, I know I get as many dice as I want [not yet confirmed by Acaelus though] but is what I can cast limited by my Mastery Level? Like, can a Level 1 Psyker cast a WC3 spell?

[daboarder]

yes he can

[Chris Copeland]

"That is part of the problem (that Games Workshop created) Kerstan. A three Helldrake list isn't WAAC. Win at all costs is a person who cheats. Someone who builds lists within the rules framework is just playing the game. It only feels awful and horrible to you, just as it does to me when I run into lists I can't handle at all. There is no baseline. There is no balance. Thus everything is subjective. It is the worst game design ever created."

John, we must agree to disagree. By your logic there is no such thing as a WAAC type army (or fluffy army, for that matter). I have a completely different point of view. It's all good. Somehow, over the years we've seemed to find a middle ground that we can roll dice on. Cope

[Caitsidhe]

oh ok thats something. so at least other daemon/greyknight armies can stand up to the invisible deathstars. The rest of us are still probably borked though, as they have an insane number of dice to throw at those 2 spells (they only need 4 WCs max)

Heh. Remember yesterday when I was commenting on the horror of fighting invisible MC/FMC? I guess the same holds true for giant hordes of regular stuff too.

[IronZOGZ]

yes he can


...So I can bring a bunch of Warlocks and the turn I get lucky and roll a 6 + my added Mastery Levels one of my Warlocks (a Level One psyker) can become a Bloodthirster (a Warp Charge 3 spell) if I throw all my dice at it?

[daboarder]

Heh. Remember yesterday when I was commenting on the horror of fighting invisible MC/FMC? I guess the same holds true for giant hordes of regular stuff too.

Anything Invis, that thing is straight borked, particularly for daemons who have so many MLs you will never dispel that power


I'm actually kinda looking forward to seeing how the community handles this one

- - - Updated - - -


...So I can bring a bunch of Warlocks and the turn I get lucky and roll a 6 + my added Mastery Levels one of my Warlocks (a Level One psyker) can become a Bloodthirster (a Warp Charge 3 spell) if I throw all my dice at it?

yup

or you could take say, wyrdvane psychers and turn them into heralds with your 2 WCs a turn, until you roll 6 and then turn one into a Greater daemon

[Caitsidhe]

John, we must agree to disagree. By your logic there is no such thing as a WAAC type army (or fluffy army, for that matter). I have a completely different point of view. It's all good. Somehow, over the years we've seemed to find a middle ground that we can roll dice on. Cope[/COLOR]

No, I don't think there is. I think there are just the rules and people who play by them and people who don't. That being said, neither your point of view or my own MATTER anymore. The new edition makes both of our viewpoints moot. It is a horrible situation.

- - - Updated - - -

I know how I'd like to see the community handle it:

1. Don't buy the book. There really isn't any need even if you want to play this edition.
2. The community needs to setup its OWN board of standards that put out its OWN Faqs and Errata based on community standards and balance.
3. Don't buy crap firsthand from Games Workshop. There isn't any reason to do so when you can get it all at a more reasonable price.

The only thing Games Workshop responds to is money, so if we want them to make a better rules set then we must make it clear to them in the only language they understand. It is either that or ignore their rules entirely and build our own community standards (many sports do this), or just accept the inevitable and play in a META dominated by total chaos.

[Patrick Boyle]

No, I don't think there is. I think there are just the rules and people who play by them and people who don't. That being said, neither your point of view or my own MATTER anymore. The new edition makes both of our viewpoints moot. It is a horrible situation.

- - - Updated - - -

I know how I'd like to see the community handle it:

1. Don't buy the book. There really isn't any need even if you want to play this edition.
2. The community needs to setup its OWN board of standards that put out its OWN Faqs and Errata based on community standards and balance.
3. Don't buy crap firsthand from Games Workshop. There isn't any reason to do so when you can get it all at a more reasonable price.

The only thing Games Workshop responds to is money, so if we want them to make a better rules set then we must make it clear to them in the only language they understand. It is either that or ignore their rules entirely and build our own community standards (many sports do this), or just accept the inevitable and play in a META dominated by total chaos.

That's a nice sentiment, but you're never going to get even a plurality, let alone a majority, to agree on every change you want to make. Nevermind the problem of people who don't spend all their time on 40k forums/web communities who wouldn't be familiar with this community standard you envision, every time someone new shows up at your store to play 40k you have to explain either the 'internet community' flavor of the game, or whatever changes your local store has made. It's just not practical.

[Caitsidhe]

That's a nice sentiment, but you're never going to get even a plurality, let alone a majority, to agree on every change you want to make. Nevermind the problem of people who don't spend all their time on 40k forums/web communities who wouldn't be familiar with this community standard you envision, every time someone new shows up at your store to play 40k you have to explain either the 'internet community' flavor of the game, or whatever changes your local store has made. It's just not practical.

It is practical enough for lots of major competitive events, all of whom setup some kind of Council which decides such things. I never said it would be easy. I just said that is how I'd like to see it handled. It is certainly no less practical than every single event or pick up game being a negotiation about what you can and cannot play because the rules say you can play everything. :D By these rules I can be entirely Fluffy and utterly BROKEN.

[IronZOGZ]

The comment about not buying the book is DEFINITELY valid. They didn't change anything. They just added a Psychic phase. Take some notes on the three new pages and drop them in to your existing book.

Problem solved. Or download the PDF. Sometimes doing the right thing involves an act of piracy... if we don't pay them for this bull****, they'll start listening to us.

[Defenestratus]

3. Don't buy crap firsthand from Games Workshop. There isn't any reason to do so when you can get it all at a more reasonable price.

Hell, the daemon models GW puts out are total crap compared to some of the ones from other manufacturers.

Use those instead.

[daboarder]

Hell, the daemon models GW puts out are total crap compared to some of the ones from other manufacturers.

Use those instead.

I dunno, I really really really like the plague drones, they are gorgeous and i've been meaning to get soem for necromunda for ages now.

[Defenestratus]

I dunno, I really really really like the plague drones, they are gorgeous and i've been meaning to get soem for necromunda for ages now.

Adding a footnote to my original comment..

*Subject to individual opinions

:D

My farseer's new pet:
http://www.creaturecaster.com/products/warriordemon

[daboarder]

Yeah GW has lost a lot of thunder not updating the greater daemons in a reasonable time frame. I really like that creature caster keeper.

[Caitsidhe]

So if I wanted to toss in some extra Warp Charges and get access to safer Santic, one detachment (still keeping Battle Forged rules) with a ML-3 Librarian and two Strike Squads brings +5 Warp Charges to the table. My recently "fallen" Gray Knights would have to deploy 12" from me and stay at least 6" away from my other troops as they aren't trusted entirely yet, but even if they do get too close there is only a 1 in 6 chance it would hurt me. Depending on how I outfit them (and the standard stuff is fine) this is less than 300pts. Seems like a nasty way to drop the new Vortex of Doom here and there. :D

[Charon]

Still try to figure out how I will get my DE to ever get a foot on the table in this edition. No more Jink, vehicles still explode, no psi defense, no psi powers. Hmm...

[IronZOGZ]

Will Acaelus or someone with the book please confirm that a caster of any level may cast a power of any level with any number of dice? I need to know for sure before I give up.

[daboarder]

Will Acaelus or someone with the book please confirm that a caster of any level may cast a power of any level with any number of dice? I need to know for sure before I give up.

THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED

go to 3++ is the new black

[Caitsidhe]

Still try to figure out how I will get my DE to ever get a foot on the table in this edition. No more Jink, vehicles still explode, no psi defense, no psi powers. Hmm...

You would have to do what they WANT you to do, i.e. allied detachments. That is the whole point of this edition, i.e. to force you to have to buy additional armies.

[Hal]

I don't understand..? DE are actually more likely to get into close combat than before..
3+ cover save after a flat out move instead of a 4+ is a huge difference.
And they explode only on a 6 if they are being shot at with an AP3 or weaker weapon (which is mostly the case since no one uses melta or similar low AP anti tank anymore)

[Caitsidhe]

I don't understand..? DE are actually more likely to get into close combat than before..
3+ cover save after a flat out move instead of a 4+ is a huge difference.
And they explode only on a 6 if they are being shot at with an AP3 or weaker weapon (which is mostly the case since no one uses melta or similar low AP anti tank anymore)

I believe he is commenting on the fact that Ignore Cover still ignores cover and thus there is no improvement there. Going flat out means you aren't assaulting because unless that is a change not commented on, you can't go more than 6" and still disembark. If they changed that, it would be a huge rules alteration.

[daboarder]

I don't understand..? DE are actually more likely to get into close combat than before..
3+ cover save after a flat out move instead of a 4+ is a huge difference.
And they explode only on a 6 if they are being shot at with an AP3 or weaker weapon (which is mostly the case since no one uses melta or similar low AP anti tank anymore)

and the turn AFTER they have flat outed? they are sitting in the breeze doing nothing

edit: deathleaper'd

[8bithamster]

So, for the people who know the game. How doomed are the nids. Just started my first army (Nids) and suddenly the intarwebs is ripe with "omg nyds got the shaft in 7th edition" etc.

How true is this?

[Caitsidhe]

So, for the people who know the game. How doomed are the nids. Just started my first army (Nids) and suddenly the intarwebs is ripe with "omg nyds got the shaft in 7th edition" etc.

How true is this?

No more so than anyone else. It just depends on how many "comes the apocalypse" allies you mean to bring in or how dirty you want to get with the broken stuff you already have. People keep missing the point. You can be as crazy as you want to be, so being doomed is really a matter of choice. If you try to remain tied to a single codex, it might make it harder on you, but if you spam the cheese you will do alright some of the time. Most games are going to be Paper, Rock, Scissors now. As to the super broken deathstars... eh... who knows.

[IronZOGZ]

So, for the people who know the game. How doomed are the nids. Just started my first army (Nids) and suddenly the intarwebs is ripe with "omg nyds got the shaft in 7th edition" etc.

How true is this?

Hard to say. If you rely on vector strikes with FMC's, that's a bummer. You lose a few attacks but now they're AP2.

Your casting situation is slightly more dire - you don't have access to the book powers, which is the same, but now you will get fewer psychic powers off in general - so the Zoes won't be as reliable.

You also have to sit for a turn after swooping as an FMC before you can charge, meaning no -->20" + --> 12" hop then -->2d6 charge.

If you use lots of infantry, I guess unchanged?

[Eldar_Atog]

I know how I'd like to see the community handle it:

1. Don't buy the book. There really isn't any need even if you want to play this edition.
2. The community needs to setup its OWN board of standards that put out its OWN Faqs and Errata based on community standards and balance.
3. Don't buy crap firsthand from Games Workshop. There isn't any reason to do so when you can get it all at a more reasonable price.

The only thing Games Workshop responds to is money, so if we want them to make a better rules set then we must make it clear to them in the only language they understand. It is either that or ignore their rules entirely and build our own community standards (many sports do this), or just accept the inevitable and play in a META dominated by total chaos.

Yeah, this has been my response to all of this. Since I play in a casual environment, my group might buy one rulebook instead of each of us shelling out 80 dollars for one. As more and more rules have been spoiled this week, my excitement level has been dropping.

[8bithamster]

Thanks! Again, I have no experience with 40k whatsoever :) I am starting when I get the rulebook. But so far it looks pretty cool (only other rule edition I have is the 5th edition one with the sleeve around it)

[Caitsidhe]

Hell if I'm reading Battle Forged rules correctly, you could bring a near endless horde of Genestealers. Just bring two Troops and one HQ and spam over and over again. In theory (at 1850) you could probably put (5) Flyrants into the air with all the Dakka that brings and put (10+) Genestealer units of variable size swarming across the board. It doesn't suck.

[Eberk]

So, for the people who know the game. How doomed are the nids. Just started my first army (Nids) and suddenly the intarwebs is ripe with "omg nyds got the shaft in 7th edition" etc.

How true is this?
It certainly won't be so horrible that you can't play your army anymore. Let the storm die down a bit, the weekend will bring everything you want to know.

Fact is... you still can have fun with your Tyranids, no worries :)

[legalsmash]

Yeah, this has been my response to all of this. Since I play in a casual environment, my group might buy one rulebook instead of each of us shelling out 80 dollars for one. As more and more rules have been spoiled this week, my excitement level has been dropping.

Yep. I think I'll buy an exocrene with the dollarydoos I don't spend on sixenth edition... maybe the cards.l..

[Cap'nSmurfs]

It's kind of nice to know that a lot of the rumours were a load of ****e - you know, again.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Maybe it's me, with my themed armies and casual pickup games and all, but what i'm seeing here is no big change.
Things are much as they were back when I started in 2nd Ed.
Get your toys, play your games, have a giggle, go home.
I've never once been to play at a GW or club (UK or AU) and the only people who wanted to play there rocked up and said
"Hey, want a game? I've just finished fine-tuning my high powered tourney list!"
It mostly been more like
"Hey, I've just finished my (insert thing from the background/a novel/codex fluff etc here) stuff and I want to try it out. Game on?"
Is there some secret rule that gaming clubs in the US have to drive all their players to play like every day is a tourney?
Serious question here, because I have literally NEVER seen a Screamer Star or a Taudar list at a normal workshop games night, I had to look them up online to find out what they were!

[Hal]

and the turn AFTER they have flat outed? they are sitting in the breeze doing nothing

Well that is the point... after moving flat out, during the opponents turn, their raiders are more likely to survive the shooting with a 3+ save (instead of the old 4+ save).
And when it's their turn (if they survived), they move, disembark, assault and rip **** apart :)


I believe he is commenting on the fact that Ignore Cover still ignores cover and thus there is no improvement there. Going flat out means you aren't assaulting because unless that is a change not commented on, you can't go more than 6" and still disembark. If they changed that, it would be a huge rules alteration.

As you said - there is no improvement with "Ignore cover", but it's not worse either.. I was just trying to explain that his claim (not being able to play DE in this edition) didn't make sense. If anything, i believe they got somewhat better in 6.5 than they were in 6th..
And no, i wasn't talking about assaulting after moving flat out (that would be ridiculously stupid good btw :)) but wanted to address the main problem of CC oriented DE armies which is not being able to get into CC before their transports get shot down. With the new jink they are more survivable and more likely to get into assault range before their raiders drop.
On the other hand, if he's playing shooty vehicle spam and doesn't want to jink, there are always good old Flickerfields which provide an always active 5++, the equivalent of the precious jink in 6th ed. :)
I wasn't trying to be offensive or anything... I just believe that everybody should first read the complete new edition through, check the FAQs when they come out and then play a few games before complaining and giving up on your favourite army :)

[IronZOGZ]

Speaking of assault - I saw that the Move Through Cover USR was updated to help with charging, but what does charging through terrain look like if you dont have Move Through Cover?

[Hal]

Normal assault range is 2d6.. Through difficult terrain it's 2d6 - 2". Move through cover ignores the -2" penalty.

[Denzark]

Maybe it's me, with my themed armies and casual pickup games and all, but what i'm seeing here is no big change.
Things are much as they were back when I started in 2nd Ed.
Get your toys, play your games, have a giggle, go home.
I've never once been to play at a GW or club (UK or AU) and the only people who wanted to play there rocked up and said
"Hey, want a game? I've just finished fine-tuning my high powered tourney list!"
It mostly been more like
"Hey, I've just finished my (insert thing from the background/a novel/codex fluff etc here) stuff and I want to try it out. Game on?"
Is there some secret rule that gaming clubs in the US have to drive all their players to play like every day is a tourney?
Serious question here, because I have literally NEVER seen a Screamer Star or a Taudar list at a normal workshop games night, I had to look them up online to find out what they were!

This is hugely funny... and demonstrates how a vocal tourney scene with a sense of entitlement is also part of the problem...

[White Tiger88]

Any new easier way to gain skyfire for models or ways to hit the buzzing buggers?

[daboarder]

Well that is the point... after moving flat out, during the opponents turn, their raiders are more likely to survive the shooting with a 3+ save (instead of the old 4+ save).
And when it's their turn (if they survived), they move, disembark, assault and rip **** apart :)

oh right open topped.


Maybe it's me, with my themed armies and casual pickup games and all, but what i'm seeing here is no big change.
Things are much as they were back when I started in 2nd Ed.
Get your toys, play your games, have a giggle, go home.
I've never once been to play at a GW or club (UK or AU) and the only people who wanted to play there rocked up and said
"Hey, want a game? I've just finished fine-tuning my high powered tourney list!"
It mostly been more like
"Hey, I've just finished my (insert thing from the background/a novel/codex fluff etc here) stuff and I want to try it out. Game on?"
Is there some secret rule that gaming clubs in the US have to drive all their players to play like every day is a tourney?
Serious question here, because I have literally NEVER seen a Screamer Star or a Taudar list at a normal workshop games night, I had to look them up online to find out what they were!




This is hugely funny... and demonstrates how a vocal tourney scene with a sense of entitlement is also part of the problem...



So guys, what are you going to do when a daemons lists rolls cursed earth and Invisibilllity?

Declare that they are just a WAAC player and quit the game?

Demand that they dont use those powers?

Or demand that they dont intelligently apply those powers?

[White Tiger88]

So does this mean it is a good idea to invest in a Librarian over a 3rd sicarian battle tank.....?

[daboarder]

So does this mean it is a good idea to invest in a Librarian over a 3rd sicarian battle tank.....?

depends.

he wont help your denial rolls because Invisibillity is a blessing (so you can only deny on a 6) but it will mean you at least get more dice to throw at the attempt

Im not kidding when I say invis may actually be straight broken, both its low warp charge (2) its ready availability and the fact that its so obvious to use mean that its going to cause problems

[White Tiger88]

depends.

he wont help your denial rolls because Invisibillity is a blessing (so you can only deny on a 6) but it will mean you at least get more dice to throw at the attempt

Im not kidding when I say invis may actually be straight broken, both its low warp charge (2) its ready availability and the fact that its so obvious to use mean that its going to cause problems


.....wow so

Legion Consul Librarian 155 (that as you can say cast some crazy stuff...and hide with terminators....)
Force sword,mastery 3,Artificer Armor,Refractor Shield

OR

Legion Sicaran Battle Tank 155
Heavy Bolter Sponsons

God in the old days i would go "Tank any day" but after reading this mr.librarian seems like a safe investment for a huge payout even compared to a giant autocannon on treads..... I mean Making a squad of seige terminators that deepstrike and have +1 to tank damage with missile launchers........and power fists gain invisible.....Dear god.

[daboarder]

at ML3 he will only give you 3 more dice for the dispel attempt. so you have to ask yourself.

Do you really need that fractional extra chance at 6s?

actually thinking about it the best reason to take that guy, would be so you can roll up your own invis units and get them to wiffle bat at your opponents ones

[White Tiger88]

at ML3 he will only give you 3 more dice for the dispel attempt. so you have to ask yourself.

Do you really need that fractional extra chance at 6s?

actually thinking about it the best reason to take that guy, would be so you can roll up your own invis units and get them to wiffle bat at your opponents ones

That seems like a pretty solid idea......I am pretty sure him self, 5 Terminators & Armillus Dynat Deep strikeing next to them then going invisible would cause some fun as well >:D

[daboarder]

That seems like a pretty solid idea......I am pretty sure him self, 5 Terminators & Armillus Dynat Deep strikeing next to them then going invisible would cause some fun as well >:D

see thats my point about invis. its just so obvious how powerful its application is.

its also D-weapon protection as it means you cant fire blast or templates at the unit

[White Tiger88]

see thats my point about invis. its just so obvious how powerful its application is.

its also D-weapon protection as it means you cant fire blast or templates at the unit

well.....Damn Fury of the Legion seems like it will be saving me in games against nids....but I can't ignore how AMAZING that would make any horde army in the game.....

[daboarder]

eh, nids are winning some and losing some and they dont get invis.

daemons and AM are going to be murder with that power though

edit: I think nids are worse off overall

no area terrain to hide MCs in
No new powers
FMCs cannot charge the turn they change from swooping to gliding


the ony buffs ar
vector strike is now AP2 d3 (not D3+1)
terrify no longer affects fearless

[White Tiger88]

eh, nids are winning some and losing some and they dont get invis.

daemons and AM are going to be murder with that power though

........Yet i am still more worried about orks lol

[Patrick Boyle]

So guys, what are you going to do when a daemons lists rolls cursed earth and Invisibilllity?

Declare that they are just a WAAC player and quit the game?

Demand that they dont use those powers?

Or demand that they dont intelligently apply those powers?

Or to say it another way, 'Balance' and 'Casual' shouldn't be mutually exclusive. What you're basically saying is "The game is fine, if you just ignore these broken things". It benefits players of all stripes and self identifications if instead you can just say "the game is fine" without any qualifiers, and that's definitely not the case with 40k.

Even against not super aggressively min-maxed Tau, Eldar, Necron etc. lists, when I step up to the table with my non-grav gun + biker marines I feel like I'm behind the curve. I don't ever feel like that's the case when I setup for a game of something like X-wing or Android:Netrunner, just because of what faction I'm running. That's a problem.

[daboarder]

Or to say it another way, 'Balance' and 'Casual' shouldn't be mutually exclusive. What you're basically saying is "The game is fine, if you just ignore these broken things". It benefits players of all stripes and self identifications if instead you can just say "the game is fine" without any qualifiers, and that's definitely not the case with 40k.

Even against not super aggressively min-maxed Tau, Eldar, Necron etc. lists, when I step up to the table with my non-grav gun + biker marines I feel like I'm behind the curve. I don't ever feel like that's the case when I setup for a game of something like X-wing or Android:Netrunner, just because of what faction I'm running. That's a problem.

actually thats my point patrick, the game just got delivered some seriously unequal Nukes.

its basically M.A.D where only one or two sides have the Nukes.

You shouldnt have to be actively crippling yourself by choosing not to use a basic rule to make the game playable

[Patrick Boyle]

actually thats my point patrick, the game just got delivered some seriously unequal Nukes.

its basically M.A.D where only one or two sides have the Nukes.

You shouldnt have to be actively crippling yourself by choosing not to use a basic rule to make the game playable

the quoting didn't make it clear I guess but I was agreeing with you. The 'You' in my post was the people you were replying to.

[White Tiger88]

So we all agree this will be the cluster $#(@ edition of laughs?

[daboarder]

yeah

there are some awesome things you can do such as repentia in a redeemer (wooo!) but there are some stupid things too (like GK and daemons in the same list

Drbored assesment of TFG being the loser may be correct. but I dont think it is, I dont think 7th will stop TFG gaming, but I do think its going to kill tournaments

[DarkLink]

6th didn't kill tournaments, far from it, and 7th appears to be an overall improvement on 6th even if there are some readily apparent lapses.

[Mr.Pickelz]

Can you still take Formations within a Battleforged army list?
Cause i got a pretty big Green Tide and Kult of Speed that would love to run down some gitz.

[daboarder]

6th didn't kill tournaments, far from it, and 7th appears to be an overall improvement on 6th even if there are some readily apparent lapses.

It did in australia.

our biggest annual even went form having 120+ people to 30


edit: man, nids are even more screwed than I thought.....smash means that you get a single attack.....so how do we kill tanks now?

[Inafmy]

Also with a 7th edition in hand... this is bad. Very bad.
And this is not coming from a tournament player. Haven't played in one of those since early 5th edition.

Just getting in casual games in an open venue is going to be like pulling teeth without some sort of pre-existing relationship with a player. The rules for setting up terrain alone are a nightmare... or perhaps I should say the NON-rules for terrain.

"Exactly how you set up terrain is purely a matter of taste." -pg. 130
Which player's taste, pray tell?!? If you though unbound army composition was bad get ready for unbound scenery spamming. Want to form a free, impenetrable wall of derelict, 13 AV, 5 Hull Point, side-by-side Aquila Strongpoints? Want to fill the opposing Tyranid players entire deployment zone with difficult terrain? Go for it dude...

"Games Workshop manufactures a range of Citadel scenery models for this purpose ... we have found the that the more scenery you place on the battlefield , the better the game will be." -Same page.
So the veil has dropped... they directly foreground their "manufacturing" in a rules section. Broken rules as a means to sell plastic crack isn't even disguised behind "narrative forging" anymore. Will the enjoyment of players be an overt goal anymore or we be referred to only in terms of our "consumption of Games Workshop products in mass quantities that satisfy the corporation"?

I've read it over and over and I still don't see what checks and balances there are on terrain set up... there is absolutely no mechanic. At all.

So basically, the guy who argues better pre-game gets his way... or you can choose not to play.

Page 132 discusses what to do when deployment zones don't have enough room to deploy your army in them... OK now, the fact that they already contemplated your deployment zone being crowded by impassable crud means they KNOW this is likely going to be an issue... and they did it anyway.
Their solution, just "reduce the amount of scenery in a deployment zone, or shuffle it around slightly in order to give models the space they need to deploy". OK, who is doing the reducing and shuffling? What if the guy who wants to "reduce and shuffle" is not in agreement with the other guy? Who "taste" gets to win? By the time you are to this point, your models are all unpacked and ready to go... the other guy can just say, "my way or pack up and leave the table to me and some one stupid enough to play me".
And why not? There are no real rules controlling this most basic of requirements for the a game: the f@#$in' battlefield.

Page 130 also gives a another real winner: Fortifications are place during your deployment... so you have to shoe-horn them into the most absurd (and unlikely) positions to get them in there or get into a "reduce and shuffle" argument with the guy who placed all the crippling crud in your deployment zone is pursuit or his artistic expression, erm, I mean "tastes".

When the options for play balance begin and end with "boycott people who you think are WAAC" and the options for easy going pick-up games boil down to "only play with people you know", you can be sure that this hobby is spinning round the drain... Good luck recruiting new players in open venues.

The problem is not that this is the "Unbound option" for scenery placement... the problem is that there is NO OTHER option but this wibbly-wobbly set of non-rules for how to set up the space for a game.

[Arkhan Land]

my feelings are that theyre either about to update the nids codex a ton to adjust this stuff not to mention any changes to perils. so essentially once again im walking around with a recently printed 50 dollar book with like half a dozen FAQ pages making me wonder if I wasted money on half-baked codex, but without those pages Ill feel like I wasted money on a half-baked codex with no update, which could be even worse.
Hopefully theres something giving them more than one smash attack and hopefully SITW gets buffed a little, maybe theyre hoping that with the unbound rules your simply willing to finally buy all those carnifexes and tervigons theyve been trying to move, just for the extra smash hitzzz

[daboarder]

I dont, having seen how minimal the changes to this edition are I actually dont expect to see army wide errata's for the change over anymore.

[Sainhann]

Oh and if you think you are going to be stopping any of the powers casted think again.

The caster needs 4+ to cast the Denier will need 6's in most cases to Deny the power.

Plus if the Psychic Phase is the only major change then this is looking like a money grab by GW.

[White Tiger88]

Plus if the Psychic Phase is the only major change then this is looking like a money grab by GW.

You would be surprised by this how?

[Mr Mystery]

I''m most looking forward to Maelstrom of War missions. Win with your brain, not a Netlist*




*Possibly unfair on Netlists, but hopefully you get the gist.

[Wolfshade]

Just getting in casual games in an open venue is going to be like pulling teeth without some sort of pre-existing relationship with a player. The rules for setting up terrain alone are a nightmare... or perhaps I should say the NON-rules for terrain.

"Exactly how you set up terrain is purely a matter of taste." -pg. 130
Which player's taste, pray tell?!? If you though unbound army composition was bad get ready for unbound scenery spamming. Want to form a free, impenetrable wall of derelict, 13 AV, 5 Hull Point, side-by-side Aquila Strongpoints? Want to fill the opposing Tyranid players entire deployment zone with difficult terrain? Go for it dude...

"Games Workshop manufactures a range of Citadel scenery models for this purpose ... we have found the that the more scenery you place on the battlefield , the better the game will be." -Same page.
So the veil has dropped... they directly foreground their "manufacturing" in a rules section. Broken rules as a means to sell plastic crack isn't even disguised behind "narrative forging" anymore. Will the enjoyment of players be an overt goal anymore or we be referred to only in terms of our "consumption of Games Workshop products in mass quantities that satisfy the corporation"?


Page 130 also gives a another real winner: Fortifications are place during your deployment... so you have to shoe-horn them into the most absurd (and unlikely) positions to get them in there or get into a "reduce and shuffle" argument with the guy who placed all the crippling crud in your deployment zone is pursuit or his artistic expression, erm, I mean "tastes".

When the options for play balance begin and end with "boycott people who you think are WAAC" and the options for easy going pick-up games boil down to "only play with people you know", you can be sure that this hobby is spinning round the drain... Good luck recruiting new players in open venues.

The problem is not that this is the "Unbound option" for scenery placement... the problem is that there is NO OTHER option but this wibbly-wobbly set of non-rules for how to set up the space for a game.

How is this different from before? It was always up to players choice. I think it was back in 4th the last time it mentioned any guidelines for the amount of terrain. Don't forget, the table set up isn't one person's choice, you both get a hand in it and you set up. Also, you place terrain before determining deployment zones, so if it is totally unfair, and you end up with the unfair side you have just nerfed yourself.

Fortifications will be placed after deployment zones are decided, which makes sense.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

And it's a rare pick-up game where you won't have some third party dude knocking about, the vast majority of whom in my experience are only too happy to set up some terrain, as it's a good opening gambit to befriending other players and expanding your own playing options.

And once again.....7th Edition, like all those before it, doesn't cause Bellend Gamers. Gamers being natural Bellends cause Bellend Gamers. Doesn't matter the rules set. Doesn't matter the army selection. A Bellend will be a Bellend, precisely because they're a Bellend. Take Chess. Bellend Gamer will insist that because you touched a piece, you have to move it, but only when it's favourable to them. They'll also try to hurry your move along. The rules have nothing to do with it.

[White Tiger88]

So this will be people reading there 7th edition rules then?


http://youtu.be/S35c9igr32M

[Charon]

How is this different from before? It was always up to players choice. I think it was back in 4th the last time it mentioned any guidelines for the amount of terrain. Don't forget, the table set up isn't one person's choice, you both get a hand in it and you set up. Also, you place terrain before determining deployment zones, so if it is totally unfair, and you end up with the unfair side you have just nerfed yourself.

Fortifications will be placed after deployment zones are decided, which makes sense.

6th had rules for terrain deployment.
If fortifications are set up after deployment zones are decided that either means that a) you choose sides BEFORE placing terrain (which lets you put all that crap pieces in you opponents zone as you have at least one good piece of cover anyways) or b) you place your fortification after terrain and riskt that you can place your xxx points piece because you have no space.

[Mr Mystery]

Again, the assumption that anyone not you is a knob when it comes to gaming.

Where does this come from? I've met an extremely low percentage of knob gamers in my many years in this Hobby.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Bad sports do exist, but positing the nightmare scenario as somehow the norm does seem to be the crux of so many criticisms around here. Wargaming is a collaborative activity. ****ing talk to each other, dip****s.

[Wolfshade]

6th had rules for terrain deployment.
If fortifications are set up after deployment zones are decided that either means that a) you choose sides BEFORE placing terrain (which lets you put all that crap pieces in you opponents zone as you have at least one good piece of cover anyways) or b) you place your fortification after terrain and riskt that you can place your xxx points piece because you have no space.

As opposed to now where you can cram the deployment zones with so much terrain that you can't move a land raider...

[Charon]

Again, the assumption that anyone not you is a knob when it comes to gaming.

Where does this come from? I've met an extremely low percentage of knob gamers in my many years in this Hobby.

Has nothing to do with the gamers but the available terrain.


As opposed to now where you can cram the deployment zones with so much terrain that you can't move a land raider...

Why opposed to now? Thats how it is now.
6th had either agreement, scenario or d3 pieces per 1/6 of the table. Always enough space to move your Landraider.

[Wolfshade]

Why opposed to now? Thats how it is now.
6th had either agreement, scenario or d3 pieces per 1/6 of the table. Always enough space to move your Landraider.

That was my point, it hadn't really changed.

Also, not always enough space to move your landraider, I have had a game where the terrain was placed so that there wasn't enough room between ruins to get the raider through. That was based on alternative placement.

[Throne Agent]

Oh and if you think you are going to be stopping any of the powers casted think again.

The caster needs 4+ to cast the Denier will need 6's in most cases to Deny the power.

Plus if the Psychic Phase is the only major change then this is looking like a money grab by GW.

Erm, the denying player needs 6s on blessings, but each six cancels out one of the casters dice, and you can put as many of your power dice to it as you like, without risking Perils, opponent using 6 dice to try and Summon a Herald, throw all your dice, if he gets 3 passes, you only need one 6 to cancel the power, and he can still perils (likely if its not a Daemon)

The psychic phase, a whole new, better, set of missions and many tweaks and improvements to the rules, they could have added these in a supplement, but it would have been a lot more complicated and wouldn't have been able to sensibly change the core rules, the cheapest and easiest option (especially for new players) is a new rule book. DOn't forget, this is a set of 3 high quality hardbound books in a slipcase, for £50, this is NOT a money grab, its unlikey to generate much money on sales of rule books, there would be much easier ways to grab money if thats what they wanted.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

So guys, what are you going to do when a daemons lists rolls cursed earth and Invisibilllity?

Declare that they are just a WAAC player and quit the game?

Demand that they dont use those powers?

Or demand that they dont intelligently apply those powers?

No I will likely say.
"Dude, that's epic, I'm in real trouble now."
Then Ram them with my 8 Deathrollas :)
Or just, you know, suck it up.
Because the only thing worse than losing is pissing and moaning about it.
Or.............Deny the witch?
But then, Khorne cares not from where the blood flows and neither do I!

But the you're missing the point anyway, which was
"I HAVE NEVER ONCE COME ACROSS ANY OF THE STUFF PEOPLE MOANED ABOUT ON THE INTERNET ABOUT 6th ED."
Ever.
In fact most of it I had to google to find out what people were talking about.
Oh and Boarder, in the 6 months I've been here everyone I've asked about the Aussie Tourney scene has said something along the lines of "Yeah, the TOs basically got complacent and barely bothered promoting stuff." with the exception of GW staff who said "Yeah, there used to be tournaments but we don't know what's going on with them."
I wasn't here, so I'll have to go on second hand accounts though.

[Mr Mystery]

Has nothing to do with the gamers but the available terrain.



Why opposed to now? Thats how it is now.
6th had either agreement, scenario or d3 pieces per 1/6 of the table. Always enough space to move your Landraider.

I was meaning those living in fear of the horrendously beardy and extremely cash expensive armies. None of which I have ever actually encountered.

At the risk of sounding completely arseish, perhaps it's a genuine matter of life outlook. I'm a natural optimist, and always make the best of any given situation. It's just what I do.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I actively blame the internet.
I was in the hobby before hobby online was a thing, and there was none of this nonsense.

[Mr Mystery]

Or at least it wasn't shared.

The internet is an echo chamber right enough. But echos come from somewhere.

[Charon]

I was meaning those living in fear of the horrendously beardy and extremely cash expensive armies. None of which I have ever actually encountered.

At the risk of sounding completely arseish, perhaps it's a genuine matter of life outlook. I'm a natural optimist, and always make the best of any given situation. It's just what I do.

The problem with personal experence is - everyone can have another. I try to get about 3 - 4 games a month and even if I stick to our small gaming group (around 7 people) I will encounter 3 Heldrakes, Flying circus, Serpent Spam, Seerstar, Prescienced gunlines, ect.
We agreed to tone the powerlevel down several times and always end up there. Thats not because the players want to win at all costs but the players dont want a one sided massacre and want to have fun playing their armies.
Our imperial guys love their gunlines. They dont want to play mobile infantry. They just like to mass troops and hide them in every ruin/building possible. They think thats their fantasy of the IG. Cant blame them for doing what seems right storywise and feels narrative.
Now you have the Chaos player playing his 1 Helldrake no cultists list with a few Terminators and Berzerkers. Gets tabled as soon as he comes in 12" range.
Not fun at all. For the Chaos player. What to tell the IG player? Tone down the list? He already uses just Standard, HQ and Heavy support. Force him to play a style he doesnt deem fun?
We are not even talking about allies here cause we banned them together with SC.
And this is not the players to blame. They try hard to tone their powerlevel down. But if you have to play a style you dont like or have to/must not take units you dont like/like you are crossing a border where you can quit the game altogether.

[Tynskel]

It did in australia.

our biggest annual even went form having 120+ people to 30


edit: man, nids are even more screwed than I thought.....smash means that you get a single attack.....so how do we kill tanks now?

Carnifex

[IronZOGZ]

Carnifex


I think you meant... http://1d4chan.org/wiki/DISTRACTION_CARNIFEX

[Caitsidhe]

You must understand Charon that our friends across the Pond "never" run into any of this stuff. Apparently, ingrained in their very DNA, there is a 40K version of the Marquess of Queensbury rules. From listening to them here and elsewhere, I have divined that they do not build "beardy" lists and don't have a lot of "that guy," even though they will talk about "that guy" for post after post. The issue, apparently, was created by us descendants of rogues and criminals in the American colonies. We are so bad, in fact, that is is a wonder that Games Workshop hasn't simply cut off all sales to us, sort of a purge like the Space Marines would apply to a planet too rife with corruption. :)

Of course, my own anecdotal experience with an Australian who was posted to San Antonio for several years and several other Brits I have encountered now revealed predators of the utmost competitiveness. They all brought hard lists that would make any driven for the gold Olympic athlete proud. I can only assume that perhaps it is in the water we Americans drink, and that when these visitors came over a horrible transformation took place. Like Edward Hyde, this unseemly, vile alter ego of gaming emerged. Or, this image the rest of us are given of how things are done across the pond is a big, steaming load.

Continuing with my own, admittedly anecdotal experiences, I have to reveal the the most competitive, annoying players I have ever encountered have not been the overly competitive types. They have been the jolly, friendly (at first) players who claim they don't care about who wins. It is just a beer and pretzels game, after all, and they are above the vulgarity of competition. I have heard the sermon many times. And yet... when the dice start getting thrown these jolly types seem more keen on staring at the dice each time suspiciously, insist on rereading each "well-known" rule every time when it goes against them, slow play, and get progressively more morose and painful to play as the game goes on. Now, if they are winning they remain that jovial bundle of joy you first met. Now, the funny thing about these many encounters is that my lists for pick up games are never as hard as my tournament ones. I don't play the sermon crowd with anything more than a rounded, all-comers type setup. Even then, I will knock things off it or replace them if I see they have no way to fight it. It doesn't matter. If they are losing, my list is horrible, broken and beardy. It is always the list with these guys and never the player. There seems to be a common agreement among this type of player that you never acknowledge that your loss is due to being out played. It must always be because of 1) a beardy list, 2) bad dice, or 3) you were really cheating them.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? I know it does to some of you (who post or lurk) because I've watched this little comedy happen to other people too. For some reason, the worst sports are always the people who are supposed to be (or at least spend a lot of time telling you) what great sports they are in fact. To me it is a big warning sign. I grit my teeth and muddle through it each time it happens. By contrast, the annoying version of the hyper-competitive guy (and yes I play against those too) at least understands the rules and doesn't spend his time accusing me with dirty looks or haughty manner of being a jerk for having the audacity of beating him. Competitive players are constantly bad mouthed by a very vocal group online, but it is odd because playing in both worlds, I always wonder who it is they are talking about. I play friendly local and tournament games. Granted, I play in the evil U.S.A. so perhaps I am blinded to how horrible a person I am, but most of the tournaments I attend are full of fun guys who are serious about their hobby and play that hard even while chatting away casual and friendly (often with beer in hand depending on where the event is held).

*So it seems to me, anecdotal and biased though I must be, that people playing hard and competitive actually seem quite relaxed and even <gasp> good sports. Since they all know the rules and don't take it personal that the other person is playing to win (as they are themselves) that they don't get all bent out of shape over it. I've been offered congratulations when I win, and had people tell me with grace that they were just outplayed. I in turn have done the same when it happens to me. I'm not going to pretend we don't have the occasional bad sport, or that I have never thrown a hissy fit myself. I have. What I am saying is the overall pattern of the different types of players seems the SAME to me. The only difference is in how they react or treat the other player. In short:

1. There is a rare animal that plays this game but doesn't care about winning and acts like a saint. By rare I mean you run into this fabled unicorn once in a very long while.
2. Most players, whether they claim to be fluffy or competitive are EXACTLY the same when the rubber hits the road. They play to win.
3. Supposedly good sportsman, fluffy "I don't care about winning" types seem to care the most about losing and make you regret playing them.
4. Competitive types tends to more casual opponents.
5. Ultra-competitive types are often more dull because they don't chat or do much besides stare at the game.
6. The true WAAC player is as rare as the Saint listed in #1. These people will cheat and only get gratification from others thinking they won, not the actual winning.
7. If American players engaged in the kind of obnoxious Jingoistic slams on our friends across the Pond that they do of us, we would be called be called "Ugly Americans."
8. Oddly, Americans (who are Jingoistic in general) don't breed 40K players who make it their business to insult players from other countries. Imagine that.
9. You never heard about competitive Players complaining endlessly about Fluff players. The competitive types just say live and let live.
10. So what does #9 above tell you about people "who live in glass houses"?

[legalsmash]

Erm, the denying player needs 6s on blessings, but each six cancels out one of the casters dice, and you can put as many of your power dice to it as you like, without risking Perils, opponent using 6 dice to try and Summon a Herald, throw all your dice, if he gets 3 passes, you only need one 6 to cancel the power, and he can still perils (likely if its not a Daemon)

The psychic phase, a whole new, better, set of missions and many tweaks and improvements to the rules, they could have added these in a supplement, but it would have been a lot more complicated and wouldn't have been able to sensibly change the core rules, the cheapest and easiest option (especially for new players) is a new rule book. DOn't forget, this is a set of 3 high quality hardbound books in a slipcase, for £50, this is NOT a money grab, its unlikey to generate much money on sales of rule books, there would be much easier ways to grab money if thats what they wanted.

Not rant, more of a ramble:

I'm a little wierded out by the concept of only needing a single six to disspell a psychic power blessing, to me it should be witchfire per witch fire no?

As for the quality, size, book, etc. I have a very swanky 75 dollar book on my mantle for 6th ed rules, an equally squanky fifth ed mini rule book and sixth ed mini rule book... guess which I use most?

I'm not saying that someone who is just getting intot eh game wouldn't enjoy "newer" rules, but to me, its just clunkier than what I would want to do on a beer and pretzel night. This game isn't something I compete in, or something I particularly WANT to do rather than model, paint, etc. I got into the gaming aspect because I'd painted the models for so long and wanted to see what the game ultimately was like...

GW does something that I like, they make good models that I can easily buy at somewhat reasonable rates through third parties. I have little to no desire to buy from them directly. They make nice looking books, which while waning in quality the last 10 years regarding actual storyline, give a "good" accounting of hte various forces you can buy models for. I literally expect nothing more and nothing less of them.

I got into 6th ed full tilt because I had a group of friends that played and could do it regularly. Things changed, I got two kids that are mobile, love to paint, but aren't in the age group to realistically understand the way the game plays yet, and honestly, I'm getting old, cantancerous and less than interested in buying a new set of rules every X or Y year ration to get rehashed fluff and new catalogue pics (which are really falling off, jesus christ the model painters are *** now.) While it would be nice to have the edition last longer, much like ADnD, nothing stops me from stipulating those rules to play a game with others, nor does my less and less frequent gaming activity warrant a book that costs more than a really sweet exocrine model that will sit on my desk and scare my dog.

[Sainhann]

You would be surprised by this how?

I am not surprised since everything GW does is a money grab.

I was hoping that they would surprise us by putting out a decent set of rules, which they haven't done for almost 15 years now.

Looks like it is going to be a very long time until they do.

[Wolfshade]

Caithsidhe just one minor point Charon is on this side of the pond...

[Caitsidhe]

Caithsidhe just one minor point Charon is on this side of the pond...

I am well-aware. :D That is the humor in it to me. It emphasizes that apparently the image portrayed online and the reality over there is not the same. In other words, the players there are no different from over here. They just like to pretend that they are different.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I think the main distinction is between in-person and online, rather than US-UK. There are some differences, but it's not a huge cultural void. The Independent Characters are one of the best fluff & narrative & beerhammer podcasts around, and they're as American as hell. Meanwhile, Bad Dice are tournament players almost exclusively, and they're Comedy Midlanders.

[Wolfshade]

I am well-aware. :D That is the humor in it to me. It emphasizes that apparently the image portrayed online and the reality over there is not the same. In other words, the players there are no different from over here. They just like to pretend that they are different.

Ok thats fine :D Though he isn't a UK person, he is on the continent.

With regard to your point, I think everyone has a slightly different experiance. I don't tend to play pick up games and my group tends to play more thematic type lists devoid of net list influence. And certainly, there is creedance in thinking, well if I am going to be facing this efficient list then in order to be "equal" then I'll have to take 3 hell turkeys so it might end up in some kind of arms race. I don't know how true that is, but it feels right.

I would also suggest playing a one-off pickup game it is more about winning then playing with your matse in a "beer and pretzels" game where, certainly the aim is to win, but it is a more relaxed atmosphere. That's not to say either can't be fun or one way is more fun than the other.

[Caitsidhe]

Ok thats fine :D Though he isn't a UK person, he is on the continent.

With regard to your point, I think everyone has a slightly different experiance. I don't tend to play pick up games and my group tends to play more thematic type lists devoid of net list influence. And certainly, there is creedance in thinking, well if I am going to be facing this efficient list then in order to be "equal" then I'll have to take 3 hell turkeys so it might end up in some kind of arms race. I don't know how true that is, but it feels right.

I would also suggest playing a one-off pickup game it is more about winning then playing with your matse in a "beer and pretzels" game where, certainly the aim is to win, but it is a more relaxed atmosphere. That's not to say either can't be fun or one way is more fun than the other.

I agree 100%. I was just taking a jab at the attempt to shuffle off concerns about the new Edition (such as it is) as if the only problem lies outside the box with "those people" which almost always seems to be us Yanks. :D Let's tell the truth and shame the devil, we all know this new Edition is a scam. They added mission cards and reshuffled Psychic Powers enough to resell the cards. The rest of the "changes" amount to less than a page of Faqs and Errata. The opening up the game to use anything and everything is a sop to continue their drive to push people toward what they didn't achieve with double force org and allies, i.e. the goal of getting people to collect more armies and be less singular in their buying. Do I blame them for wanting to make money? No. Do I think we should lie to ourselves or others about whether or not this Edition is a good idea or good for the consumer? No. The blame, as always, rests with the company that shotgunned this thing out in 3-4 months in response to a dip in their profits. The problems people are talking about having now heard the changes are serious issues. They aren't just hyperbole, and they aren't merely issues of "those people."

[Wolfshade]

I'll reserve my judgment till I get the book in my hands, though that won't be for a wee while.

The mission cards I like the idea of, but they could have been implemented as an add-on.
Same with the pyschic cards.

[Caitsidhe]

I'll reserve my judgment till I get the book in my hands, though that won't be for a wee while.

The mission cards I like the idea of, but they could have been implemented as an add-on.
Same with the pyschic cards.

Agreed. If they had done it that way, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. :D

[eldargal]

Agreed. I don't think from a rules perspective it is the disaster some peopel are thinking, in fact I'm really quite enthusiastic about a lot of the changes, but it is perplexing it is a brand new edition rather than a supplement and a FAQ or two.

[Wolfshade]

I suppose if it were a FAQ you would then have the complaint that I've got this big rule book then a further 10 pages (or however many) of FAQs/errata/amendments, can't they put all this stuff in a book and get on with it.

I am looking forward to a new box set even more than the new rules. Usually (previously) they have been very good value for money and if the rumour is true that it is BA vs Orks then that would be awesome as I play both, so might be slightly biased ;)

[Eldar_Atog]

I've seen too much bad behavior from players to put much faith in them to do the right thing. For every good player that I have encountered in my life, I can count 2 or 3 bad players whose only source of self worth was pounding their opponents into the ground using any and all means. I can remember the 3 hour arguments over how a model shouldn't get a cover save and how the 2 players whole sense of self worth rode on this one stupid decision.

I've learned to just play with a small circle of friends that don't seem to have emotional issues with their toy soldiers. It's rare that we add a new player to the mix.

Optimism? It usually only leads to disappointment...

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno. Look at the resistance to Escalation and Stronghold Assault.

Both completely officially offical additions to the game, neither any more or less opponents permission than a Codex force, and people decried them and said they would neither use them (fair enough really) and that they would completely refuse, point blank, to play anyone wanting to use them (bit harsh).

Same would happen to Maelstrom of War missions if done as an addendum, because they mess about with linear missions where Netlisting works well.

[Charon]

Netlisting works even better with Maelstrom missions. Take a seat get a cup of tea and think about it why this could be the case.

[Caitsidhe]

I dunno. Look at the resistance to Escalation and Stronghold Assault.

Both completely officially offical additions to the game, neither any more or less opponents permission than a Codex force, and people decried them and said they would neither use them (fair enough really) and that they would completely refuse, point blank, to play anyone wanting to use them (bit harsh).

Same would happen to Maelstrom of War missions if done as an addendum, because they mess about with linear missions where Netlisting works well.

Agreed. People didn't like them in general. They were bad design, but could have been great. The difference between those and this "Edition" is that we had a choice. Remember Games Workshop is all about choice. They realized that if they suddenly rushed production of a new Edition they could try to force everyone to use their rules. Why they didn't just take the lesson to heart and build BETTER rules is beyond me. The issue is one that Games Workshop keeps dodging. It needs to create a balanced game and solid rules set. There shouldn't be any great problem. The community is pretty clear about what it wants, has play tested the game through many editions, and clearly wants to help. :D Give us rules as good as the models. It isn't that hard. :D

Instead, they tare trying to force feed us the rules we DIDN'T want. The community, by a huge margin, avoided double force organization. It wasn't balanced. If Games Workshop wanted to throw the floodgates open all it had to do was balance the system before it did so. They chose instead to rewrite the basic rules in a hurry to try to force it through Darwinian methods. The logic goes that since we are competitive lot, some will break ranks and use the horrible, horrible lists. This means the rest of us to have any chance of winning will do the same. Hence the way the now Psychic Powers work in addition to the Unbound and Battle Forged (which are as permissive really as Unbound) are setup.

So do you see this disconnect? If the majority of people decried certain rules releases and refused point blank to use them, why does Games Workshop not simply write rules they will like? These same people who decried those rules were also clear on what they saw wrong with them and what they wanted. The real question is what are people going to do with this newest book. Having been force fed it as the basic rules, the notion is we will have no choice, like the Czechs in prior to WII, nothing like a little dictate. I don't think this will cure the problem. Most people aren't going to embrace the buying motive they built in here. It might kill or further slow down the tournament scene. Although, I'm not sure why Games Workshop thinks destroying or diminishing a type of its players and consumers is a good thing. If their belief is that these players will transform into the kinds of players they claim to like... they are mistaken. These types will adjust the rules, or move on to other games. That is a net loss of profits.

[Mr Mystery]

Netlisting works even better with Maelstrom missions. Take a seat get a cup of tea and think about it why this could be the case.

Yes. Because a Netlist designed to do pretty one thing is ever so flexible......

And Netlists don't take into account anything but a set meta. A meta without masses of fortifications. A meta with Lords of War stomping on stuff. A meta based purely on a single FoC.....

For my penny's worth, the meta might as well be binned now. There are so many variables coming in 7th Ed, it will be really difficult to keep up with any meta. Plus, meta tends to be really rather local, and only ever self fulfilling. Every new Codex messes with the established meta, as that army gets shiny new toys to play with. Some get better, some not so much. Constant change defeats meta.

[Charon]

Netlists are doing "just one thing"? Im curious... do you think that netlists are created to just table your enemy?
You now I dont mid if you are not the competitive type and prefer not to play competitive people... but if you want to discuss this and point out a "weakness" of netlists you really should have knowledge of this subject.

[Mr Mystery]

Yet to see a Netlist that doesn't revolve around some one trick pony and massive cash investment.

[Charon]

One trick pony? Massive cash investment? What are you talking about?

[Mr Mystery]

Hurr-de-hurr, I r tactimical genius. I field three Heldrakes with minimum Cultists, and allied Heldrake from that other book, again with minimum Cultists.

That sort of thing. You now. Gaming Drivel.

[Lordofchaos]

Can we please go back to what the thread was originally meant to be, posting questions about the rule book. The complaining is getting old quick

Acaelus, if you still are monitoring the tread for questions, can you go into detail on how deny the witch works? I've seen it explained a couple of different way.

Thank you

[Al Shut]

I can't get past the terrain set up thing. Naturally an army would try to pick a battlefield that suits them. A decent rule set would encourage players to take advantage of terrain set up while at the same time balance and restrain their ability to do so. For me it's always been a part of the game.

Sure, I should be able to agree with my opponent on such a mechanic, presumably picked from a previous edition, it just seems like an audacity to me to not put it in your 65€ rule book in the first place.

[DarkLink]

Yet to see a Netlist that doesn't revolve around some one trick pony and massive cash investment.

When your 'one trick' is 'shoot the enemy off the table by turn 2', or 'be impossible to kill for all intents and pusposes', you don't need anything else. If 40k were a more balanced or tactically deep game, this might not be true. Nontheless, it is.

Also, you contradict yourself. You regularly talk about how competitive players are a sort of vocal minorit who don't really matter,, yet here you say that no one will play missions that interfere with their netlisting, the implication being that competitive players are common enough to dictate the state of the game. I'm questioning your line of reasoning here.

[Mr Mystery]

Common enough to whine their way to victory for organised Tournaments.

Small but vocal.

[Charon]

Hurr-de-hurr, I r tactimical genius. I field three Heldrakes with minimum Cultists, and allied Heldrake from that other book, again with minimum Cultists.

That sort of thing. You now. Gaming Drivel.

So lets put the fact aside that this list is outdated (as there is much AA available and more ignore cover than ever).
Where was this a one trick pony? You could exactly know whats coming and still lose to it (due to lack of available AA).
Where is the massive cash investment? In fact this one is cheaper than a "fluffy" Space Marines Army.

Yes you probably dont need to be a tactical genius to make it work.
My question is still standing: what makes you think that a comp that even a 6y old could play successfully is at a disadvantage just because objectives change?

[Eldar_Atog]

Hurr-de-hurr, I r tactimical genius. I field three Heldrakes with minimum Cultists, and allied Heldrake from that other book, again with minimum Cultists.

That sort of thing. You now. Gaming Drivel.

Hmm.. that army would probably cost about $400 dollars with 3/4's of it being the 4 heldrakes. Is that really much more than what someone pays for a normal/fluffy 1500 point army?

When I was budgeting myself for my fluffy Tzeentch list, I might have spent close to that much cash on it.

I'm not knocking the fact that the 4 heldrake list is a crappy army to throw at someone. Just wanted to mention that most of us probably end up dropping $400 dollars or so when picking up a new army.

[Mr Mystery]

So lets put the fact aside that this list is outdated (as there is much AA available and more ignore cover than ever).
Where was this a one trick pony? You could exactly know whats coming and still lose to it (due to lack of available AA).
Where is the massive cash investment? In fact this one is cheaper than a "fluffy" Space Marines Army.

Yes you probably dont need to be a tactical genius to make it work.
My question is still standing: what makes you think that a comp that even a 6y old could play successfully is at a disadvantage just because objectives change?

Because the opponent has different ways to score. And the more flex you have in your force, the better able to achieve those goals. A one trick pony, by it's very definition, does not have that flex. It has to stick to it's one trick.

And personally I don't get the big wow about Heldrakes. All it takes is a single weapon destroyed and they're knackered in terms of usefulness. It was the one that sprang to mind :)

[Charon]

Because its the only one which is not up to date and not flexible?
How about Flying Circus, Seerstar,... also a "one trick pony"?
They are probably the most "all comer" comp you can field (as they can deal with mass, armor, MEQ, LoW, Fortress,... ). They are way more flexible as you ever could be with a "break the meta - mass fortress" list.
So again. Why should these comps have a harder time with changing objectives when they have a speed, synergy and survivability advantage that outshines most other armies?
These comps came from an environment where the same list has to deal with multiple other armies (it has to be as good vs a full slaanesh footlogger army as against an IG tank batallion) and multiple different mission objectives.
They are MADE to be either super flexible or just obliterate the other list. So why would a list that is tailored to be the most flexible thing ever be inflexible and thus at a disadvantage in terms of flexibility?

[Mr Mystery]

Seerstar - Never seen one. And if I do, I'll just set about jobbing everything else in his army. And hit the Seerstar with as much Tesla as I can, because I effing love Tesla :)

And those lists came from an environment where they had to beat an already established 'meta'. They work because people reckon they know what to expect. Why is that so tricky for you to grasp?

[DarkLink]

Seerstar - Never seen one. And if I do, I'll just set about jobbing everything else in his army. And hit the Seerstar with as much Tesla as I can, because I effing love Tesla :)

And those lists came from an environment where they had to beat an already established 'meta'. They work because people reckon they know what to expect. Why is that so tricky for you to grasp?

Why is it so "tricky for you to grasp" that competitive players aren't a bunch of souless idiots? Chill out. Besides, it's both hypoctitical and ironic to accuse competitive players of being narrow-minded big-fish-little-pond types, then to admit to never having seen or played some of the netlists you decry while literally in the same post claiming they're not that hard to beat because of x tactic you would use, doubly so in that armies like the seer council are mainly problematic on a national scale contrary to your belief that they're only good because no one locally happens to either be a competent player or plays the army that counters them effectively.

I appreciate that you don't care for the competitive side of the hobby. What I don't appreciate is the dissmissive and condescending comments directed at a group that contains a lot of friends of mine, some of whom are legitimately awesome people who you would likely thoroughly enjoy gaming with in real life. Take that crap elsewhere.

[White Tiger88]

Seerstar - Never seen one. And if I do, I'll just set about jobbing everything else in his army. And hit the Seerstar with as much Tesla as I can, because I effing love Tesla :)

And those lists came from an environment where they had to beat an already established 'meta'. They work because people reckon they know what to expect. Why is that so tricky for you to grasp?

You forgot to mention how well someone rolls almost matters more then the list!

[Tynskel]

Why is it so "tricky for you to grasp" that competitive players aren't a bunch of souless idiots? Chill out. Besides, it's both hypoctitical and ironic to accuse competitive players of being narrow-minded big-fish-little-pond types, then to admit to never having seen or played some of the netlists you decry while literally in the same post claiming they're not that hard to beat because of x tactic you would use, doubly so in that armies like the seer council are mainly problematic on a national scale contrary to your belief that they're only good because no one locally happens to either be a competent player or plays the army that counters them effectively.

I appreciate that you don't care for the competitive side of the hobby. What I don't appreciate is the dissmissive and condescending comments directed at a group that contains a lot of friends of mine, some of whom are legitimately awesome people who you would likely thoroughly enjoy gaming with in real life. Take that crap elsewhere.

but, they are soulless idiots. I should know!

[Charon]

Seerstar - Never seen one. And if I do, I'll just set about jobbing everything else in his army. And hit the Seerstar with as much Tesla as I can, because I effing love Tesla :)

And those lists came from an environment where they had to beat an already established 'meta'. They work because people reckon they know what to expect. Why is that so tricky for you to grasp?

Its not tricky for me to grasp. The problem is you have no idea what you are talking about but dont want to admit it.
On one hand you claim to have no first hand experience because nobody ever plays it, on the other hand you claim to have the perfect answer for a situation which you never experienced yourself.
You seem to think that the "meta" dictates the list. This is true to a very small extent. We see meta shifts in the way how armies are set up. Banshee rush when you could assault from vehicles, Falcon spam when they where nearly invincible thanks to holofield and spiritstone, Ranger spam when we had Alaitoc rules, CronAir when nobody had AA,... the list goes on and on and on.
While this are all changes in the meta, they did not occur because players changed it. They occured because GW changed fundamental game mechanics. Meta changes always come down to rule changes, not to some sudden clearance.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Its not tricky for me to grasp. The problem is you have no idea what you are talking about but dont want to admit it.
On one hand you claim to have no first hand experience because nobody ever plays it, on the other hand you claim to have the perfect answer for a situation which you never experienced yourself.
You seem to think that the "meta" dictates the list. This is true to a very small extent. We see meta shifts in the way how armies are set up. Banshee rush when you could assault from vehicles, Falcon spam when they where nearly invincible thanks to holofield and spiritstone, Ranger spam when we had Alaitoc rules, CronAir when nobody had AA,... the list goes on and on and on.
While this are all changes in the meta, they did not occur because players changed it. They occured because GW changed fundamental game mechanics. Meta changes always come down to rule changes, not to some sudden clearance.

Whilst I agree that rules drive gameplay, and understand that someone will always exploit the rules, I think the point that I and Mystery are trying to convey goes something like this (please correct me if I'm wrong Mystery);
The internet's meta does not accurately represent our continued experience of real life.
This includes (for me anyway) tournament play, although in fairness I tend to attend GW organised ones and haven't been since Battle Brothers last year.
So when someone says things about "the meta" and how "superlist x off the internet is breaking the game" I tend to find myself sitting there thinking "Where does this impression come from?"
Now part of that is obviously feulled by location (I did my gaming in the UK in the Southwest, mostly in GWs (and am doing so here in NSW too) and apart from a couple of guys (one of whom is now banned from so many tourneys in the UK it's insane) I came across very few to no cheating asshats or ultra-competitive types.
I came across a lot of finely tuned armies, but most of the netlist game exploit lists were NOT encountered, to the extent that if I wasn't such a regular on here I wouldn't even know what they were.
So when someone says "XYZ thing from the internet has broken 40k." I find myself confused.
That said, no-one (games workshop included) is arguing that the game is fairly balanced across all armies, because that would be just silly.
But by the same token the notion that when I head down to my local Workshop for a pickup game on a Thursday night I'm going to;
A) come across a monstrous netlist of doom
B) not enjoy myself if I lose (although it should be pointed out that I play like a spaffy kid anyway, I blame over 2 decades of orks)
strikes me as silly based on my experience.
To date I STILL haven't won a game of dystopain wars against Antarcticans with my KOB, but it didn't stop me playing them again yesterday.
It could be a balance issue, maybe if I went online i'd discover that there's some finely tuned KOB list that would win me the game more often (I have a feeling it's because I suck at DW to be honest), but I have fun throwing handfuls of dice and watching stuff explode so who really cares?
And yes, sometimes I don't enjoy losing. No-one "enjoys" getting tabled turn 2 (happened to my Tau vs a Ravenwing army playing at home with a mate last year) but I did enjoy making sure not one of his HQs survived my turn 2, because you take the small victories where you can in a game where you can roll 15 saves and not get a single 4+.

As for the US/UK/AU divide thing, I actually wonder if there's something else at play, because I doubt very much that nationality drives meta. Maybe it's proximity to tourney scene, or playing other games like Warmachine (where the balance is so tourney friendly that tooling the absolute optimum list from your book only gives you a little bit of an edge) and carrying that mentality over to a different game. Maybe it's just that the high comp lot (in the UK and AU at least) also seemed to be the guys who didn't like going into games workshop and that's where I have most of my experience of casual games.

I honestly don't know.

But before we start shouting at each other again let's just agree that our experiences are equally valid, and differ greatly, so the truth of the matter is likely somewhere in the middle eh?

[daboarder]

Agreed. I don't think from a rules perspective it is the disaster some peopel are thinking, in fact I'm really quite enthusiastic about a lot of the changes, but it is perplexing it is a brand new edition rather than a supplement and a FAQ or two.

This would be my biggest issue too.

This could have easily bee something like storm of magic (or whatever) were they suggest using different pshchic rules much like the trial rules from 3rd edition

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Given how disappointing the take-up on SOM and T&T in fantsay have been (looks folornly at the books he'd hoped would have brought so much more to his hoby that barely anyone else uses any more) I'm not shocked though.
It was the same with Planetstrike and Battle Missions, great ideas but people played them for a while and then just drifted back to the 6 missions from the main book with standard force org again after a while.
I remember that happening with cityfight too come to think of it.

[daboarder]

Carnifex

yeah thats about it,

zoanthropes have soemthing like a 2% chance to actually ever damage a land raider these days...sigh

[Charon]

Mysteriys statement was that netlists will be at a disadvantage with maelstrom missions because they are not flexible enough. This is nothing which needs tons of experience to proof wrong. This is als nothing where "believe" plays a major role. These list have been designed to be as flexible as possible while retaining maximum "deadliness".
If the meta changes, new list will be made around the same goal: be as flexible as possible, stay as deadly as possible.
So there is no way a "friendly" or "fluffy" list will ever put a netlist to a disadvantage. And if the meta changes a thousand times, the lists will change accordingly.

You cant compare personal experience. 100% agreed.

[DarkLink]

but, they are soulless idiots. I should know!

Well, yeah, but it's beside the point is what I'm saying ;) .

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Mysteriys statement was that netlists will be at a disadvantage with maelstrom missions because they are not flexible enough. This is nothing which needs tons of experience to proof wrong. This is als nothing where "believe" plays a major role. These list have been designed to be as flexible as possible while retaining maximum "deadliness".
If the meta changes, new list will be made around the same goal: be as flexible as possible, stay as deadly as possible.
So there is no way a "friendly" or "fluffy" list will ever put a netlist to a disadvantage. And if the meta changes a thousand times, the lists will change accordingly.

You cant compare personal experience. 100% agreed.

I will watch the developments in what I've begun to think of as the "meta meta" here on the internet with interest, especially if the nature of the scoring games changes significantly in the new book. Maybe tabling doesn't cause an auto-win anymore since the WD article implied that you could accrue a lot of VPs without ever actually holding an objective there's always a possibility that an army which is wiped out could score more VPs than their opponents.
That would be nice from a narrative POV too, like 300 but in space!
25 mins till AU workshops open doors and it kicks off :)

[daboarder]

I wonder how viable it is to make a "fortress" list now? maybe 2 primary detachments to unlock 2 fortification slots? Or just go straight unbound?

what do you guys think?

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Not sure where to put this but the Space Marine and Tempestus "army" boxes are up now, the Marine one including that new Terminator Captain. I am going to make a guest that the Captain will stay "exclusive" to that set in the same way as that command squad set that has the Chaplain.

[Caitsidhe]

I wonder how viable it is to make a "fortress" list now? maybe 2 primary detachments to unlock 2 fortification slots? Or just go straight unbound?

what do you guys think?

I know for a fact I'm looking at multiple Fortifications via multiple detachments, but then again I'm looking at a series of detachments to allow me all sorts of things, not the least of which will be my fallen GK detachment, small and cheap to provide me with access to a Flyer with Mindstrike Missiles. Welcome to the world of Auto-Perils! I think a castle list is quite possible, although until I reread the various Fortification rules in the new system I'll be somewhat cautious. 6th Edition Fortifications were entirely worthless except for the Aegis and Skyshield.

[daboarder]

Yeah Im thinking of a "priory" list, keep SoB numbers low and supplement with fortifications.

Not sure whether to go with the single fortification that is multiple bastions and defence lines, Or go for say the aquila strongpoint and a defence network.

[Patrick Boyle]

Well I'm not sure if it's an everywhere thing but my FLGS go word today they were clear to start selling the book, so I'm home with my copy. Now to wait for the inevitable and massive FAQs.

Something I'd been curious about that no one has mentioned yet, they clarify that vehicles can take cover saves against Graviton weapons, or anything else that would cause them damage. So that's nice. Of course they say this reference is sort of buried, but it wouldn't be a GW book without that sort of thing. Need to go find out if they make the same clarification for Invulnerable saves...

I don't know if anyone confirmed it, but the Sanctic Primaris power in the english rulebook is listed as Warp Charge 1, unlike the on the card where it's 3. Given what it does the correct number seems obvious but I'll wait till they actually clarify it before taking a sharpie to either...

And two more bits on psychic powers; first, unless I missed something, a psyker can use powers in the psychic phase on the same turn they arrive from reserves. So Librarians in drop pods aren't completely pointless anymore. Second, and a bit annoying, the only psychic powers you can cast while embarked in a vehicle anymore are witchfires out of firepoints. So no more buffing yourself/your unit as you roll across the table in case you're forced to disembark, you're just screwed.

[Caitsidhe]

Yeah Im thinking of a "priory" list, keep SoB numbers low and supplement with fortifications.

Not sure whether to go with the single fortification that is multiple bastions and defence lines, Or go for say the aquila strongpoint and a defence network.

Same here. It really depends on where I go with things. By dropping a Fortification I can ensure LOS blocking terrain if I want to kick back with a tricked out CSM (who is also a Daemon) casting Summoning spells. Pretty much the new rules have made everything open to everyone. I could care less about those "comes the apocalypse" penalties.... so if I want a Chaos Knight... I'll build one. The key is deciding how to handle the broke *** crap. Be'lakor is going to be in my list... pretty much an auto-include given these rules. The issues are those broken Deathstars. A lot is going to be hinging on the Faqs and Errata.

[daboarder]

I was under the impression that the cover save rules mentioned galncing and penetrating hits now, but that grav still only mentioned hull points and the results ergo: grav is still ambiguous

[Patrick Boyle]

I was under the impression that the cover save rules mentioned galncing and penetrating hits now, but that grav still only mentioned hull points and the results ergo: grav is still ambiguous

Page 77, the last bullet point in the first column of the section "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets"

"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or is otherwise hit by an enemy shooting attack that inflicts damage upon it (such as being hit by a weapon with the Graviton special rule) it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would..." etc.

They specifically call out graviton as an example. Presumably this would also apply to stuff like any ranged attack that has Haywire, for instance.


While looking into vehicle damage, rather than keep adding more posts I'll make this edit, Exploded vehicles no longer leave a crater behind, which I guess makes sense as area terrain is gone. So yay, your guys in your transport that just blew up aren't moving through difficult terrain...but they're also not getting a 5+ cover save from followup shooting. The model left behind by a wrecked vehicle is now just difficult terrain.

[daboarder]

cool that works

another nuanced question. What is the rules for IC joining a unit during deployment

[Caitsidhe]

And P. Boyle... THANK YOU for the look ups. Here is the 64 million dollar question. Do you still lose the moment you have no units on the battlefield?

[Patrick Boyle]

cool that works

another nuanced question. What is the rules for IC joining a unit during deployment

If I shouldn't be directly quoting things mods let me know, but for this one "An independant character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in Reserve, by you informing your opponent which unit it has joined." Does that answer your question?


And P. Boyle... THANK YOU for the look ups. Here is the 64 million dollar question. Do you still lose the moment you have no units on the battlefield?

Sort of, it's not an immediate loss when your last model dies, if you have more in reserves and if you went second. In the Victory Conditions section under the header "Sudden Death Victory", "If at the end of any game turn one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins" with units embarked in buildings counting as on the field and units in reserves, including ongoing, not counting. Game turn and player turn are still exactly the same terms as they are in 6th, which is to say if your opponent kills your last model on the table, but you successfully roll reserves to bring something in at the start of yours, you're still good...unless you went first, as the end of your opponent's Player Turn would be the end of a Game Turn. So armies aiming to table are going to want to go second.

[George Labour]

EDIT: Man did I Get this rule wrongo r what? Turns out you need to EQUAL the number of warp charge points that succeeded, not just reduxe them below a certain point. OOPs. :(

Glanced at the psychic rules from my new book and it IS very close to the current mechanic used for magic in Fantasy.

E.G: Player A chooses to use X number of dice to cast with each Y+ counting as a warp charge. If he gets a number equal to the charge then it goes off. If he gets multiple sixes, he perils. Any excess successes are noted but otherwise do not affect the power itself.

Player B then chooses a number of dice from his own pool to 'deny the witch'. When a power is cast he can counter it by expending X dice and rolling them. For each Y he gets that negates one of the player A's successes. If the number of successes drops below the number required to use the power then it fails. There are bonuses you can receive if the power is targeting a unit with certain USRs, or psykers in it.

So yes that warp charge 3 power may let you summon an ever increasing horde of warp death but it'll also mean you're very VERY likely to fry yourself in the process. It's also not to difficult to counter it by simply throwing one's own dice into an all or nothing attempt to prevent that power from activating.

[Caitsidhe]

Sort of, it's not an immediate loss when your last model dies, if you have more in reserves and if you went second. In the Victory Conditions section under the header "Sudden Death Victory", "If at the end of any game turn one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins" with units embarked in buildings counting as on the field and units in reserves, including ongoing, not counting. Game turn and player turn are still exactly the same terms as they are in 6th, which is to say if your opponent kills your last model on the table, but you successfully roll reserves to bring something in at the start of yours, you're still good...unless you went first, as the end of your opponent's Player Turn would be the end of a Game Turn. So armies aiming to table are going to want to go second.

Hrm, ok. They key thing is you can still be tabled. That is huge in so far as how it guts the notion that objectives are somehow going to balance out the possible builds. I didn't think they defined a Turn as being both player's go, but if they do that at least gives some chance to people who might not be fully deployed yet. Either way, the key question I wanted to know is answered. Blowing your opponent off the battlefield is still a win condition (one which applies immediately) and with the current builds possible, I expect that will be dominant.

[daboarder]

If I shouldn't be directly quoting things mods let me know, but for this one "An independant character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in Reserve, by you informing your opponent which unit it has joined." Does that answer your question?


GREAT! So independent characters wwith infiltrate confering it to units without is still completely ambiguous FANTASTIC GW, GOOD JOB NOBS!

[George Labour]

How about "While an Independent Character is part of a unit he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows rules for Characters"

Combine with the rest of the Independent Character USR, and the first paragraph of the infiltrate USR and that means he gets to go a sneakin' with his lads.

[daboarder]

yeah its an argument that was done to death in 6th, it heavily implies that an IC can transfer infiltrate to a unit, but unfortunately the stupidity of the "deployment" rules mean that the unit MUST deploy before the IC can join them as he doesnt "join" the unit until he is place within 2'

[Patrick Boyle]

GREAT! So independent characters wwith infiltrate confering it to units without is still completely ambiguous FANTASTIC GW, GOOD JOB NOBS!

Ah, that's why you were asking. Lets see...

A note in the independent character section states that "An independent character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment", though that's opposite of the case you're after.

The first line of Infiltrate states that "Units containing at least one model with this special rule are deployed last...", hm. Is there a case other than involving an Independent Character where this could be the case? The problem being that outside of that part of infiltrate I'd have to lean towards it not being ambiguous at all and that you can't do it period as written. They join by being deployed within coherency(i.e. 2"), so they're not joined before deployment, so all units without infiltrate are either deployed, or declared as in reserves, before units with Infiltrate deploy, as per the first line of Infiltrate. So...yeah.


Hrm, ok. They key thing is you can still be tabled. That is huge in so far as how it guts the notion that objectives are somehow going to balance out the possible builds. I didn't think they defined a Turn as being both player's go, but if they do that at least gives some chance to people who might not be fully deployed yet. Either way, the key question I wanted to know is answered. Blowing your opponent off the battlefield is still a win condition (one which applies immediately) and with the current builds possible, I expect that will be dominant.

There's a Game Turn, where both players perform their Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault Phases, and then there's each individual player turn. The book says, just like 6th, that unless it is specified, Turn is to be interpreted as Player turn. Sudden Death Victory specifies Game Turn.

[daboarder]

yeah its that way in 6th as well so theres been no change either way.

I wont make that call until I've read it myself but by the logic that they can only join by being within 2 also prevents them form being in transports as they can only be in the transport if they have joined the unit, which they cant do until they are within 2 of the unit, which they can be....

[Patrick Boyle]

yeah its that way in 6th as well so theres been no change either way.

I wont make that call until I've read it myself but by the logic that they can only join by being within 2 also prevents them form being in transports as they can only be in the transport if they have joined the unit, which they cant do until they are within 2 of the unit, which they can be....

From the section on Transports "If an independent character (or even more than one) and a unit are both embarked in the same transport they are automatically joined, just as if the Independent Character was within 2" "

Oh, interesting note on ICs, if there is one in a unit, the unit no longer needs to roll double ones to regroup if they are fleeing when under 25% strength, they test as normal. That wasn't in 6th was it?

[magickbk]

So, it's looking to me like you can take any number of Allied Detachments per Primary Detachment, and they could all be from different Codexes. Is anyone else with the rules seeing the same thing? Or say, 2 Combined Arms, and 3 Allied, with one of the two Combined Arms being Primary, and they could all be from different armies. I'm still reading, maybe I haven't found it yet.

[Patrick Boyle]

Did I completely miss this part of Deny the Witch over the last week? "For a Deny the Witch test to be successful, you need to nullify all of the warp charge points successfully harnessed by the psyker when he passed his test." Each 6 on a d6 nullifies a single harnessed Warp Charge(which is a 4+ by the caster). So, it's not enough to negate enough successes that they go under the number required to manifest the power(i.e. they got 2 successes for a 2 Warp Charge power, so you get one 6), you have to negate them all. So at minimum you're looking at two 6s to negate a 2 Warp Charge power, and at worst X 6s where X is however many successes they got. Jeez that's rough.

[daboarder]

Holy ****!!

[George Labour]

Ah seems I misread that rule and it does indeed say you need to equal the number of harnessed points. :(

So much for it being easier in some ways. XD

On the plus side there's still a good chance they'll fry themselves if they want to cast the really big powers.

[daboarder]

guess I WILL be running that daemonologist build I wanted, I can easy summon to my hearts content with a 4 wound psyker i couldnt care less about perils.

[Patrick Boyle]

Ah seems I misread that rule and it does indeed say you need to equal the number of harnessed points. :(

So much for it being easier in some ways. XD

On the plus side there's still a good chance they'll fry themselves if they want to cast the really big powers.

Ehh. Unless I'm reading it wrong you can only get one roll on the perils table per attempt to cast, and if you've rolled a perils result, unless it was to use a Malefic or Sanctic power as the wrong book, you've still rolled well enough to manifest the power. You'd have to roll stupendously badly to take more than a wound from perils. 1-4 are, at least, 1 wound. 5 & 6 are only 1 wound if you fail a leadership check. Passing the Leadership check from a 6 actually buffs you, rather than harming you. Failing the Leadership check from a 1 removes you from the game(with a pass being 1 unsaveable wound).

tl;dr unless you have 1 wound, or oddly low leadership for a psyker(Eldar warlocks and....?), you'd need to roll two or more 6s while manifesting a power, roll a 1, then fail a leadership test to really kill yourself. The real danger to the kind of list daboarder is talking about would be landing on the 2 perils result, then randomly lose the Malefic primaris. Which is still highly unlikely. I don't really think, even with Warp Charge 3 powers, that the perils table is punishing enough given how strong summoning new units of daemons, who do score and get 30 free points of upgrades. On paper anyway, guess we'll be finding out shortly how it plays out on the table.

[George Labour]

True. Though my point was that in order to get a power off with any level of reliability the caster will have to use far more dice than in 6th. This means there is a far greater chance to get a perils of the warp than if you only have to make a leadership test.

IE: You need three warp charge points to get off your uber power. Therefore you'll want to use more than three dice if you want to stand a chance of succeeding. As only two of those dice need to come up on a six the odds of suffering a backlash are higher than they were. If the caster isn't a Daemon then the chances of a Malefic power going awry go way up.

Having given all of that some more thought I'm thinking that will help balance out the difficulty of canceling opponent's powers out with deny the witch rolls. Especially since I don't make that roll until after he's rolled and potentially suffered a perils of the warp.

[DarkLink]

To reliably cast a power (say, an 80+% chance of success), a ML 1 power requires 3+ dice. A ML2 power requires 5+ dice. A ML3 power requires 8 dice (though 7 dice is just shy of 80%).

With 3 dice, you have a 7% chance of Perils. With 5, a 19% chance. With 8, a 40% chance.

Consider 3 IG Primaris Psykers. Currently, you can cast 6 powers, and reliably get all of them off. You'll maybe fail one test. Now, to get a single Prescience, you're going to have to burn all of your warp charges on a single power. The bonus D6 Warp Charges will probably be enough to get you a second power. You just dropped from casing 6 powers to 2.

Psykers took it hard.

[Lord_Valorion]

Hey guys, can you tell me: How many warp charges requires the primaris power banishment (good daemonology) in the (english) rule book? In the german version is a serious bug: in the rulebook: 1 warpcharge, on the psi-card: 3...

[skeletoro]

So... don't try and reliably cast one power that's amazing. Try and unreliably cast 6 powers that are still half as good, with zero chance of perils. Work with what you've got.

[Melon-neko]

I am not sure if all of this has been gone over, I skimmed the thread and didn't see anything. So, some thoughts.

For those saying area terrain is no longer in the game, see page 190-191. There is not the core rule "area terrain" but there are terrain pieces that act like it, or similarly. When using scratch built terrain, choose which is most like. Also ruins give 4+ regardless of whether 25% is obscured....not sure when you actually need to be 25% obscured actually >.> (not sure if this is a big complaint, just saw it mentioned somewhere).

I have seen some people talk about allying with your own army. Under allied detachment one of the restrictions is: "All units chosen must have a different faction to any of the units in your primary detachment (or no faction). So I'm wondering if I'm missing something or it was a false statement?

I actually like a lot of the new rules and a lot of the wording was cleaned up to be specific (For example: infiltrate and scout can't assault on the first game turn)

I was hoping assault armies would get a bit more help than they did though (Because I like assault =D)

Thanks!

[daboarder]

yerah sounds like area terrain has gone back to the 4th ed style, ie: you designate that "piece" of terrain as ruins (can be bound by the base) and anything in that terrain gets a 4+ cover save even if completely visible

[Throne Agent]

I am not sure if all of this has been gone over, I skimmed the thread and didn't see anything. So, some thoughts.

For those saying area terrain is no longer in the game, see page 190-191. There is not the core rule "area terrain" but there are terrain pieces that act like it, or similarly. When using scratch built terrain, choose which is most like. Also ruins give 4+ regardless of whether 25% is obscured....not sure when you actually need to be 25% obscured actually >.> (not sure if this is a big complaint, just saw it mentioned somewhere).

I have seen some people talk about allying with your own army. Under allied detachment one of the restrictions is: "All units chosen must have a different faction to any of the units in your primary detachment (or no faction). So I'm wondering if I'm missing something or it was a false statement?

I actually like a lot of the new rules and a lot of the wording was cleaned up to be specific (For example: infiltrate and scout can't assault on the first game turn)

I was hoping assault armies would get a bit more help than they did though (Because I like assault =D)

Thanks!

When people are talking about Allying with your own Faction, they mean taking a second Detachment of the same Faction, not an Allied Detachment, can anyone confirm if you're restricted to just one Detachment?

[Mr Mystery]

I think I prefer the designated area terrain rules.

Yes they can be a pain if the piece doesn't have an easily defined perimeter, but that's fairly easily rectified wit a bit of work on existing terrain.

The upside is that as the perimeter of defence (doyouseewhatIdidthere?) should prevent 'yes he is, no he isn't' pantomime arguments mid-game.

[Mr Mystery]

Just read up on infiltrate....

IC issue has been sorted. Pp166. An IC without Infiltrate cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment. Clear, concise.

[! : ?]

damn, just created a libby on bike to go with my scouts in a 750 p champagin' :(

[daboarder]

Just read up on infiltrate....

IC issue has been sorted. Pp166. An IC without Infiltrate cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment. Clear, concise.

except
1) that was never the issue, the question was can an IC with infiltrate give it to a unit without infiltrate.
and
2) that was worded the same in 6th

[Mr Mystery]

For other rules questions from 6th, I've started a thread in 40k Rules to see whether they have been answered or not.

I'm not up on the rules questions myself, so it's down to everyone else to list the question, and check their book.

- - - Updated - - -


except
1) that was never the issue, the question was can an IC with infiltrate give it to a unit without infiltrate.
and
2) that was worded the same in 6th

Pp 167. If one model has infiltrate, all in the unit have Infiltrate. But Infiltrators are deployed after all other units.

Reserves, Pp 135, are declared during deployment. Ipso Facto, they are declared before Infiltrators are deployed.

IC cannot therefore confer Infiltrate onto a unit without Infiltrate at the point of deployment.

[Melon-neko]

When people are talking about Allying with your own Faction, they mean taking a second Detachment of the same Faction, not an Allied Detachment, can anyone confirm if you're restricted to just one Detachment?

Ah I see. When talking about detachments the book refers to "Your Primary detachment" Which I thought meant you could only have 1. However, I was misinterpreting it.
You can have any number of combined arms and allied detachments. I think you pretty much have to take at least 1 combined arms detachment, since your warlord can't come from allied detachments. But I guess if you're using an inquisitor you could take all allied detachments.

I think we will be sticking to the old way of 1 combined arms and 1 allied, just to avoid confusion.

[skeletoro]

So, I could take a primary detachment of, say, wolves and then put an inquisitor at the front of every unit (1 combined arms, half a dozen inquisitor allied detachments)?

[Melon-neko]

That is what it looks like to me. Should probably wait until the more detailed oriented players read everything and give their say though =)

[White Tiger88]

So, I could take a primary detachment of, say, wolves and then put an inquisitor at the front of every unit (1 combined arms, half a dozen inquisitor allied detachments)?

If you took a troop squad...most likely.

But on a more fun note...

Everyone check out the Typhon Siege tank! 40k's new "$#(@ you cover" mobile!!!! (No really this thing is BEAST NOW!)

[skeletoro]

All my troops choices would be in the space wolves detachment. I'd have several codex inquisition detachments, but each one would only have one inquisitor and nothing else.

Each would attach to a space wolves pack and ride their transports, each would be a ML1 psyker, and would give the squad, say, psychotroke and rad grenades.

I don't think i'd ever do it, it seems unfluffy and cheesy. But I could, right?

[DarkLink]

Pp 167. If one model has infiltrate, all in the unit have Infiltrate. But Infiltrators are deployed after all other units.

Reserves, Pp 135, are declared during deployment. Ipso Facto, they are declared before Infiltrators are deployed.

IC cannot therefore confer Infiltrate onto a unit without Infiltrate at the point of deployment.

That's how it worked in 6th, but because Infiltrate stated that it conferred to the unit people refused to believe that was how it worked because, well, it almost but not quite said that was how it worked. What does it say about an IC that has Infiltrate joining a non-Infiltrate unit?

[daboarder]

That's how it worked in 6th, but because Infiltrate stated that it conferred to the unit people refused to believe that was how it worked because, well, it almost but not quite said that was how it worked. What does it say about an IC that has Infiltrate joining a non-Infiltrate unit?

Nothing, theres been no change in the wording of any of the relevant special rules, though a few have change location

edit: heres something nice, the layout of the new book is MUCH easier to read, there is considerably less jumping back and forth for the relevant rules.

[Wildcard]

Didn't find this with search: What about ordnance and vehicles firing? Any clearing on wording if vehicles can shoot ordnance + other weapons at full BS (be that moving or stationary)?

[daboarder]

Didn't find this with search: What about ordnance and vehicles firing? Any clearing on wording if vehicles can shoot ordnance + other weapons at full BS (be that moving or stationary)?

they cant:


However a vehicle that fires an ordnance weapon can only make snapshots with its other weapons that turn

page 73 bottom right

[Wildcard]

daboarder: Is that again on the paragraph with the "vehicle that moves" or is it clear on the context that it cannot be read any other way (i am refering to the long long arguments from the 6th ed brb)

[daboarder]

yeah, under the heading vehicles in the shooting phase.

starts with


Unlike other units vehicles can move and fire with ordnance weapons. However, etc....(see earlier quote) A vehicle that moved at cruising speed can still snap shot ordnance weapons, but of course cannot fire any ordnance weapon that cannot be fired as a snap shot

[MajorWesJanson]

That's how it worked in 6th, but because Infiltrate stated that it conferred to the unit people refused to believe that was how it worked because, well, it almost but not quite said that was how it worked. What does it say about an IC that has Infiltrate joining a non-Infiltrate unit?

166 "An Independent character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve.

Independent characters and infiltrate: An Independent character without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment."

167 "Infiltrate: Units that contain at least one model with this special rule are deployed lat, after all other units (friend or foe) have been deployed."

[chicop76]

1. Do chariots have relentless?

2. Do all troops contest or do faction matter with contesting troops.

3. So a template now hit all models under it? What if it's a calling with models 2 floors down?

4. Can you now flame in transports access points?

[DarkLink]

166 "An Independent character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve.

Independent characters and infiltrate: An Independent character without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment."

167 "Infiltrate: Units that contain at least one model with this special rule are deployed lat, after all other units (friend or foe) have been deployed."

So the loophole still exists.

[Buddhist_Possum]

So the loophole still exists.

Nope, because you have to either join the unit as you deploy them (not infiltrate) onto the board within 2", or add them to a unit in reserves (which infiltrate is not).

You cannot infiltrate while deploying the first part of the army. You can Infiltrate after deployment, but buy that time the IC should be on the board or in reserves (or in a vehicle).

Infiltrate is not reserves, outflank is reserves.

[chicop76]

Nope, because you have to either join the unit as you deploy them (not infiltrate) onto the board within 2", or add them to a unit in reserves (which infiltrate is not).

You cannot infiltrate while deploying the first part of the army. You can Infiltrate after deployment, but buy that time the IC should be on the board or in reserves (or in a vehicle).

Infiltrate is not reserves, outflank is reserves.

Infiltrate.used to allow.for.reserves. Did they change that?

[Buddhist_Possum]

When deploying, you can do a couple things:

You can deploy normally
You can wait to infiltrate
You can reserve and outflank, instead of infiltrate

The new rules are like this:

You can deploy ICs normally, and they become a part of a unit if they are within range (2")
You can deploy ICs with the infiltrating unit, but he & the unit would all have to have it (he does not join the unit until he hits the table)
I believe, you could reserve the unit of infiltrators, then add the IC to them, in which case he would gain Outflank.

ICs can also jump inside vehicles with a unit.
They cannot, however, join a unit off the table that does not have Infiltrate and confer their Infiltrate to the unit.

[Mr Mystery]

Pretty much.

An Infiltrate IC can join any unit in Reserve, and this both benefit from Outflank.

Remember folks, this is strictly RAW. Nowt wrong with agreeing a house rule.