First Warhammer 40,000 7th Edition Rules Changes Emerge!
May 5, 2014 by brennon
Warhammer 40,000 7th Edition is just around the corner and Games Workshop have already been teasing the new version of the tabletop game with their teaser trailer which you can see above. However the latest White Dwarf has already been pillaged for spoilers and here are some of the details below...
The biggest change they first go into is the way that the Force Organisation Chart has changed. You can have a Battle Forged Army which is the simple chart we've all come to know and love and adhering to this of course comes with certain benefits.
However, the alternative to this is using an Unbound Army. An Unbound Army has no limitations in terms of what you can take and as the examples in the leak state you could have armies of Riptides, Leman Russ, Wraithknights and everything else you could possibly think of.
Of course this has an interesting impact on the way armies are made since you can practically do what you like now and make the army YOU want to make. Of course this does also bring in a few raised eyebrows as to the insane power plays people could get up to. I'm sure people have a lot to say about that.
Next up we have the change in the way games and victory points are scored. Gone is the standard set of objectives as they have been added to with the Maelstrom of War scenarios that will have dynamically changing objectives per turn that can be scored or indeed ignored as you see fit. It could potentially change the game into a much more exciting prospect and not just a King of the Hill style affair. I like the sound of this.
Last but not least is the change to the Psychic powers and that they're getting their own phase! From what I can gather from the leaks this means that Warhammer 40,000 is getting the equivalent of a magic phase. It sounds pretty neat that you could also see a lot more random things appearing on the battlefield with the Daemonology powers. Summoning daemons as Eldar and then having them do something nasty in return for their helpful actions? Sounds like fun.
What do you think then guys? Does this sound like a step in the right direction?
Comment below!
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Unbound Army Lists sound great to me!
Anything that promotes flexibility and narrative get a big thumbs up from me, although I think the psychic powers bit sounds a little cumbersome and a throwback to WHFB.
Throwback to WHFB, don’t you mean back to 40K 2nd ed?
Perhaps, but I’m trying to reference where it has been used most recently, still doesnt change the impression I have (currently) of it being cumbersome.
Just amusing seeing how 40k has almost gone full circle from 2nd ed to this edition (I started with 2nd ed, and played up until 5th until I left my part time job with GW). Honestly, I still think percentage based lists gave the sort of balance between “balance” and “weird” lists.
But them I am happy with having some sort of balance in wargames since I can enjoy gm fiat and narrative running rpgs.
There are already tons of rules and supplements that allow you to take unusual armies. For instance you can take a full termie army using dark angels, but also using forge world rules, or horus heresy rules. The new rules change allows players to get round having to use special scenarios or bend the background of certain armies.
I agree the psychic power thing sounds cumbersome, particularly given the amount of hooting you have in 40k.
Unbound Armies sound great the gaming club I run has a number of youngsters who cant always afford to stick to the organization chart. Dynamic missions and points (like Infinity) sound awesome. I just hope GW are sensible with the price of the rule set.
I would agree here. My daughter has started and the few games she has played we always ask to ignore the FoC as she cannot cover it. So like the idea.
I guess this also lends credence to the longstanding rumour that 9th ed WFB would have an open approach to army lists. It’ll be interesting to see how tournaments are organised now.
I bet most tournaments will follow a more rigid approach to army lists, and you won’t be able to just have a free for all. But perhaps some tournaments will allow anything goes.
Well, for me the fluff was always one of the great things in 40K.
Unbound seems to me Pay to Win.
There, here are my 4 Knights, my 3 Riptides, 2 Baneblades and 3 Assorted Chaos Big Kits.
Bye bye fluff, bye bye fun.
On the other hand, wait and see seems like the way to go for now.
There is nothing fluffy about balanced armies. Balance is not always the most realistic factor in an army. For instance in a balanced game you would not see any tank armies, but tank armies are a realistic part of the background. If you are playing those type of scenarios you do have to play against fair minded players and not against power gamers.
I have to agree that some power gamers will take advantage of this, but then again, you can take more or less of units as you see fit, which I think will be awesome for themed campaigns and missions.
Did… did GW’s game design team just threw in the towel?
So the only solution they could find in making a balanced game system is add in more randomness and make army lists almost non existent?
It does smack of that, since with wargames and rpgs, the golden rule is always that you are allowed to ignore the rulebook. How is this new approach anything new? I mean hell, you want some fun with Warmachine, then make up a reason for the army roster you want to use. Sam with any game.
No i think they just created two flavors, bound army lists for those who want to stay structured and unbound for those (including me) who want to try some funky stuff.
I have yet to hear anyone complain about the ‘balance’ of bolt action or hail ceasar.
TBH i think this balance nonsense is in peoples heads.
The game is only as balanced as the opponent you play.
If you want balance… play chess – even then make sure you pick white 😉
I have to agree , hail ceasar has a a points system but nobody I think really uses it, apart from FOW and BA I can think of a WW2 game that uses a point system
*cant think ….sorry
But Warzan, in Bolt Action I can’t take SS-troops and mix them with US Marines and Malaysian Pineapple Launchers in order to create a ‘funky’ game.
Yes you can
Warzan could you use dinosaurs in bolt action? It would be a great way to incorporate dinosaurs into the game and also educational for kids.
I agree… the way codices are currently working the point “balance” is in name only and does nothing for the game. It provides some players with a sense that on any given day I have a 50% chance of winning whereas we all know and have experience the fact that some army builds are almost auto wins. I say almost as there is always the day when random chance makes one a liar. With unbound at least in casual games you know that your probably going to face something outrageous and you have an opportunity to equal that. “Oh, you’re… Read more »
I will have to respectfully disagree.
From a designers perspective, the more balanced and clear the game system is, the more opportunities you give to everybody to enjoy the thing they want from your system.
“Forging the narrative”, fluff, competition, tournaments everything is build on the game system, the more balanced and clear it is, the better for everybody using it as a foundation.
In the end @Warzan you do not need an official permission from anybody to game at the gaps, in any system, but the better your foundations, the better your experience will be.
“the more balanced and clear the game system is”
^^^ But this simply cannot exist in any gaming system that contains enough options and gear to make it a ‘hobby’
Would you like to name a game that has achieved this and has a similar level of ‘hobby’?
Total balance? None.
A better level of balance with fewer models/units/factions too far away from a median power curve to essentially be useless in a regular game or obviously the best choice to the detriment of all others? Nearly all of them.
Even in quotes I do not subscribe to the idea of having GW and hobby synonymous. If you really think about it, the plethora of customization options in 40k is left vastly unused, because most are pointless to have, so the vast majority of players simply distill to the few options that really matter, what difference really that is to other wargames that have a more “restricted” choice? except I guess, less useless unused options taking space and a more balanced approach to the list design, both internally and externally. So what is the minimum level of options and gear… Read more »
@psychoticstorm the games designers have always said that the rules are only a guideline, and actually they exist to be broken and manipulated. Every single games designer agreed on that issue, and have done since the 1980s – that includes Jervis, Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers and Jake Thornton.
How do you think the citadel journal magazine came about? It was a house rules, player made army lists, weird skaven contraptions etc.
What has changed?
@captainbastardo2 About 3 decades time have changed since the early wargaming attempts of the 80’s and with them the expectations of the consumers. A game system is the framework in which the players playing a game will interact with, its the groundwork and not something to be used as guidelines, especially in our modern society were time is scarce. People buying a rule set and codexes from GW they buy the convenience to have a set of rules to interact with other players and a set of army lists, already agreed with, been professionally made saving them the time to… Read more »
Balance is an odd thing in the hobby, GW has never truly had it in as much as there have always been unbalanced elements, next to no systems have perfect balance. GW is also the ones that are responsible for a lot of the concepts of competitive play and army lists and the idea of the balanced environment – something now they deny like a guilty man in the dock. Also views on balance will differ with who you speak to, if you can play with regular groups of players who are of a like mind set – what you… Read more »
what warren said
wfb was more balanced to play in 4th ed even though the armies were potentially more beardy. The tourney scene did not exist and players tended not to min max armies to such an extreme extent.
The formalised army list does not make 40k more fluffy. For example why can’t you have a tank army in 40k?
I get Warren’s point I am a retired special forces soldier and during our reality based war-games I had good record of wins but I came up against a squad with a leader that took us out pretty quickly, my point is I view he outsmarted me, my squad viewed he cheated. In real combat I would cheat or change the rules every time to win, he simply brought a different balance to me on that day. Anyone that says winning isn’t everything has never been in a gun fight. But I war-game for entertainment if my opponent comes to… Read more »
Nope that happened a few years ago, and the towel was more grabbed by marketing and thrown away – after all if you look at what they want from a games designer its to promote the toys. This is just more blatant.
However if you are able to set up games and have a discussion with your opponent its a fairly nice framework.. If you have to play pick up games its just a bit poo
By Marketting you should more accurately read management and accounts
The difficulty as i see it, is that a huge part of the player base of 40k are afraid to deviate from the rules, it’s almost as if the ‘hobby’ of it all cannot exist outside of the framework of the rules.
Rules are a guide to have fun with folks.
I think what GW are trying to do here is tell people its ok to have fun. And yes they will sell more big kits in the process, but I don’t begrudge them that one iowta!
I’m reserving passing comment on what the game will be like until we have more information. If it truly does into a wild west of play-whatever-you-want with no restrictions at all then I’m very interested in seeing how it turns out. Structured army lists were the initial bump that caused Citadel sales to take off, and they’ve been a big driver of sales since. Rick Priestly wrote Black Powder and Hail Caesar with the intention that they would have no army lists or points but even in the historical part of the scene, the player base still demanded them and… Read more »
I think you’re guilty of what I suspect the Studio is also here Warren, in that you play in a regular social group with opponents you know well most of the time. Rules are needed to provide a structure so you can still have an enjoyable time playing even if your opponent is a dick. I’ve said frequently, the issue with 40K, fundamentally, is that the rules are so soft that WAAC is a playstyle, not an attitude. It shouldn’t impact on the game that my opponent is desperately keen to win, how much we both attach to victory should… Read more »
This pretty much matches my thoughts, but far more eloquently.
Before I mostly gave up on 40k, some examples of the various games I was playing and at my club were:
1500 points with 5 greater/demon/princes, infinite demon troops
3 Tau-dar armies at my club
Grey Knights with 2-3 Dreadknights depending on points sizes
Unbound armies won’t be improving things for the games I’d be playing at all.
Remember unbound is an option, no one is forcing it to be played, and FOC armies get a bonus (whatever that will be) I like the idea of unbound as it opens up so much narrative, elite armies dropping from the sky all on foot etc Lets not forget we could have done this at any time anyway, but GW now are building in the framework to encourage it, so you don’t land down at your local store and the teenager who knows waaay too much for his own good, starts picking your stuff apart. OK perhaps ‘that little guy’… Read more »
“no one is forcing it to be played”
We don’t know that yet. Even if the rules present players with two options, if one takes root over the other then it’ll to all intents and purpose become the default way of playing the game. Which means for many players they’re faced with playing that way or not at all. Again, this is all purely hypothetical at this point.
If the book has options, it has options. If the player base ‘forces’ something, how is that any fault of GW?
And if there are ‘many’ players who will face this issue, surely they can seek each other out in this day of social networking etc.
I sometimes, think that this community (the wider community not just BoW) see things a little too black and white.
OR…
I need to get out more and do a tour of gaming stores and clubs to get my eyes opened! lol
Again, I cannot stress enough how hypothetical this all is at this stage given the dearth of information we have. If both options are presented but only one is competitive then it’ll inevitably take root as the normative way to play the game. Not everyone plays WAAC, but even fewer people play to lose, and consequently very few people will build armies that lose the game before it’s played. The other way one can become normative over the other is if one proves to be more profitable for GW. Keying into other parts of this conversation, GW will absolutely make… Read more »
“but even fewer people play to lose, and consequently very few people will build armies that lose the game before it’s played”
^^^ This
Agreed, and you’re right, we will have to wait and see, but once again I will place my money on … the player wins games, not the army … 🙂
Absolutely, I’d take a good player over a good army every time. That said, we’re talking about two different ways of playing a game rather than relative balance between armies within the same format. GW could very well be providing their players with a beautifully balanced set of options that open up all sorts of new and interesting ways to play the game. They could also be providing two ways of playing the game, one of which has an enormous inherent advantage, and that would be very tough for the format to overcome and take root as a way of… Read more »
“Wait and see” should be the motto of the day 🙂
I think we can still expect to be bound by the mission objectives though. They might add unbound lists to the rules, but if we had that now you’d be struggling to win missions without taking a good number of troop choices anyway. So did/will we ever have crazy choices once we’ve created a force that actually has the capacity to win games which are based on troop objectives? Objectives which have force organisation rules partially built in already. So maybe to have these open lists be usable GW has to modify the objectives rules which make up such a… Read more »
A lot of this is going to depend on the bonuses that are giving for playing a “battle-forged” army.
Like I say, we really don’t know at this stage how it’s going to play out. It could be that between the BF bonuses and objective based missions that BF armies are actually better than Unbound ones. It could equally vary from army to army, with some having incredibly broken Unbound builds, and others have incredibly powerful BF abilities.
The potential issue with Unbound, which personally I’ve yet to see enough evidence of to be too concerned about, while acknowledging the misgivings of those who are, is that it is a choice at list building stage. Not an issue in a pre-arranged game, but if I build a battle forged list, pack up my minis and head out to my FLGS to find a game, only to arrive and discover the only available opponent is rocking Unbound, I have the “choice” of no game at all, or to play a game that has the potential to be so horribly… Read more »
“I need to get out more and do a tour of gaming stores and clubs to get my eyes opened! lol”
Sounds like a summer project for the BoW crew 🙂
“with some having incredibly broken Unbound builds, and others have incredibly powerful BF abilities”
I see that as being the most likely scenario. The balance of power will shift once again to other forces. There will be a lot of moaning and whining at my club from certain members, before they head to the internet and turn up the next week with a new WAAC net-list 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwSKkKrUzUk
Unbound Army Lists… I can definitely see this being questioned by many 40k’ers. To me, it sounds like 40k will be getting rid of the tactical elements of the game. At least we still have the good old Force Org Chart should we need it.
I do like the idea of the changing objectives in game. This should be quite interesting. 🙂
As I mentioned above in the article I think this could all be for the benefit of Warhammer 40,000 – as someone who has just got back into 40k and found it pretty bland to be honest I like that they’re spicing things up.
The objective cards sound like an awesome thing and dare I say it, maybe they listened to what Mantic were going to do with Warpath and took a leaf from their design book there.
I’m looking forward to the new edition.
The objective do some more interesting, and hark back to the Fog of War rules in Epic 40,000. What I would give to have that boxed game once more.
Oh my god!
James Hewitt has just gone over to GW and he is flexing his Mantic Muscles?
Go James!
That was my thinking too 😉
Unlikely he had any input on this. He’s only been in GW what, maybe 2/3 months. These things have lead times of 3-6 months minimum.
Don’t worry – only joking 🙂
I’m feeling the competetive players starting to whine up already… nothing rages like nerd rage…
I dont play 40K but I wonder who is going to buy this edition, friends have laid out about 100 on the last edition with escalation add ons etc. I dont think they will be doing it again
but one rumor (do not know if true or not) will put the updates out as an FAQ / Errata for players with 6th Edition already. If true then only new or people who really want the updated book will get it.
If this does not happen then its is a bit of a money grab
competitive play will prob stick to bound list. the unbound is just a version of Apocalypse for people who don’t have such a large collection. play with what you have, and have fun seems to be the message. I welcome this, its like the old GW is poking out, a bit more about the game and not the models
That was my immediate thought. The potential issue is that it could lock a lot of players out of tournament play, or at least force people who want to play tournaments to not build unbound lists.
I’m looking forward to seeing how it all pans out. Getting a bonus for following the FOC will be interesting but it will make campaigns work a little better. Often they manipulate the FOC anyway. Should make it pretty fun, especially with cards with objectives on as I imagine they will have specific things on that if your just loaded up on a specific thing makes it harder to complete some of those.
From a competitive point of view time will tell.
I hope the objectives are secret that would be fun. That would add a whole new Level.
Oh well… Wow
Seriously not impressed, looks like I’m out of GW for sure now then.
On one hand it does prompt a wtf. On the other hand, it sounds similar to Infinity’s sectorial lists, where you limit your selection of units to open up link teams.
Until we know what the bonuses for a battle-bound army are, speculation is nothing but that.
What’s the betting 75% of the book is full of pictures of marines and gw paint tips!
Highly Unlikely, GW in recent years have scaled back alot of the ‘hobby’ content in the book.
I would expect a sizable chunk of background though.
not sure if I like the sound of this or not. On one hand you could build a beautifully fluff army and make it playable on the other its gunna get abused to the point of rage by some people
Sounds good, so long as the standard troops/units are still required and not overawed and the psychic powers rules are not too cumbersome.
Look forward to seeing the full rules and if they make the game more flexible and fun. Possible changes to 30k?
In my book, unit diversity and interaction is key factor for a fun tactical/strategy game. Spam list can be fun to try but boring most of the time. A full list of leemanruss tank would look awsome on the table, but its damned boring to play unless you enjoy mindless dice rolling session.
Imagine a list full of crimson fist, sternguard vets armed with combi melta\plasma +heavy flamer in drop pods all scoring units. Drop-delete
40K is already unbound once you get to 2,000 points – in practice.
This probably isn’t much of a change, surely?
Exciting times, anyway.
it just opens it up for smaller armies, as you say Poosh exciting times ahead.
I haven’t played 40 k for quite a while but tonight it has got my interest. I like the sound of secret missions they add another level to any game, trying to guess what your opponent is up to. Unbound armies has got to be a winner, sure some people will take advantage and write the cheesiest lists that produce the most pointless games but whatever the rules are the same people will do this and I don’t play against those kind of players it’s not my idea of fun. For the rest of us we will have the opportunity… Read more »
multipule warbosses with nobs in trucks, sounds like a winner to me!
How can 6th edition be cycling out already? I started back in 5th in 2008, with a 50 euro rule book and a 15 dollar tyranid codex. 2010 rolled around and I picked up a 22 euro tyranid codex. 2012 came and went and I picked up a 60 euro rulebook, then the begin of this year tyranids were released again. Surely that means, Gamesworkshop are cutting 6th edition’s life cycle short 2 years by releasing 7th this year. But why? Why speed up the life cycle of the game? I thought 6th was really good, except for its blatant… Read more »
A bad set of results last year may well have brought forward the time table to shore up this years results.
Probably as simple as that.
Money grab?
Every business wants to grab your money… Thats kind of the point of a business.
+10 For a dollop of common sense 😉
Not that I’m necessarily agreeing with the sentiment, but unpacking “money grab” it implies short-term profiteering rather than simply attempting to make money. The further implication being that it risks long-term profit. Again, I’m not personally convinced this is the case.
Two options as I see it. 1) It has been slated to come out around this time for a long time and is just part of their plan. I see no evidence of any ‘short term-ism or profiteering here’ they are entitled to release products and try and get more customers, and encourage more spend from their existing customer base. Not everyone will like it, some will love it, either way its perfectly valid. 2) They have pulled it forward to try and inject some growth into this year to start to address the issues in the last set of… Read more »
Like I say, I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment myself, but it does deserve addressing on its own terms, which you have done 🙂
No shit sherlock? There are different ways of doing it though im sure youll agree. Im pretty sure we still have companies out there who are also passionate about their products and sincerely care about their customers while making money.
Are you seriously suggesting GW arn’t…
“passionate about their products”
And don’t…
“sincerely care about their customers while making money”
Utter tosh! 😉
Its a bit harsh on them isnt it? 😉
I’ve always purchased models that I like the look of , never been one to purchase mini’s for a army list/tactical reason , why should I buy something I think looks like a turd ? After god knows how many years of trying to shoehorn my fave mini’s into lists (which always ends up in defeat!) I can finally say **** ’em , and bring ALL of my dreadnaughts !! (which will please my wife because I’m no longer wasting money!) ……………. and no-one is forcing you to play the new edition , I bought Dark Vengeance and still play… Read more »
I’m still playing third…