40K Rulebooks, Starter Sets and Psychic Cards Pulled - 7th Ed 40K Imminent?

[Lord-Boofhead]

Thats assuming warlocks would count towards the %, Im willing to bet that "slotless" units would not

Actually I bet they would count, and the inclusion of an arseload of slotless HQs in the Astra Milawhatsit disproves this rumour.

[DarkLink]

Like what?

The fundamental problem with deathstars isn't that they're good. It's that they currently have certain mechanics that effectively break the game. That basically means rerollable saves, or in the case of the O'vesastar, phenomenal shooting that basically auto-wounds/penetrates with only invulnerable saves allowed on an extremely durable platform for a criminally low cost.

Remove the rerollable 2+, and the game is pretty much un-broken, as least as far as deathstars are concerned. They're still pretty powerful, but they're no longer unkillable. It's a huge step in the right direction. Yet you would just throw up your hands in defeat and give up because the game still wouldn't be perfectly balanced?

Sure, players will always find the most powerful units. That's why it's incumbent upon the game designers to create a system that isn't broken. Using it as an excuse to try and weasel out of that, though, is like whining to your mom that you can't mow the lawn and take out the garbage and do your homework because "it's too much work". Granted, GW doesn't allow its game designers to actually playtest enough (why waste time playtesting when instead you can pump out more overpriced rulebooks?), but if they can use 7th to improve the game even a little, how is that a bad thing?

[Clockwork]

DarkLink, you're not getting my point so I'm going to lay it out as clearly as possible:

Just slapping a percentage system on 40k won't be enough to fix it.

To fix 40k it needs to be done over, from scratch. And I highly doubt this new rulebook will be doing that.

[Charon]

To fix 40k it needs to be done over, from scratch. And I highly doubt this new rulebook will be doing that.

Nope.
You just have to fix whats broken. And there are quite few (but glaring) issues.
Most of them come from Allies, stacking and very few absurd unit choices.

Percentage System fixes the first two without much efford. the last one is an issue we will ALWAYS see. Even games (which are easy supportable by updates und have a dedicated designer/programmer team) will have these issues. Everything else is just a small tweak. You wont ever achieve "balance", you dont even need too. Dice do that for you. You need imbalances cause in a 100% balanced game of 40k there would be a "best army list" for each army and it just would come down to move and dice luck.

[Lord Asterion]

DarkLink, you're not getting my point so I'm going to lay it out as clearly as possible:

Just slapping a percentage system on 40k won't be enough to fix it.

To fix 40k it needs to be done over, from scratch. And I highly doubt this new rulebook will be doing that.

40k doesn't need to be fixed, it does what its designed to do well, which is sell miniatures to people who want to use them to play games with friends. It needs a few tweaks here and there to make it a bit better, but it doesn't need an overhaul.

- - - Updated - - -

If they do change them and we have to buy a new deck of Power cards I hope the box is big enough to fit all the extra decks in it...

This is a real gripe, i've bought all the decks mainly because I like the cards and the box size is really annoying

[Charistoph]

Nope.
You just have to fix whats broken. And there are quite few (but glaring) issues.
Most of them come from Allies, stacking and very few absurd unit choices.

Percentage System fixes the first two without much efford. the last one is an issue we will ALWAYS see. Even games (which are easy supportable by updates und have a dedicated designer/programmer team) will have these issues. Everything else is just a small tweak. You wont ever achieve "balance", you dont even need too. Dice do that for you. You need imbalances cause in a 100% balanced game of 40k there would be a "best army list" for each army and it just would come down to move and dice luck.

Yes, because the game wasn't broken when Allies weren't available and when armies were based on percentages... Oh, wait, yeah, that's wrong, it was broken then, too.

Not saying that Allies didn't muck things up even more, but that's hardly a fix-all that many people think, especially when a lot of the "scary" combos that people talk about are "scary" enough when taking part of it on its own.

Percentages are the same way. Does the way an army is built need to be addressed? Yes. Is percentages the answer... I have yet to be convinced (and there are some local people who are far more convincing), especially when most want to break the system in just another direction.

[Bigred]

from GW 4-5-2014

[Defenestratus]

from GW 4-5-2014

<snipped YT video>

Why in God's name did I click play on that video when the preview frame was basically the whole damn thing.

I seriously loathe GW's marketing group.

[Mr Mystery]

You were expecting Spielberg, or perhaps Kafka?

[gungagreg]

Why in God's name did I click play on that video when the preview frame was basically the whole damn thing.

I seriously loathe GW's marketing group.

Clearly you, like I, are conditioned to hit play...Damn you Pavlov!