PDA

View Full Version : I might be eating some of what I said about 7th ed



Herkamer63
22-05-2014, 03:33
Well, I may be wrong on some, if not alot, of what I thought and said in my earlier posts about the new edition of 40k. Can't blow up vehicles on a 6, unbound and battle forged armies, lords of war, etc. Honestly, I like alot of what's been coming out about this new edition. In some ways, it's what 6th should have been. I'll be curious, when the rule book comes out,what other goodies are in store. I still feel it's too soon and some rules that are being presented in rumors need to be cleared up, but I'm getting over it quickly. Anything to make the game better. Anyway, sound off and if someone can answer this: Do Hull Points get stripped on a 6 only now according to what rumors said, or are they stripped as they are now? Also, does glancing still take away HPs as normal, or does it have to be rolled to see if any points are taken away? I asked these questions earlier on faeit, and no one got back to me with an answer.

AngryAngel
22-05-2014, 03:46
Basically, all the rules from 6th are by and large, the same. They added a psychic phase to change how that worked, vehicles only explode on a 7, so a little change in vehicle damage chart. They added in unbound and changed modern FoC to be just about as limber. Allies changed but not really better just changed. Assault got harder for infiltrater and scouts for first turn and flying MC's. All the old head scratchers still remain, and for all of that you get to buy a whole new expensive rule book.

Suspicions
22-05-2014, 05:29
Do Hull Points get stripped on a 6 only now according to what rumors said, or are they stripped as they are now? Also, does glancing still take away HPs as normal, or does it have to be rolled to see if any points are taken away? I asked these questions earlier on faeit, and no one got back to me with an answer.

As they are now. There is no new, separate, roll to see if you lose a hull point after suffering a Glancing Hit or Penetrating hit. The Damage table has been expanded. Glancing vehicles to death is the way to Wreck them reliably. Only ap1 or 2 weapons, or D weapons can 1 shot them.

mpepperdine
22-05-2014, 12:02
I'm eating what I said.

First I was really pleased, now I'm sorely disappointed with 6.5 ed.

hobojebus
22-05-2014, 12:24
It's almost exactly as bad as I said it would be so not disappointed I'm past that stage, I've now accepted 40k is dead to me I'll grieve for a little while then move on.

Spell_of_Destruction
22-05-2014, 12:50
It's almost exactly as bad as I said it would be so not disappointed I'm past that stage, I've now accepted 40k is dead to me I'll grieve for a little while then move on.

A little melodramatic, no?

hobojebus
22-05-2014, 13:01
A little melodramatic, no?

No melodramatic would be gathering hundreds of models into a pile dousing them in fuel then dancing around them naked while shouting how HE can go frack itself.

My way involves gathering them in a nice box carefully packed to avoid damage and then burying them in a cupboard where they will be safe in case I feel like playing in the future.

There is no logic in playing and collecting if I get no pleasure from it.

Spell_of_Destruction
22-05-2014, 13:07
You can't think of any way to find pleasure from the hobby just because a new edition was released that isn't to your liking? Let's say for one second that I agree with you that 7th is a total disaster. That shouldn't stop you from finding like-minded people who enjoy the same aspects of the game as you. If you are trying to have fun in spite of the people you play games with then I agree that it is probably time to pack the models away.

mpepperdine
22-05-2014, 13:15
^ You realise it's quite hard to find players to play with in general in some areas, let alone like-minded ones.

I used to go to one area, where everyone used tournament shooty lists,which as no fun at all week in, week out with my aspect warriors army.

Herkamer63
22-05-2014, 13:25
As they are now. There is no new, separate, roll to see if you lose a hull point after suffering a Glancing Hit or Penetrating hit. The Damage table has been expanded. Glancing vehicles to death is the way to Wreck them reliably. Only ap1 or 2 weapons, or D weapons can 1 shot them.Thanks. I knew the damage table was expanded, but while reading what someone had posted, to me, it sounded like the only way to take away HPs was on a 6 for both penetration and glancing. Glad to get that cleared up.

hobojebus
22-05-2014, 14:07
You can't think of any way to find pleasure from the hobby just because a new edition was released that isn't to your liking? Let's say for one second that I agree with you that 7th is a total disaster. That shouldn't stop you from finding like-minded people who enjoy the same aspects of the game as you. If you are trying to have fun in spite of the people you play games with then I agree that it is probably time to pack the models away.

Well lets see i'm not big on the modelling aspect, i'm okay with the painting aspect but thats not where my main focus is either its playing the game, i don't like 6th that much because assault is so bad and 7th hasn't done anything to fix it so if the main focus is gone because i don't find 3-4 hour grind games fun then there is no point playing is there?

Both "local" GW stores are 45 minute bus rides away and i dont know anyone who even plays there anymore, and the small group of friends i play for want to use unbound, the new magic system and random objectives and i don't so that's not an option anymore which leaves me with no where to play again meaning there is no point in playing anymore.

I'm not raging about it, back in 2005 the stoke store stopped veterans night in favour of kids night and i had no place to play so i stopped for 7 years straight, If thats how long it takes again until assault is fixed and the cash grab mentality is gone then so be it, i have other interests.

HelloKitty
22-05-2014, 14:19
it wonders how assault would be "fixed" as it plays using assault all of the time and it seems to work just fine.

hobojebus
22-05-2014, 14:42
it wonders how assault would be "fixed" as it plays using assault all of the time and it seems to work just fine.

It already got an answer in the thread it started.

lethlis
22-05-2014, 15:00
So bring an appropriate amount of terrain to the table. Solves almost every assault issue I have ever seen. I am not saying overloading the table but having it being present.

Get some LOS blockers on there. New missions and deployment types are going to do wonders for Assault armies. Especially since you dont know sides when placing objectives.

adreal
22-05-2014, 22:27
Hehe I remember arguing about assault with hobojesus and others, he has his opinion, I have mine. Some armies struggle with the assault rules as they are, notably marine assault lists, I imagine eldar is in much the same boat. It's a shame and cheaper assault units would go a ways to fix it.....

Ah well I'm not getting into it again, hobojesus has some valid concerns though

Minsc
22-05-2014, 22:31
Haven't even played a 7th Ed. game yet, but I already like it more than 6th.

It's true that 7th could have and should have been better (as in seen more and bigger changes), but playing a improved version of 6th is still better than playing 6th, right?

Col. Dash
22-05-2014, 22:41
Wow, only exploding on a 7? So an anti-tank krak missile cant blow up a paper thin rhino? Thats pretty silly. All hail the advent of warhammer 40k, the tank edition. My Spartan is going to rock.

Ssilmath
22-05-2014, 22:45
Wow, only exploding on a 7? So an anti-tank krak missile cant blow up a paper thin rhino? Thats pretty silly. All hail the advent of warhammer 40k, the tank edition. My Spartan is going to rock.

A) Rhino's don't have paper thin armor and
B) Late 5th was the tank edition

Seriously, vehicles get more resilient to all but dedicated anti tank fire, and people are going to complain about that too?

Scribe of Khorne
22-05-2014, 23:11
Wow, only exploding on a 7? So an anti-tank krak missile cant blow up a paper thin rhino? Thats pretty silly. All hail the advent of warhammer 40k, the tank edition. My Spartan is going to rock.

Yes, the spartan will be good, but ML unable to pop a Rhino = Tank Edition? Like wave serpents give a **** if they pop everything?

rofl.

murgel2006
23-05-2014, 00:42
If they wanted to make vehicles more resilient why not limit the weapons which can hit them by introducing a USR?
" Anti Vehicle Weapon " regardless or their regular profile those weapons add +2 too the Damage table.
OR
why not leave the table as it was and just make the USR like
" Anti Vehicle Weapon " no weapon without this USR can hope to ever damage a vehicle, regardless or their regular profile.

GW just likes to look for a more complicated and thus error prone solution. Ever heard of Ockham lads?
Disclaimer:
GW you may steal my idea at no cost and implement either USR via FAQ.

Icarus81
23-05-2014, 00:52
If they wanted to make vehicles more resilient why not limit the weapons which can hit them by introducing a USR?
" Anti Vehicle Weapon " regardless or their regular profile those weapons add +2 too the Damage table.


Then you'd need an even bigger table to differentiate the true anti-tank weapons



OR
why not leave the table as it was and just make the USR like
" Anti Vehicle Weapon " no weapon without this USR can hope to ever damage a vehicle, regardless or their regular profile.


And then people would complain that a weapon that could easily go through rear armor now can't.

Fizzy
23-05-2014, 01:37
Hating 7th and loving 6th.

Will be staying with 6th edition. Pushing out new rules every 2 years and making it worse is nothing I will support.

Vegeta365
23-05-2014, 07:16
There are so few changes in 7th that I am suprised people who love 6th hate 7th!

Bugaboo
23-05-2014, 07:39
A) Rhino's don't have paper thin armor and
B) Late 5th was the tank edition

Seriously, vehicles get more resilient to all but dedicated anti tank fire, and people are going to complain about that too?

Yes. Because while the whine flowed into all cups at how flimsy vehicles were in 6, fixing this by making them less prone to being one shotted for some reason has displeased many people. For reasons which I cannot comprehend. I would assume it's simply a case of another thing to whine about, even if it's giving folks what they wanted?

Seriously, though, I am kinda looking forward to seeing how vehicles perform under the new rules. Maybe now Fiends can be taken in CSM armies without ridicule. Maybe walkers will no longer make non-Xenos players weep at their lack of MC class "vehicles". Maybe I won't ever see all of an army's rhinos immobilized in their deployment zone. So many maybes...

Gonefishing
23-05-2014, 08:07
Yes. Because while the whine flowed into all cups at how flimsy vehicles were in 6, fixing this by making them less prone to being one shotted for some reason has displeased many people. For reasons which I cannot comprehend. I would assume it's simply a case of another thing to whine about, even if it's giving folks what they wanted?

Seriously, though, I am kinda looking forward to seeing how vehicles perform under the new rules. Maybe now Fiends can be taken in CSM armies without ridicule. Maybe walkers will no longer make non-Xenos players weep at their lack of MC class "vehicles". Maybe I won't ever see all of an army's rhinos immobilized in their deployment zone. So many maybes...


I think the problem people were complaining about was not the "one shot" vehicle kills, it was the hullpoint system that massively reduced vehicles survivability and made them fairly worthless at the advent of 6th. What GW have "fixed" means its still pathetically easy to glance a vehicle to death but now harder to oneshot them, which pretty much leaves most ground vehicles (apart from the heaviest) with the same problem, and makes fliers even harder to kill (as very few Skyfire weapons are AP1/2) and have no chance to get a lucky takedown shot anymore.

The problem was hullpoints and the GW's solution was to make it harder to one shot vehicles....

Not that I really care anymore, I quit donkeys ago :)

Vegeta365
23-05-2014, 08:40
I think the problem people were complaining about was not the "one shot" vehicle kills, it was the hullpoint system that massively reduced vehicles survivability and made them fairly worthless at the advent of 6th. What GW have "fixed" means its still pathetically easy to glance a vehicle to death but now harder to oneshot them, which pretty much leaves most ground vehicles (apart from the heaviest) with the same problem, and makes fliers even harder to kill (as very few Skyfire weapons are AP1/2) and have no chance to get a lucky takedown shot anymore.

The problem was hullpoints and the GW's solution was to make it harder to one shot vehicles....

Not that I really care anymore, I quit donkeys ago :)

Out of interest, when I see people who have quit on these types of threads I always wonder why the person is reading all the rules changes?

Is it in the hope that the rules will be made good and you will start to play again? Is it that even though you don't play you like to talk about rules sets you don't play?

Always curious?

Spiney Norman
23-05-2014, 08:43
Hating 7th and loving 6th.

Will be staying with 6th edition. Pushing out new rules every 2 years and making it worse is nothing I will support.

I'm not sure they have made it worse, but due to the armies I play I will get no use out of the only real change (psychic phase) so I think I'll save myself 50 and keep playing 6th.


There are so few changes in 7th that I am suprised people who love 6th hate 7th!

Because being asked to pay 50 for a next to no change rule book is a cause for celebration? I forgot that the hobby was more about spending than it was about playing...

Shadeseraph
23-05-2014, 08:51
There are so few changes in 7th that I am suprised people who love 6th hate 7th!

Yeah, but a couple changes are actually way, way too dramatic. Multi FOC and Unbound, effectively, completely changes how the game is played.

I guess in the end everyone in my group will ignore the line that says that you may take multiple detachments, or limit them by agreement. PUG games are a bit toughter, but oh, well.

tneva82
23-05-2014, 09:07
Yes. Because while the whine flowed into all cups at how flimsy vehicles were in 6, fixing this by making them less prone to being one shotted for some reason has displeased many people. For reasons which I cannot comprehend. I would assume it's simply a case of another thing to whine about, even if it's giving folks what they wanted?

It's because they are fixing it from the wrong direction! This does not help vechile survivability in noticable amount. What it does is drive premium tank killer weapons to be even more the weapons you wouldn't expect premium tank killer weapons to be.

hobojebus
23-05-2014, 11:18
I think the problem people were complaining about was not the "one shot" vehicle kills, it was the hullpoint system that massively reduced vehicles survivability and made them fairly worthless at the advent of 6th. What GW have "fixed" means its still pathetically easy to glance a vehicle to death but now harder to oneshot them, which pretty much leaves most ground vehicles (apart from the heaviest) with the same problem, and makes fliers even harder to kill (as very few Skyfire weapons are AP1/2) and have no chance to get a lucky takedown shot anymore.

The problem was hullpoints and the GW's solution was to make it harder to one shot vehicles....

Not that I really care anymore, I quit donkeys ago :)

The damage rolls were not the issue hull points are, no one wanted vehicles to remain indestructible but they as usual went too far.

What they should of done is increase hull points or change it so glances only remove hull points on a 4+, heck maybe both.

Maybe if they hadn't freaked and rushed out this update they could of fixed a problem that's been stopping alot of people buying tank kits.

Minsc
23-05-2014, 11:20
Because being asked to pay 50 for a next to no change rule book is a cause for celebration? I forgot that the hobby was more about spending than it was about playing...

There are enough changes in 7th to warrant buying the new rulebook.

I'm slightly amused by the fact that one can always read a lot of negative comments about GW "catering to kids these days" here on Warseer, and then people complain about 50, like it was a huge expense. :rolleyes:

hobojebus
23-05-2014, 11:23
There are enough changes in 7th to warrant buying the new rulebook.

I'm slightly amused by the fact that one can always read a lot of negative comments about GW "catering to kids these days" here on Warseer, and then people complain about 50, like it was a huge expense. :rolleyes:

For some people it is, for people I know that's their monthly gaming budget gone on a minor rule update.

frikandel speciaal
23-05-2014, 11:27
There are enough changes in 7th to warrant buying the new rulebook.

I'm slightly amused by the fact that one can always read a lot of negative comments about GW "catering to kids these days" here on Warseer, and then people complain about 50, like it was a huge expense. :rolleyes:

No, there are not enough changes in 7th to warrant buying a new book. A suplement costing 20 euro's would have been ok.

Minsc
23-05-2014, 11:31
No, there are not enough changes in 7th to warrant buying a new book.

I'm looking forward to see all the battlereports from 6th vs 7th games. I'm sure it will be an amusing read. (Considering how many that claims that they will continue to play 6th, the imo worst edition of 40k.)

And how do you reckon they would release this supplement which would include a major overhaul by adding a new phase, changing several special rules and the way several things work? (Like ramming, shooting, vehicles)
The old BRB would be made redundant in an instant.
If they only added new scenarios I would agree that they could've made a supplement, but they changed so much more.

Still this is Warseer, so hyperbole and negativity on each new release is to be expected. :rolleyes:

hobojebus
23-05-2014, 11:36
I'm looking forward to see all the battlereports from 6th vs 7th games. I'm sure it will be an amusing read. (Considering how many that claims that they will continue to play 6th, the imo worst edition of 40k.)

And how do you reckon they would release this supplement which would include a major overhaul by adding a new phase, changing several special rules and the way several things work? (Like ramming, shooting, vehicles)
The old BRB would be made redundant in an instant.
If they only added new scenarios I would agree that they could've made a supplement, but they changed so much more.

Still this is Warseer, so hyperbole and negativity on each new release is to be expected. :rolleyes:

They also failed to address several big things like fliers, vehicles getting glanced to death too quickly and combat being far weaker than shooting.

Adding a magic phase from fantasy wasn't asked for or needed.

The Clairvoyant
23-05-2014, 11:37
Those people should start putting aside 50p a week to pay for 8th ed then. If the edition lasts longer than 2 years, they'll even be able to afford some cards to go with it too. I'm sorry, but if you need to budget, then budget it properly. I get frustrated by people saying they need to know whats coming out in 6 months time so they can save for it. You don't *have* to get everything on release day!

hobojebus
23-05-2014, 11:41
Those people should start putting aside 50p a week to pay for 8th ed then. If the edition lasts longer than 2 years, they'll even be able to afford some cards to go with it too. I'm sorry, but if you need to budget, then budget it properly. I get frustrated by people saying they need to know whats coming out in 6 months time so they can save for it. You don't *have* to get everything on release day!

Some people have no impulse control and no concept of delayed gratification, and like any addict they need the new shiny now not later.

frikandel speciaal
23-05-2014, 11:53
I'm looking forward to see all the battlereports from 6th vs 7th games. I'm sure it will be an amusing read. (Considering how many that claims that they will continue to play 6th, the imo worst edition of 40k.)

And how do you reckon they would release this supplement which would include a major overhaul by adding a new phase, changing several special rules and the way several things work? (Like ramming, shooting, vehicles)
The old BRB would be made redundant in an instant.
If they only added new scenarios I would agree that they could've made a supplement, but they changed so much more.

Still this is Warseer, so hyperbole and negativity on each new release is to be expected. :rolleyes:

The psychic phase could have been a cheap suplement. All the other changes are pointless. Changes for the sake of change(and a reason why people MUST buy this book).
But i most certainly will not, and i know a lot of people who won't either.

Negativity is easily justified. Blame GW, not Warseer.

Haravikk
23-05-2014, 12:14
What they should of done is increase hull points or change it so glances only remove hull points on a 4+, heck maybe both.
I think glances requiring a roll to remove a hull point would have made a lot of sense; make it a D6 roll of a 5+, but give bonuses for AP (+1 for AP2, +2 for AP1) and it'd be ideal, then have upgrades to reduce it such as Extra Armour giving a -1 penalty to the roll, for example.

An alternative would be to have the roll based on remaining Hull Points; e.g - you remove a Hull Point if you can roll greater than the remaining hull points, so a Land Raider only loses its first Hull Point on a 5+, most other vehicles lose it on a 4+ and so-on. This means that to reliably glance a vehicle to death you'd need to first do some penetrating damage to get things started.

hobojebus
23-05-2014, 13:40
I think glances requiring a roll to remove a hull point would have made a lot of sense; make it a D6 roll of a 5+, but give bonuses for AP (+1 for AP2, +2 for AP1) and it'd be ideal, then have upgrades to reduce it such as Extra Armour giving a -1 penalty to the roll, for example.

An alternative would be to have the roll based on remaining Hull Points; e.g - you remove a Hull Point if you can roll greater than the remaining hull points, so a Land Raider only loses its first Hull Point on a 5+, most other vehicles lose it on a 4+ and so-on. This means that to reliably glance a vehicle to death you'd need to first do some penetrating damage to get things started.

See not really that hard to come up with something better is it.

megatrons2nd
23-05-2014, 14:34
They could have used hull points in another manner entirely. The Attacker chooses to remove a hull point or roll on the damage chart. The removal of a hull point makes the vehicle easier to damage ie +1 to the Penetration roll so a lascannon hitting a AV14 vehicle with 1 HP lost would need a 4+ to glance rather than a 5+ to do anything. This would still have the caveat that the weapon would need to be able to hurt the vehicle in the first place so that bolters couldn't kill an AV 14 vehicle missing 4 HP. The HP wouldn't kill it when they were depleted but the effect would be that the vehicle would be able to be taken out by lighter weapons.

Or Give Glancing hits a roll on the chart at -1, AP- -2, AP6-5 -1, AP 3-4 normal, AP2 +1, AP1 +2, and +1 for each HP already lost.
0-2 Shaken
3 Stunned
4 Stunned -1HP
5Weapon Destroyed -1HP
6 Immobilized -1HP ( -2HP if already immobilized)
7+ Explodes

HP Loss wrecks the vehicle

hobojebus
23-05-2014, 14:38
They could have used hull points in another manner entirely. The Attacker chooses to remove a hull point or roll on the damage chart. The removal of a hull point makes the vehicle easier to damage ie +1 to the Penetration roll so a lascannon hitting a AV14 vehicle with 1 HP lost would need a 4+ to glance rather than a 5+ to do anything. This would still have the caveat that the weapon would need to be able to hurt the vehicle in the first place so that bolters couldn't kill an AV 14 vehicle missing 4 HP. The HP wouldn't kill it when they were depleted but the effect would be that the vehicle would be able to be taken out by lighter weapons.

Or Give Glancing hits a roll on the chart at -1, AP- -2, AP6-5 -1, AP 3-4 normal, AP2 +1, AP1 +2, and +1 for each HP already lost.
0-2 Shaken
3 Stunned
4 Stunned -1HP
5Weapon Destroyed -1HP
6 Immobilized -1HP ( -2HP if already immobilized)
7Wrecked
8 Explodes

Or they could give up on armour give all vehicles a toughness instead they've already crossed that line with riptides and other MC, then use special rules to dictate what they do as a transport etc.

HelloKitty
23-05-2014, 14:48
It thinks that if all of the plastic creatures had the same stat line that that would be preferable to this one.

Gonefishing
23-05-2014, 22:22
Out of interest, when I see people who have quit on these types of threads I always wonder why the person is reading all the rules changes?

Is it in the hope that the rules will be made good and you will start to play again? Is it that even though you don't play you like to talk about rules sets you don't play?

Always curious?

Hmmm tricky one really, personal opinion only here, but....

I played the game for ten years because I loved the game , the GW decided they weren't a Games company anymore and that I was a collector not a gamer - released 6th, which I hated and released Tau (my army) which I hated even more because it was the exact opposite (to me) to what a Tau army should be - so I quit.

However, I still (after 10 years of playing) have an interest in seeing what's going on and have some historical knowledge to chuck in the mix. Part of it maybe just keeping an eye on GW as they slowly self self-destruct (its like watching a train crash and its hard to look away), part of it is nostalgia, part of its interest to see if they have actually produced something decent(from what I've read about 7th so far I don't think they have it sounds like a cluster (erm) flop of an edition, even Jervis looks embarrassed in the vids).

If they made the rules good again, I would go back and buy a new army yes - but I'm not under any illusion that they will- they have backed themselves into a corner really and opened a whole Pandora's box of shizzle. With all the allies / unbound etc, there is no way they can reverse from that now, as they would enrage what's left of their customers if they turned round and said "hey chaps, we know you just brought ten riptides but we've changed the rules and you cant use them anymore". Best I could ever hope for is that they released a gamers edition of 40k ruleset to run alongside the "Cinematic" version, with completely different (playtested) tight rules (more like the direction they moved in 5th [and to a lesser extent 4th]).

So - Trainwreck / Nostalgia / interest / faint hope - probably in that order lol (but that's just my reason).