Possible 7th edition rules

Video released by GW explaining some of the changes.



Command benefits for taking a battle-forged army are that your Warlord can reroll his Warlord Trait and your Troop units control an objective even if an enemy scoring unit is in range of the objective (same as Gargoyles in the Tyranid Skyblight formation).

This is getting even more ridiculous. Excerpt from latest WD is now saying Unbound lists can, quite literally, use ANY models they want. The example they gave is SM Veterans, a Bloodthirster, Riptide, Tyranid Exocrine and some Eldar Guardians. Seriously? This is becoming like playing with toys when you were about 4 and you would just make up reasons why Action Man was kicking the crap out of Darth Vader.

God I hope that doesn't come true

1++ wrote:

God I hope that doesn't come true

Sadly, I can't even call it a rumour as it appears to be a page from next week's WD. Unless it's been photoshopped then I think we can assume that this is indeed going to come true!

Following the latest link from Faeit212, in which they talk about Wyrdvane Psykers and the new Malefic Daemonology, there is a little blurb about Denying the Witch in 7th edition. It says that "for some races [...], harnessing the power of the Warp is an impossibility - neither the Tau or the Necrons possess any true psychic talent".
What could be interesting, is that they don't mention the Dark Eldar there. This could either mean that they've subsumed them into the general Eldar race that obviously does have psychic talent, OR that we will get something pro-/anti-psychers in our new book.

Kinnay wrote:

Following the latest link from Faeit212, in which they talk about Wyrdvane Psykers and the new Malefic Daemonology, there is a little blurb about Denying the Witch in 7th edition. It says that "for some races [...], harnessing the power of the Warp is an impossibility - neither the Tau or the Necrons possess any true psychic talent".
What could be interesting, is that they don't mention the Dark Eldar there. This could either mean that they've subsumed them into the general Eldar race that obviously does have psychic talent, OR that we will get something pro-/anti-psychers in our new book.

Or, possibly cynically, that nobody thought about Dark Eldar at all during the process.....

I don;t mind the Unbound thing so far, but if it truly does allow your choices to come from ANY Codex, that would be a problem. I have sudden flashbacks to when I was a small child, playing 2nd edition for the first time, and having nothing in my army except EVERY possible Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine special character......horrific...........

My assumption, IF this is true, is that the Allies rules will still be in effect between those units from different Codecies.....

Count Adhemar wrote:

This is getting even more ridiculous. Excerpt from latest WD is now saying Unbound lists can, quite literally, use ANY models they want. The example they gave is SM Veterans, a Bloodthirster, Riptide, Tyranid Exocrine and some Eldar Guardians. Seriously? This is becoming like playing with toys when you were about 4 and you would just make up reasons why Action Man was kicking the crap out of Darth Vader.

Unbound is really a good example of hating the player over the game. If they take, as an example, an imperial coalition of Marines, Guard, Sisters and Grey Knights as a Planetary Defence force - awesome. If they use it as an excuse to go "Herp Derp I have 3 Heldrakes, 2 Riptides, a Hive Tyrant and Revenant on a Skyshield pad, lol" then tell them where you would like them to put said objects.

I'll be completely honest, I don't think Unbound armies are a cash grab to get players to buy and field anything (though that's certainly an upside from GW perspective); I think it's more there as an offering to anyone who's army gets gimped by the new allies matrix.

I've heard that Tau and SM will no longer be Battle Brothers, and I really hope that's the case; the allies matrix was in some cases ridiculous. The driving force of the current Tau fluff is the Damocles Gulf crusade? With the capture of Agrellan and re-naming it Mu'Gulath bay? And has the marines running around attempting to reclaim colonies from the Tau empire? And despite this Tau are Battle Brothers with all the marines in the galaxy? Except these 4 specific ones? Yes...that makes perfect sense...

Quote from White Dwarf 16

"So, yes, this means you can simply play a game of Warhammer 40,000 with an army as random and diverse as you want. You could have Space Marine Sternguard Veterans, a Bloodthirster of Khorne, a Tyranid Exocrine, a Tau Riptide Battlesuit and a unit of Eldar Guardians as your army. That’s a very silly and extreme example, and you certainly won’t be very popular with your opponents, and we think you’ll find that going radically ‘off-piste’ with theme and background makes for far, far less compelling games and battlefield storytelling"

I find the qualification that the outlined combination of units would be silly and make people unhappy very reassuring with how they have approached 7th edition.

I for one have ordered my rules and am quite excited now tbh.

I am dismayed. "We think doing this is silly and will make people unhappy, but we're going to let you do it anyway" is a terrible position to take in game design. Why *not* make it against the rules if it will interfere with people's enjoyment of the game on multiple levels?

Or, put differently, what exactly is the responsibility of the game designer? Is it to make a game that is balanced? Is it to make a game that simulates a flavorful narrative? Is it to make a game that is fun? Balance hasn't ever been a huge priority of GW's, but if they're outright stating that their new rules allow for breaking the flavor or narrative and will make the other player unhappy, what exactly was their goal with them?

They seem to consistently allow things in their game and then are surprised and dismayed when players do them, as if it were no fault of their own. "Of course we gave the deranged lunatic you live next door to a power sprayer and ten gallons of fluorescent green paint. We had no idea he'd actually *use* it."

Calyptra wrote:

I am dismayed. "We think doing this is silly and will make people unhappy, but we're going to let you do it anyway" is a terrible position to take in game design. Why *not* make it against the rules if it will interfere with people's enjoyment of the game on multiple levels?

I think its more a case of 'this is silly but if you want to do it we have provide a framework of rules for you to be silly in'

I would rather have those rules as an aspect of the game, which frankly most people will ignore, then have greater limitations.

I think what they are trying to achieve with 7th is a rule set that allows people to play all the games they want to play. They aren't making rules that will make other players unhappy they are making rules that meet any agreed game needs.

Is it so hard to ask an opponent if they want to play bound or unbound?

Is that any different from saying do you want to play 1500 or 200 pt games?

Or picking the mission instead of rolling for it if you and your opponent just fancy playing the relic.

To say that the rules have to make it one way and only one way just feels a little childish.

Yes they shouldn't create devastating combo loop holes (which they appear to be addressing fingers crossed) but we shouldn't as players shy away from our role as adults in doing what we want anyway.

And if there are rules to meet every occasion that can only be a good thing.

Dragontree wrote:

I think its more a case of 'this is silly but if you want to do it we have provide a framework of rules for you to be silly in'

Exactly. This is a point I raised in another thread (6th edition being pulled?) and I totally understand why they're doing it. If it encourages some older players to dust off some minis they haven't used in a while just to have a laugh with, great. It's not going to break the game otherwise, as we still have the option to play the same way we've always played, now with tactical objectives (which I'm really looking forward to trying out) as well as the standard missions. More options are welcome as far as this Archon is concerned   

We now have confirmation of the Perils table:

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/7th-edition-perils-of-warp-tables.html

Psychic powers:

http://daemons40k.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/behold-every-psychic-power-in-whole-game.html#more

and Vehicle Damage Table:

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/vehicle-damage-tables-for-7th-edition.html

Count Adhemar wrote:

...and Vehicle Damage Table:

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/vehicle-damage-tables-for-7th-edition.html

Stun-locking is back

1++ wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

...and Vehicle Damage Table:

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/vehicle-damage-tables-for-7th-edition.html

Stun-locking is back

If you're doing a pen every turn to shake it and prevent a vehicle shooting then it will die in a few turns anyway now, whereas in 5e it could carry on going indefinitely.