Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: MM3791 on May 05, 2014, 07:52:33 PM
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WgKlQHj.png)
-
Leaked images of White Dwarf article on 7th ed
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=8677&d=1399322976
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=8676&d=1399322975
you are welcome
-
Yay! The psychic phase is back. As well as player objectives. Two things that have been missing for too long.
-
The psychic phase is extremely similar to the Fantasy magic phase, it will definitely add another layer of strategy to the game. Cool to see more disciples got added and fleshed out.
-
PLEASE GW, don't fuck it up.
This is such a massive opportunity....
-
If players can dispel all psychic powers(which it looks like they will be able to) instead of just witchfire types, then I can see a drastic reduction in divination effectiveness and 2++ rerollable saves.
Also hope they make Pyromancy a lot better, and Daemonology sounds really cool too.
-
Not sure how I feel about this... It seems as though an army with no Psykers (Necrons) will be at a distinct disadvantage with no way to deny the witch.
-
I FOR ONE WELCOME MY SECOND EDITION OVERLORDS.
-
I wasn't around for 2nd ed, but I'm glad they readded the "magic" phase.. I really enjoy that aspect in Fantasy. Nothing beats butchering wizards in the 41st millennium ;D
-
Second edition was horrible, whoever had the biggest badest character won. So I hope that all the similarities to second edition are loose at best.
-
I'm hoping:
The Psychic Phase isn't as devastating as the Magic Phase in WHFB.
The Str D is somehow different if it's included in the game at all values.
That allies aren't totally out of control in "Battle-hardened" games.
That this new rulebook is cool enough to make people want to play the game for fun and competitively again.
-
I'm hoping:
The Psychic Phase isn't as devastating as the Magic Phase in WHFB.
The Str D is somehow different if it's included in the game at all values.
That allies aren't totally out of control in "Battle-hardened" games.
That this new rulebook is cool enough to make people want to play the game for fun and competitively again.
AMEN!
-
I think we can safety say that the Shooting Phase in 40k is 1000x times more devastating then in WHFB, so a strong Psychic Phase might be very helpful for armies with limited shooting. Also powers can be dispelled, shooting can't. Allies being out of control is related to current psychic rules. Either way we'll know in a few weeks
-
This is not sounding "6.5-ish" at all. Just that force org change alone will completely alter the way armies are built... and adding a whole new phase? This ain't a minor update. Even the 5th-6th transition did not change either the phases or the force org.
-
I just hope it make the tyranids playable again
-
Chase as much as I want you to be right, I just dont see it happening.
-
I'm trying to stay positive.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/qW9SwNf.jpg)
-
I don't really understand why they get blamed for so much here anyway.
-
I just want to play 40k i wish people would stop belly aching and play
-
I just want to play 40k i wish people would stop belly aching and play
This.
I don't really know why every 40k community concerns themselves so heavily with the direction of the game. You don't see it much in other groups. You'd think we'd be used to it, seeing as how 40k has changed drastically every other edition or so in some way shape or form (be it rulebook or codex).
The game growing and changing isn't really bad for anyone; I prefer this to a stagnant game.
-
So.... as someone who is in a community entirely based around playing a particular game, I shouldn't care about the direction of the game? What playing the game consists of doesn't matter at all? Kinda sounds like blind faith to me.
-
I hope 7th ed has some sort of banking system so my space marines don't have to resort to violence. Why kill your enemies when you can tax them to the point that they can't even afford bullets.
Also would like to raise tariffs on the Tau because why should they be able to dump their junk off at my ports for free? And how are Imperial citizens supposed to compete with cheap ork slave labor? Don't get me started with the Eldar..
Point is that everyone has ideas and not everyone is going to like every single change. Comp or no comp, I just want to play the game.
-
I took a quick glance at the white dwarf article. Only real thing of note was there was a side bar where one of the guys was telling a story about how one of the guys at GW who plays Dark Angels took Demonology on his Librarian and summoned a Bloodthirster. So I guess that's a thing now.
-
I hope 7th ed has some sort of banking system so my space marines don't have to resort to violence. Why kill your enemies when you can tax them to the point that they can't even afford bullets.
Also would like to raise tariffs on the Tau because why should they be able to dump their junk off at my ports for free? And how are Imperial citizens supposed to compete with cheap ork slave labor? Don't get me started with the Eldar..
Point is that everyone has ideas and not everyone is going to like every single change. Comp or no comp, I just want to play the game.
Settlers of Catan: 40k EDITION!
-
So.... as someone who is in a community entirely based around playing a particular game, I shouldn't care about the direction of the game? What playing the game consists of doesn't matter at all? Kinda sounds like blind faith to me.
The only thing you need for a successful gaming community is for the following two criteria to be filled:
1.) A game exists.
2.) People want to play it together.
Everything outside of that is irrelevant, as far as the community aspect goes. And for every 1 guy who thinks change x/y/z will destroy the game there are 1 or more guys who will adapt to or be excited by the change. Communities don't die because games grow -- they die when games don't.
There is a prevailing idea that any one change in the game will make it ruined but that has been echoing throughout the GW fanbase echo chamber since time immemorial. None of the previous things ruined or killed the game and neither will these things, merely change it.
Wanting to be aware of the changes and hoping they are in line with what you like about the game has a lot of merit, of course. But don't act like a rules change to the core ideas of the game are going to hurt it. People talk a lot of trash about "good" and "bad" rules writing but no one quantifies these things mostly. In 40k it's just a bandwagon to say the game sucks. It doesn't. There is a difference between "It's not like other games" or "It's not how I'd like it to be" and "It sucks/it's bad/it's terrible."
I've been playing for just about 9 years now, and if I had a dollar for every time someone proclaimed that the game was doomed by GW's terrible new rule x, I would be a rich, rich man.
Besides. It's hypocritical at best. I mean...you can't sit around on message boards all day and talk about what a bad game it is, then lament and fly into a panic when they dare to change it. Even change for change's sake is better than a stale, dead game.
-
I have been playing this game for 20+ years and yes people whine and bitch it happens every change. However back in the day GW was allot more clairvoyant and actually showed they at least made an effort to play test and so on.
This last edition I can honestly say was the first that has truly felt broken to me and GW new plan or way of doing things is horrible. Because of this the community has lost its faith in GW and rightly so as it seems they dont care about the game and just want to sell models. I really think if they went back to the way they used to do business the changes wouldnt be so community angering. The unknown will cause mass panic this is true.
Change for change sake is a very bad thing. As the saying goes why change what isnt broken. This may of been the case back in the day but not now. Allot of changes need to happen to bring the community together again. I have purposely not paid any attention to any rumors and plan on giving 7th the benefit of the doubt.
But People need to vent and we have forums like this for those people. Civil discussions into what is broken what doesnt work, are needed for growth as well as acceptance.
The simple fact is there are a wide variety of games and the needs of the gamers differ. This causes allot of difference of opinion and angst as one group will say this isnt good because x,y and z and the other group is saying this is awesome blah blah blah.
Together we make a community of gamers and together we can prosper or fall. Respect how different people play the game and sure voice your opinions and so on but dont think for a minute the guy next to you has to think the same. We play these games for different reasons and in doing so have different needs. But we are all playing the same game in the end.
There are 2 words that can be said and as a whole community I wish we would follow them....
Respect and Honor
-
So.... as someone who is in a community entirely based around playing a particular game, I shouldn't care about the direction of the game? What playing the game consists of doesn't matter at all? Kinda sounds like blind faith to me.
The only thing you need for a successful gaming community is for the following two criteria to be filled:
1.) A game exists.
2.) People want to play it together.
Everything outside of that is irrelevant, as far as the community aspect goes. And for every 1 guy who thinks change x/y/z will destroy the game there are 1 or more guys who will adapt to or be excited by the change. Communities don't die because games grow -- they die when games don't.
There is a prevailing idea that any one change in the game will make it ruined but that has been echoing throughout the GW fanbase echo chamber since time immemorial. None of the previous things ruined or killed the game and neither will these things, merely change it.
Wanting to be aware of the changes and hoping they are in line with what you like about the game has a lot of merit, of course. But don't act like a rules change to the core ideas of the game are going to hurt it. People talk a lot of trash about "good" and "bad" rules writing but no one quantifies these things mostly. In 40k it's just a bandwagon to say the game sucks. It doesn't. There is a difference between "It's not like other games" or "It's not how I'd like it to be" and "It sucks/it's bad/it's terrible."
I've been playing for just about 9 years now, and if I had a dollar for every time someone proclaimed that the game was doomed by GW's terrible new rule x, I would be a rich, rich man.
Besides. It's hypocritical at best. I mean...you can't sit around on message boards all day and talk about what a bad game it is, then lament and fly into a panic when they dare to change it. Even change for change's sake is better than a stale, dead game.
Yeah, i think you're right about that. I think I may have just gotten into 40k at one of the "peaks" of its approaches towards being organized and suitable for competitive play (halfway through 5th edition). I found the idea that the models I was building and the lists I was brewing could be part of a wordwide consistent experience to be very motivating and I spent thousands of hours and dollars on it. And now it's been falling off from that, more towards how it was apparently back in 2nd ed era, a casual game that requires that certain parts of the rules, as well as a concept of what is "fair" need to be cooperatively created between the 2 people playing it, and may not be the same as what is going on the next table over, and that's OK because it's all that the people playing it want. So it's more about my own personal expectations rather than an absolute judgement that the game is getting bad.
-
right now I just really want to play actual games I dont care what the rules are like, im tired of watching models collect dust
-
The only thing you need for a successful gaming community is for the following two criteria to be filled:
1.) A game exists.
2.) People want to play it together.
NOPE.
At a minimum, a successful gaming community needs:
1) A game exists with a comprehensive (though need-not-be complex) ruleset that caters to casual and competitive players, pulling interest from as many people as possible, run by a company that is as passionate about its product as the players, and responds to them appropriately.
2) People want to play it together.
3) A store that puts in the immense amount of time and effort to support the game, stock the latest items, stock all the other items, take special orders for customers, make tables and accessories available at a moment's notice, host events, etc.
4) Players who put in an immense amount of time and effort to support the community, preferably those players with basic social skills, determination and a willingness to teach the game as a game.
5) Luck, because it only takes one bad apple to spoil things for lots of players, or for the store to be in the wrong location, or an economic downturn...
But really, it's the complete lack of acknowledgement for #3 and #4 that chaps my ass. Do you even community, bro?
-
This last edition I can honestly say was the first that has truly felt broken to me and GW new plan or way of doing things is horrible.
I've been playing for 10 years now and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I thought 5th ed was terrible and broken for 2 reasons.
1) Vehicles were too powerful, a lot of armies were Mech IG which was really stupid to play against
2) An overwhelming amount of the releases were for Space Marine armies, and out of half of those players were Grey Knights. It wasn't until the end of the edition were xenos like Dark Eldar & Necrons saw an update (after waiting 10+ years mind you)
Change for change sake is a very bad thing. As the saying goes why change what isnt broken. This may of been the case back in the day but not now. Allot of changes need to happen to bring the community together again. I have purposely not paid any attention to any rumors and plan on giving 7th the benefit of the doubt.
Change for change sake? Didn't you just say that you thought 6th was broken, and now your complaining about a new edition? Seems like a contradiction, man. There isn't any business in the world that goes into business to break even. GW's old business model was awful, 1-2 codices a year is very uncompetitive.. and that's why the edition releases back then were a whole 4 years. It wasn't that something was or wasn't broken, it's just that the releases were so slow.
Newer wargame companies are a good thing, because I think the competition gave GW a much needed fire lit under there asses. As a customer, I am very happy with the new release schedule.
I enjoyed 6th very much and I'm looking forward to 7th.
-
This last edition I can honestly say was the first that has truly felt broken to me and GW new plan or way of doing things is horrible.
I've been playing for 10 years now and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I thought 5th ed was terrible and broken for 2 reasons.
1) Vehicles were too powerful, a lot of armies were Mech IG which was really stupid to play against
2) An overwhelming amount of the releases were for Space Marine armies, and out of half of those players were Grey Knights. It wasn't until the end of the edition were xenos like Dark Eldar & Necrons saw an update (after waiting 10+ years mind you)
I have been playing since late 2nd edition and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I think 6th ed is terrible and broken for 2 (among many other) reasons.
1) Dataslates/flyers/newer codexes/super heavies/psychic powers are too powerful. A lot of armies are one dimensional and exploitative with allies to mindlessly cover their weaknesses which is really stupid to play against.
2) An overwhelming amount of releases are sloppy, lazy, poorly edited, untested piles of garbage.
Its clear you enjoyed 6th edition. That's great. I'm glad you had fun. However, its very apparent that you are in the minority.
-
I think Ian summed it up nicely. Didn't think I was complaining about anything but its all good. I hope 7th makes the right changes and brings back the fire in this game for me and the people who think as I do.
-
I miss 2nd Ed.
-
This last edition I can honestly say was the first that has truly felt broken to me and GW new plan or way of doing things is horrible.
I've been playing for 10 years now and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I thought 5th ed was terrible and broken for 2 reasons.
1) Vehicles were too powerful, a lot of armies were Mech IG which was really stupid to play against
2) An overwhelming amount of the releases were for Space Marine armies, and out of half of those players were Grey Knights. It wasn't until the end of the edition were xenos like Dark Eldar & Necrons saw an update (after waiting 10+ years mind you)
Change for change sake is a very bad thing. As the saying goes why change what isnt broken. This may of been the case back in the day but not now. Allot of changes need to happen to bring the community together again. I have purposely not paid any attention to any rumors and plan on giving 7th the benefit of the doubt.
Change for change sake? Didn't you just say that you thought 6th was broken, and now your complaining about a new edition? Seems like a contradiction, man. There isn't any business in the world that goes into business to break even. GW's old business model was awful, 1-2 codices a year is very uncompetitive.. and that's why the edition releases back then were a whole 4 years. It wasn't that something was or wasn't broken, it's just that the releases were so slow.
Newer wargame companies are a good thing, because I think the competition gave GW a much needed fire lit under there asses. As a customer, I am very happy with the new release schedule.
I enjoyed 6th very much and I'm looking forward to 7th.
Good attitude. The right attitude, I would say. The changes are constant, and the game is a living thing that gets updated or changed every single month at this point...to claim it is broken when the next month could lead to some sudden huge change is a bit of a miss, being that the game's actual balance month to month is a moving target at best.
The complaints about 6th are -- and always have been -- massively overhyped.
-
The changes are constant, and the game is a living thing that gets updated or changed every single month at this point...to claim it is broken when the next month could lead to some sudden huge change is a bit of a miss, being that the game's actual balance month to month is a moving target at best.
Let me paraphrase that: so the interns at GW HQ pump out new stuff once every couple weeks or so, without any playtesting at all or even proofreading of any kind. And although right now at this exact moment (just due to random chance of monkeys typing on 10000 keyboards) something might be overpowered and something else might be underpowered, and something else might not even be playable using the rules (see Codex: Legion of the Damned), they release SO MUCH STUFF that in a month or so, something ELSE will be underpowered and something ELSE will be overpowered and maybe some of the new random rules will cancel out the old random rules. Who knows? It's great!
-
Hardly.
For one, people talk a lot of trash about playtesting and balance, like it's a known commodity. Do you have any kind of concrete understanding of how they produce these rules? No, you don't.
Secondly, you can't make a blanket statement about the game's balance because it is not etched in stone and changes all the time. The classic is "flyers are broken" -- really? The DA and Tau flyers are broken? -_-
As for "unplayable"...please. GW future-proofs its materials all the time in the sense that a book might make no sense until an edition update. It's been done for years and years now, my go-to example is the Grey Knights and how they were obviously written with the future 6E rules for power weapons in mind, but for the end of 5th they were a powerhouse army because the whole list was toting AP2 (Legion of the Damned is probably another example of that, I will not be surprised if it changes once the new rulebook drops).
"Underpowered" "overpowered" are unquantifiable internet buzzwords without any real context other than blind rage.
-
Your own example, Grey Knights release near the end of 5th edition, is something that actually did bug me a lot, and it was something that when it happened, I HOPED would not be the norm. I think that in the first Adepticon after that release, it was something like 40% of the field played Grey Knights. It was sort of a drag on the fun of the game for months, IMHO. I don't like the idea that a company will knowingly throw things out of whack for so long, under the hope that things will "eventually even out" when other stuff gets released later. It's just not managing your game well. Wizards of the Coast does NOT do things like that (on purpose). My "new relationship", Privateer Press, doesn't do that either. I hope eventually (if you are right that GW actually knows what it is doing, which I don't personally believe), GW will also stop doing it and will release updates that have a good effect on the game ON RELEASE.
-
GW has confirmed they have not been playtesting. There's a post from Chase somewhere on the forums that cites a conversation with representatives. There are also a number of anecdotal accounts involving members of their design team.
These arguments are ultimately useless as they always seem to include those who have unconditional love for Games Workshop and those who are looking for more than rolling dice. These views are fundamentally opposed. No one is going to convince either side to abandon their stance in favor of the other.
However, as I stated earlier, it is fairly insane to dismiss the evidence that 6th is unpopular and has kept players from coming to the table. Whether people are just "whiners" or have legitimate reasons.
So, seriously, stop the arrogant proclamations that people are doing it wrong. Stop dismissing a fairly large percentage of players. Stop using your personal experience with a specific group of people to point out how individuals are attempting to have fun incorrectly.
Additionally, people should really stop telling people reasons why they are wrong for enjoying the current ruleset. They should stop channeling their discontent towards those who have none.
Finally, be aware that every possible thing you could say about 6th edition, GW's outlook, and basically any pro or con about the hobby has been argued endlessly on the intertubes. Nothing anyone is saying is new or insightful. This bullshit is everywhere. Its tired, old, and serves no purpose other than to fuel epeen growth.
-
These arguments are ultimately useless as they always seem to include those who have unconditional love for Games Workshop and those who are looking for more than rolling dice. These views are fundamentally opposed. No one is going to convince either side to abandon their stance in favor of the other.
There's only those two extremes and no one in between, then?
However, as I stated earlier, it is fairly insane to dismiss the evidence that 6th is unpopular and has kept players from coming to the table. Whether people are just "whiners" or have legitimate reasons.
Stop using your personal experience with a specific group of people to point out how individuals are attempting to have fun incorrectly.
I get what you are trying to say here, but I don't follow -- how can you cite evidence that the edition is unpopular and people are leaving the table in droves? That doesn't even make any sense, we have one of the most strategically deep versions of the game we've ever had.
And as far as keeping people away, that is a local issue. Up here in the north we're all doing fine, if anything interest has gone up in my case (more new people, more new faces). Why is one "personal experience with a specific group of people" indicative of the entire length and breadth of 40k players, while another isn't? Why does it have to be due to a bad edition, and not say the numerous other games around now that are vying for the same demographics -- I mean, there wasn't an X-Wing or Bolt Action during the last edition, either. I know the stock is down but that doesn't mean the game is any more or less popular, necessarily.
I mean, try to understand my perspective. I don't think GW is without fault, but I just don't see how it can realistically be believed that this edition and its ramped up releases and rules have players running for the hills. I mean...I have a club and weekly game time devoted entirely and solely to this single game. How could we realistically accomplish that if the game is a broken mess of unplayable garbage, everyone hates this edition, and that I "don't even community, bro"...you know?
If you're talking about attendance problems at BG, well...that is their own issue.
-
I'm not interested in arguing with you, especially when you've taken a statement of mine and twisted it so blatantly right off the bat.
There's no discussion worth having here. You're obviously not interested in anything other than being right.
-
If you're talking about attendance problems at BG, well...that is their own issue.
Well, there it is, isn't it?
Around BG, and on their own forum no less, people like to say it is "our" issue, because we're invested. It's a community thing.
-
@Ian Mulligan: I don't see how I twisted anyone's words. But you made a relevant point: what exactly makes one person's observation more definitive than another's?
@Benjamin: Sorry, but the blame was squarely placed on the game and GW. It is pretty apparent the negative stigma toward the game is not made in specific context of Battleground.
-
This subject has been beaten to death I think. Was 6th ed Tau & Eldar worse then 5th ed Grey Knight & Mech IG? Was either worse then the 3.5 Chaos Marine codex? Opinions will vary depending on who you talk to, and player demographics vary in different locations.
As with any competitive game, people get passionate.. I get that. The new edition is a few weeks away so its probably best to just wait until the new release. 8)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JnMByJVUow
If you catch them, there are a few pages from the book with rules. Looks like some of the benefits to playing a regular FOC army is that you can reroll warlord traits, and your primary detachment has the Objective Secured (like the tyranid skyblight formation) in which objectives cannot be contested.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JnMByJVUow
If you catch them, there are a few pages from the book with rules. Looks like some of the benefits to playing a regular FOC army is that you can reroll warlord traits, and your primary detachment has the Objective Secured (like the tyranid skyblight formation) in which objectives cannot be contested.
Got to admit that type of thing sounds pretty cool. I'll be following closely.
-
Things are sounding like they'll shape up well. I think we'll have to wait and see, my money is that GW are trying to find that balance that will let us choose between the loose structure needed to get in some crazy games that a lot of people I began playing with like, and those rigid rules sets demanded by tournament players.
I have my fingers crossed, I'm hoping they find that balance, or hit close enough to make both sides of the fence happy.
Cheers,
-
I think we'll have to wait and see, my money is that GW are trying to find that balance that will let us choose between the loose structure needed to get in some crazy games that a lot of people I began playing with like, and those rigid rules sets demanded by tournament players.
That's exactly what I took away from the video / info / reading the little bits that were shown.
Here's hoping they pull it off!
-
I just want to play the game I enjoy the world of 40k
-
Whoah....
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/t31.0-8/p843x403/10333547_10152489684194954_3873038486156362195_o.jpg
Summoning a greater daemon that replaces the psyker seems like a real thing...
Also, it seems like the trend of increased "funky options", and increased necessity for bookkeeping, is continuing. Summoning any herald with 30 points' worth of options is just a huge array of possibilities.
-
I wonder if it's possible to summon a psychic Herald of Tzeentch which then turns around and summons another psychic Herald of Tzeentch.
-
I'd summon Riptides.
-
I wonder if Orks will have access to this. Looted Lord of Change FTW.
-
I wonder if Orks will have access to this. Looted Lord of Change FTW.
O
M
G
Orks summoning daemons could make me play.
-
Orks summoning daemons could make me play.
That would definitely be super cool. Both parts.
-
Whoah....
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/t31.0-8/p843x403/10333547_10152489684194954_3873038486156362195_o.jpg
Summoning a greater daemon that replaces the psyker seems like a real thing...
Also, it seems like the trend of increased "funky options", and increased necessity for bookkeeping, is continuing. Summoning any herald with 30 points' worth of options is just a huge array of possibilities.
I miss daemonic chains.
-
I wonder if Orks will have access to this. Looted Lord of Change FTW.
It was earlier stated that everyone except tyranids would have access to Daemonology.
I wonder if it's possible to summon a psychic Herald of Tzeentch which then turns around and summons another psychic Herald of Tzeentch.
No it doesn't look like it. The spell uses 3 warp charge points so only a ML3 psyker can cast that. The spell says your Herald can only have 30 points worth of upgrades.. the ML3 upgrade for Tzeench Herald is 50 points.
Even if psykers can share the warp dice pool, your psykers would still be competing for the same dice in the pool.. and you'd also need to roll on the chart again so seems almost impossible/impracticable for that to happen or even be useful.
-
I wonder if Orks will have access to this. Looted Lord of Change FTW.
This is the first positive thing I have heard for Orks in a loooong time.
Hmmm...where is my bitx box
-
Yes, but you can have a ML3 guy summon a herald with the portalglyph, and then every turn you can summon demons with the ML3 guy and the portal creating a ludicrous amount of free troops.
Chase, if I were you I would start stocking up on Demons, because at the bare minimum, if you wanted to cast the summon power for 5/6 turns you will need almost 50 models.
-
Hmmm... It will be cool if in friendly Unbound games we see some "counts as" daemons which are converted avatars of Gork or Mork...
Or is a friendly Unbound game an oxymoron?
-
I wonder if Orks will have access to this. Looted Lord of Change FTW.
O
M
G
Orks summoning daemons could make me play.
There were rules back in the day for making a Chaos Ork warband.
-
Yes, but you can have a ML3 guy summon a herald with the portalglyph, and then every turn you can summon demons with the ML3 guy and the portal creating a ludicrous amount of free troops.
Chase, if I were you I would start stocking up on Demons, because at the bare minimum, if you wanted to cast the summon power for 5/6 turns you will need almost 50 models.
Just thinkin' silly here... this is all based on non-confirmed rules...
It's not hard to get 20 mastery levels worth of psykers in a Daemon army, 4 heralds of tzeentch plus some daemon princes and greater daemons... most daemon players already have these models already because 2 of the strongest daemon armies in 6th used those models.
If the points get pooled... as long as 1 of them knows the herald summoning power you can cast it 6 times on the first turn, nettting yourself 12 extra mastery levels for turn 2. Then on turn 2 you can cast the greater daemon thing 10 times, replacing all of your heralds of tzeentch with bloodthirsters or lords of change or something.
-
What makes you think someone can cast a spell more than once each turn?
-
What makes you think someone can cast a spell more than once each turn?
Nothing really... in fantasy are you only allowed to cast each spell once per turn?
-
According to the Church of Ward, there is no god but the Almighty, all models with the type Chaos will not have access to divination or daemonology.
Only Grey Knights and Space Wolves will have access to divination and daemonology.
FAKE EDIT:
But really, there is some cool ass potential here, while I'm not all that hopeful for anything balanced or truly tested, daemonology being a thing makes for some really interesting options. If a primaris psycher is even still a thing, a renegade guard regiment summoning daemons is pretty awesome in ways that are reminiscent of Lost and the Damned depth of flavor.
-
Yes, but you can have a ML3 guy summon a herald with the portalglyph, and then every turn you can summon demons with the ML3 guy and the portal creating a ludicrous amount of free troops.
Chase, if I were you I would start stocking up on Demons, because at the bare minimum, if you wanted to cast the summon power for 5/6 turns you will need almost 50 models.
Just thinkin' silly here... this is all based on non-confirmed rules...
It's not hard to get 20 mastery levels worth of psykers in a Daemon army, 4 heralds of tzeentch plus some daemon princes and greater daemons... most daemon players already have these models already because 2 of the strongest daemon armies in 6th used those models.
If the points get pooled... as long as 1 of them knows the herald summoning power you can cast it 6 times on the first turn, nettting yourself 12 extra mastery levels for turn 2. Then on turn 2 you can cast the greater daemon thing 10 times, replacing all of your heralds of tzeentch with bloodthirsters or lords of change or something.
I'm pretty sure if psychic powers are going to work like spells in fantasy that there will be some sort of dispelling mechanic. So I'm pretty sure you won't be able to throw psychic powers around unopposed. In Fantasy even if an army has no magic users it still generates a minimum number of dispell dice. All armies could also buy treasures and artifacts such as the dispell scroll to help with this. The neat thing about Fantasy is you can also dispell beneficial spells an army tries to cast on itself.
-
Nothing really... in fantasy are you only allowed to cast each spell once per turn?
in fantasy each wizard can cast each of his spells once per turn. i highly doubt you'll be able to cast a psychic power as many times as you want.
-
Summoning is only half of the daemonology lore, the other focuses on banishment
-
I just want to poop out bloodcrushers i dont know about anyone else...
-
Thought you all might be interested to hear some of the changes coming up in the new edition, some of them directly address odds and ends that I've seen come up.
New Wound Allocation
Basically how this works now is simplified. You shoot your weapons in different sets and the casualties are removed from the closest models by weapon. Basically, the same as now, but more clear from the get-go, and allows the shooting player to have some tactical flexibility.
New Vehicle Damage chart (this is HUGE)
You can now only destroy a vehicle on a penetrating hit if you get SEVEN on the vehicle damage chart. They wanted to cut back on single shots destroying vehicles outright unless it was a more serious dedicated AT weapon. Also, there was commentary in the White Dwarf about how this was intended to make Walkers a bit more valuable. This means that basically, without AP1/AP2/Rending, you are going to have to glance vehicles to death. Huge.
Destroyer Weapon nerf
You get invulnerable saves against D weapons now, with some exceptions (if they roll a 6 on the special "to wound" D weapon table. Again, huge.
Challenge Wounds Spill Over
When you win a challenge, the extra wounds spill over to the squad. Rejoice, Chaos -- your army rule is not just a huge handicap!
Charging into Difficult Terrain
Big change...now it just subtracts 2 inches off of your charge. Fleeting assault units have a bit of a buff here, instead of 3d6-take-the-lowest it's a flat -2.
-
Mind posting a source for those?
-
White Dwarf. Like I said earlier -- long relationship with GW has it's perks. Images of the stuff are starting to surface elsewhere as well. Check it out:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54799709/newrules1.jpg)
-
That's a source for some of it, what about the rest?
-
Really? I read the whole thing. But if you insist I will go find the rest of the scans.
-
I've heard some of those things for months, I'd just like to see where the info is coming from that confirms it. Shouldn't be too hard to post a few links, you could always include them at the foot of summaries you post in the future.
-
I can't post links to my eyes and what they read out of the book.
Fortunately someone has posted scans of most of the White Dwarf info to Facebook. (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152427748468817&set=pcb.720525524672235&type=1)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54799709/newrules2.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54799709/newrules3.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54799709/newrules4.jpg)
There is a lot more, but the 40k group is a closed group so I doubt everyone will be able to see the gallery linked unless the original poster specified it to be public.
-
Those new wound allocation rules will slow things down, but not an entirely unwelcome change.
-
I think the WD release info I liked best is the reissuing of Dark Vengeance complete with updated book... Saw it in Dakka, and I am glad that they aren't scrapping those awesome models.
Granted, I still hope the BA v. ork set comes out, too.
-
A few other tidbits I missed, but have read on other scans which have privacy settings preventing my downloading of them:
- Apparently, the Psychic phase is between the Movement and Shooting Phases.
- There are 6 new missions total under the Maelstrom of War style.
- Apparently Daemons summoning Daemons which can summon more Daemons is a thing.
-
Well that change to the vehicle damage chart sounds like a good change made for a good reason, with one of the designers actually explaining his thinking.... am I dreaming? Hopefully there's more where that came from.
-
Apparently, the Psychic phase is between the Movement and Shooting Phases.
This doesn't surprise me, that's exactly where it is in Fantasy. It will also be a lot cleaner, as currently there are different spells used in different phases.. which can get confusing fast. There have been plenty of times when I forgot to use a spell because I thought it was in a different phase.
Well that change to the vehicle damage chart sounds like a good change made for a good reason, with one of the designers actually explaining his thinking.... am I dreaming? Hopefully there's more where that came from.
Lol yea believe it or not they actually do put effort into the rules. This one makes sense, currently a lot of people feel that monstrous creatures have a huge advantage over vehicles, this sounds like it could put walkers on the same competitive level. In fact he specifically mentions that walkers were a big reason for this change.