Kroothawk wrote: The hostages are just one point why the Ukrainian war is top topic in German news and why people here will be easily offended by the poster.
What's unbelievable to me is that, rather than hold your hands up and admit it was maybe in poor taste, or even just not respond, you're actually trying to justify yourself?
Enough now, this might be the top news story in Germany (it's up there here in the UK too, unsurprisingly) but trying to pervert the possible implications of a poster for a game into some sort of political BS so your posts aren't both in bad taste AND off topic won't get any more item from me, let the Mods sort it out.
Jaceevoke wrote: I must say I am amazed at how much flak kroothawk is getting from a, somewhat dark, joke, there is a difference between a joke and being serious.
The flak seems to be less about the joke and more about his attempts at justifying his joke.
Purifyingflame_7 wrote: Wow, that went from hilarious Tinfoil-Hat-Party, to political bs with just a single post. Can't we all just unite in a shared hatred of GW? My Nids are doing fantastic as of 6th, so I'd be more keen to see a great trademark caper run-around instead of them adding, subtracting, or dicking the rules as they are now.
It's a little tragic that the idea of each new edition of 40K having "winners" and "losers" is so ingrained by now. But it's the consequence of retrofitting existing army lists to an edition they weren't designed for--which also prevents the rules getting the clean sweep they really need.
Purifyingflame_7 wrote: Wow, that went from hilarious Tinfoil-Hat-Party, to political bs with just a single post. Can't we all just unite in a shared hatred of GW? My Nids are doing fantastic as of 6th, so I'd be more keen to see a great trademark caper run-around instead of them adding, subtracting, or dicking the rules as they are now.
It's a little tragic that the idea of each new edition of 40K having "winners" and "losers" is so ingrained by now. But it's the consequence of retrofitting existing army lists to an edition they weren't designed for--which also prevents the rules getting the clean sweep they really need.
Apparently that very nearly happened for 4th edition. Andy Chambers had written the rules - the decision was made however to keep the same rule structure/mechanics. Andy then went on to use the rules for the now sadly defunct Starship Troopers.
It was a pretty good ruleset, certainly quite fast and I think more suited to the scale of game that 40k became after 2nd edition.
Was Pancake Edition's (mmmm..pancakes) provenance ever determined/proven?
I do wonder, if one was to credit GW with competence just for a second, that if there was a long term plan, that 6th was a stop gap, and Pancake was always meant as 7th, or was pushed to 7th and 6th knocked up in short order (which would explain a lot.)
It would be one way we might see Pancake, or son of Pancake, in the wild.
So if it is a release on the 24th of May, would we get a "teaser" soon?
Do you think it will be a 2 week pre-order or a one week pre-order? If I remember 6th edition was a 2 week pre-order correct? So maybe something this week, for a teaser?
dantay_xv wrote: Astral Waelwulfas: Waelwulas is an old saxon term used for viking, commonly translated as Slaughter wolves
Imperial Amat or Amat Imperium for Imperial Fists,
Tractus Lupos for Space Wolves
Tenebrarum Angeli for Dark Angels
Sanguinem Angeli for Blood Angels
Salamandra for salamanders
Album Cicatrices for White Scars
Ultramarines for Ultramarines
Manibus Ferreis for Iron Hands
Custodi Corvus for Raven Guard,
Courtesy of google translator english to latin
We are going off-topic.
Any more word on what we may expect on or around the 24th May?
I love the come back!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Only twenty one more days... only twenty one more days...
azreal13 wrote: Was Pancake Edition's (mmmm..pancakes) provenance ever determined/proven?
I do wonder, if one was to credit GW with competence just for a second, that if there was a long term plan, that 6th was a stop gap, and Pancake was always meant as 7th, or was pushed to 7th and 6th knocked up in short order (which would explain a lot.)
It would be one way we might see Pancake, or son of Pancake, in the wild.
azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm finding joking about a situation where people are actually dying, when we have a Ukranian community here on Dakka, in relation to the release of a game to be in pretty bad taste.
Perhaps its a German thing....
I disagree. I was born in Odessa and I find Kroots joke pretty hillarious a suggestion. And then people say germans have no sense of humour.
Anyways, I think there is one thing we can agree on: Given the current state of mass superheavies, flyers, vastly imballanced unit types (walkers vs MC) and USR bloat, battle brothers and death-star shenanigans, GW would be hard-pressed to make it any worse.
azreal13 wrote: Was Pancake Edition's (mmmm..pancakes) provenance ever determined/proven?
I do wonder, if one was to credit GW with competence just for a second, that if there was a long term plan, that 6th was a stop gap, and Pancake was always meant as 7th, or was pushed to 7th and 6th knocked up in short order (which would explain a lot.)
It would be one way we might see Pancake, or son of Pancake, in the wild.
It was completely a fan-made ruleset.
But we have who's word for that?
Did the originator actually come of and say so, or has it been assumed because 6th didn't resemble it in he slightest?
azreal13 wrote: Was Pancake Edition's (mmmm..pancakes) provenance ever determined/proven?
I do wonder, if one was to credit GW with competence just for a second, that if there was a long term plan, that 6th was a stop gap, and Pancake was always meant as 7th, or was pushed to 7th and 6th knocked up in short order (which would explain a lot.)
It would be one way we might see Pancake, or son of Pancake, in the wild.
It was completely a fan-made ruleset.
But we have who's word for that?
Did the originator actually come of and say so, or has it been assumed because 6th didn't resemble it in he slightest?
He kind of discredits himself by citing 6th as a better system than Pancake, but certainly writes as if he knew his subject!
He also implies that it wasn't an amateur project, and denies it was written by 'an (ex) GW employee.' Which of course means it could have been written by someone who still worked for them.
There's also an implication that pancake was written for something, or would be available for sale to then be attached to a system.
I'm not even sure where I'm going with this, but I guess I'm finding the idea of chewing over if Pancake was, or could be, 7th rather than 6th interesting.
He kind of discredits himself by citing 6th as a better system than Pancake, but certainly writes as if he knew his subject!
He also implies that it wasn't an amateur project, and denies it was written by 'an (ex) GW employee.' Which of course means it could have been written by someone who still worked for them.
There's also an implication that pancake was written for something, or would be available for sale to then be attached to a system.
I'm not even sure where I'm going with this, but I guess I'm finding the idea of chewing over if Pancake was, or could be, 7th rather than 6th interesting.
I don't know if you noticed but the account only has 14 posts in total 11 of which are in those threads, which makes it seem like it was an account that was created for the sole purpose of starting those threads and getting feedback. The other three post made by slayer of lies was one saying he was a long time lurker of warseer, the other two were in a thread regarding the then new flyer spam armies and what to call them. But has not posted anything since his last post in his "Review Sixth Edition", not sure if that makes seem more or less reliable.
I personally hope that an revised version of the pancake edition is 7th edition, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was going to be the rule system for a competitor of 40k. That they released claiming it as the supposed 6th edition to get feedback from their target audience.
I do wonder, if one was to credit GW with competence just for a second, that if there was a long term plan, that 6th was a stop gap, and Pancake was always meant as 7th, or was pushed to 7th and 6th knocked up in short order (which would explain a lot.)
I hoped this was the plan when 6th was released and looked nothing like Pancake, but alas, the quality (or lack thereof) of the codexes and supplements released since then suggest that level of forethought is beyond that which the studio is operating.
azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm finding joking about a situation where people are actually dying, when we have a Ukranian community here on Dakka, in relation to the release of a game to be in pretty bad taste.
Perhaps its a German thing....
I disagree. I was born in Odessa and I find Kroots joke pretty hillarious a suggestion. And then people say germans have no sense of humour.
Anyways, I think there is one thing we can agree on: Given the current state of mass superheavies, flyers, vastly imballanced unit types (walkers vs MC) and USR bloat, battle brothers and death-star shenanigans, GW would be hard-pressed to make it any worse.
One of GW's problems is they cannot change one thing at a time. Partly because you can't justify a new £45 rulebook by say only a revised Allies chart, but also because they can't seem to let well alone where things are working fairly well. For example, with 6th edition/Tau codex, they changed Rapid Fire, opportunity fire, cover, Markerlights, and several other things that all affected shooting, and the effect of these changes together with some changes that affected assault, suddenly had a major effect on game balance.
Kilkrazy wrote: One of GW's problems is they cannot change one thing at a time. Partly because you can't justify a new £45 rulebook by say only a revised Allies chart, but also because they can't seem to let well alone where things are working fairly well. For example, with 6th edition/Tau codex, they changed Rapid Fire, opportunity fire, cover, Markerlights, and several other things that all affected shooting, and the effect of these changes together with some changes that affected assault, suddenly had a major effect on game balance.
I think that's a symptom of non-digital games in general: updates have to be big to get people to buy into them, they swing things massively and because of it they can really shift/overturn metas.
A counter-measure to the pendelum going to far in any direction of course would be regular FAQs that actually change things, but GW has never been good about that on any level.
Sigvatr wrote: Anyone still excited about the new rulebook coming up?
I'm excited to see what it does, but I'm always excited to see what is in a release.
Me too, this is the one time my cynicism for cash grabs and customer exploitation is outweighed by my excitement for new challenges and changes.
Assuming there are any and it isn't just 6th in a new dress.
You and Zion are better folks than I. Debating on the pennies I'm saving for either finishing off a massive pile of Cryx or p/e Baldur tier list from Circle or a SM/IG Tournament list. I am waiting for the fall out of later this month.
I should really just paint and play what I have...
It is a symptom of a game published by a company that is entirely reliant on one or two games for its profits. To be accurate, GW is now reliant on 40K, because Fantasy has slumped since 8th edition.
There are loads of wargame rulesets that do not have the release profile of 40K, because the publisher was not doing it primarily for profit -- e.g. WRG Ancients and DBA rules -- or because the publisher has lots of other products and does not need to invalidate the rules to make people buy a new version (Osprey's Field of Glory rules).
All of the WRG rules and FoG have had updates: WRG Ancients went though seven editions between 1969 and 1986. There was only one significant change in the rules mechanics -- 7th edition. The rest of the changes were minor and incremental, to introduce a wider selection of armies, correct typos, minor changes to weapon factors, and so on.
Osprey have done Field of Glory Ancients, with a good range of campaign books, then produced Napoleonics and Renaissance. They also have an extensive historical reference book library so they are not reliant on making FoG Ancients players buy a new edition every few years.
In comparison, GW have been developing the WH/FB/40K system since 1981 and still have not managed to "get it right". They have got to the stage now of recycling ideas and mechanics. It starts to look like a shell game rather than a rules development process.
As a new player, I can't say I feel that yet, Killkrazy. Not doubting the history in the least, though. When I started talking to Infinity folks about 3rd about what's going to change from the perspective of 40k they looked at me like I was crazy... They expected tweaks, improvements, and nothing major.
As my fledgling wargamer self ventures forth into all different types, I feel odd shifting away from the monolith that has been 40k. It's part sunk cost, part fluff love, part history with the game. This whole process and the general issues with game and company just have been a lot of frustrations. I can see the faces of the friends I played with 4 years ago saying "finally, welcome to the post-40k crowd... you now know..." I get the old duders who play other things, but I also get the old dudes with mountains of 40k. The latter just ignore GW entirely and purchase bulk models off the former as they leave.
azreal13 wrote: Was Pancake Edition's (mmmm..pancakes) provenance ever determined/proven?
I do wonder, if one was to credit GW with competence just for a second, that if there was a long term plan, that 6th was a stop gap, and Pancake was always meant as 7th, or was pushed to 7th and 6th knocked up in short order (which would explain a lot.)
It would be one way we might see Pancake, or son of Pancake, in the wild.
It was completely a fan-made ruleset.
But we have who's word for that?
Did the originator actually come of and say so, or has it been assumed because 6th didn't resemble it in he slightest?
Just my own unfortunately, from someone who works in HQ at Nottingham. The rules were being used by a club somewhere or other and had been published on the net on that basis - one of the guys who had made them contacted GW as he was really worried a legal-hammer would come down on him and the club. They told him not to worry about it, and then went back to laughing at the internet self-destructing with 200-page discussions over a new set of rules that were nothing to do with GW, and had no resemblance at all to what would finally be 6th edition.
Though noone was laughing that 6th edition was NOT pancake.
GW was raging that pancake was discussed at all.
Posters usually praised pancake and were disappointed by 6th edition.
No doubt, this will be a very rushed version.
GW seem to have had poor profits recently, they even released their big seller, the SM codex, which didn't seem to boost profits.
So, their next big seller is the 40K rulebook.
I've been a teacher in an 11-16 school for 20 years now. I've played GW stuff since the 80's. The last few years of GW gaming has been horrendous.
I've run a Warhammer 40K club in school for the last 10 years. I've watched the number of players dwindle from a strong 15-20 players down to (now) 2 of us. We had interest from 2 new players this year, but upon seeing the prices of GW stuff, they never returned. The 1 player that does come, only purchases second hand figures from ebay.
GW's escalation of prices are dwindling their player base so badly now it seems they're going to rush out a new 40k to keep the profits going.
What can we expect in the new release?
1. Ensuring codex backwards compatibility. If they didn't they'd lose a lot more customers who bought recent releases.
2. A few changes to rules to ensure regular players *have* to purchase the new rulebook (ensuring their profits)
3. An even bigger slant away from cheaper troop choices towards the more expensive big models they produce.
4. A bigger price tag than the ridiculous £45 rulebook we already have.
Last time we had flyers brought in to increase profits on those big models.
What this time? I don't know, but I'll expect it to push towards more sales of their biggest most expensive models.
One thing's for sure, my club (if it ever expands again) will keep on using the single 6th edition rulebook it took ages to save for, with the in house rule of "no flyers allowed".
Apologies for this drifting totally off topic, but I needed to rant.
I know GW are a profit driven company, but surely they can see that lower prices and a bigger base of customers is better in the long run than slowly pushing all their customers away?
PS: Can anyone recommend a good set of rules that will allow me to use my existing 40k models?
TheKbob wrote: As a new player, I can't say I feel that yet, Killkrazy. Not doubting the history in the least, though. When I started talking to Infinity folks about 3rd about what's going to change from the perspective of 40k they looked at me like I was crazy... They expected tweaks, improvements, and nothing major.
As my fledgling wargamer self ventures forth into all different types, I feel odd shifting away from the monolith that has been 40k. It's part sunk cost, part fluff love, part history with the game. This whole process and the general issues with game and company just have been a lot of frustrations. I can see the faces of the friends I played with 4 years ago saying "finally, welcome to the post-40k crowd... you now know..." I get the old duders who play other things, but I also get the old dudes with mountains of 40k. The latter just ignore GW entirely and purchase bulk models off the former as they leave.
It is just a matter of my different perspective.
GW's view is that the game must be kept in a state of frequent change or people would stop buying it. They are probably correct, because most people if they want variety could buy a different game instead, rather than play only one game and need it to keep changing.
As I started wargaming before GW existed, I have always regarded WH/40K as one among a large number of options including SF, Fantasy and all the historical periods, not to mention naval, air and strategic games.
From this viewpoint a player wants a rulebook that is "finished". The rules should be "good", enjoyable, balanced, and free from errors and ambiguity. Many modern games reach this state in two or three editions, after which you don't need to buy any more books or models unless you want to expand your army or start a new one.
The variety available outside GW has increased over time. Since models do not perish, and can usually be used with different rulesets easily enough, a player would rather achieve variety by having more rulebooks than by changing the situation in a single game.
The argument could be made that GW, instead of constantly changing 40k to provide a dubious variety, ought to "finish" the rules and then make some other games. Presumably this is more difficult for them than just cycling round various changes in the existing rules.
I see you've no doubt been playing as long as I have, do you have any of your old sets of rules? If I may suggest, just step back into your favorite one.
I'm thinking that is what I might do. I have my 4th and 5th edition books still, and the old codexes -- to tell the truth I haven't bought any new codexes because they are too expensive -- so if people were willing it could easily be done.
OOD codexes and rules come up on eBay pretty cheap too.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument could be made that GW, instead of constantly changing 40k to provide a dubious variety, ought to "finish" the rules and then make some other games. Presumably this is more difficult for them than just cycling round various changes in the existing rules.
Even if they don't move on to other games giving us a new faction* should be easy and renew a lot of interest. And it's not like there aren't plenty of in cannon armies waiting to be given models and rules, or room for new ones to appear in the fluff.
I mean Deathwatch, Mechanicum (admittedly FW are doing this already), Arbites, Eldar Exodites and Squats could all have books.
As well they could do something like a Mercenaries book, or introduce whatever it is out there beyond the Ghoul Stars, throw in some minor Xeno empire that would still cover enough worlds to be worth mentioning on the fringe (or maybe make them nomadic so they aren't so much like the Tau), hell even the Men of Iron could be fleshed out and a proper AI faction brought it.
It should be easy to keep a setting as big and as rich as 40k from getting stale without shuffling around the rules every 2-4 years.
*A real faction I mean, not Knights, Militarum Tempust or Legion of the Dammed, I'm talking something actually worthy of the name 'codex'.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument could be made that GW, instead of constantly changing 40k to provide a dubious variety, ought to "finish" the rules and then make some other games. Presumably this is more difficult for them than just cycling round various changes in the existing rules.
Even if they don't move on to other games giving us a new faction* should be easy and renew a lot of interest. And it's not like there aren't plenty of in cannon armies waiting to be given models and rules, or room for new ones to appear in the fluff.
I mean Deathwatch, Mechanicum (admittedly FW are doing this already), Arbites, Eldar Exodites and Squats could all have books.
As well they could do something like a Mercenaries book, or introduce whatever it is out there beyond the Ghoul Stars, throw in some minor Xeno empire that would still cover enough worlds to be worth mentioning on the fringe (or maybe make them nomadic so they aren't so much like the Tau), hell even the Men of Iron could be fleshed out and a proper AI faction brought it.
It should be easy to keep a setting as big and as rich as 40k from getting stale without shuffling around the rules every 2-4 years.
*A real faction I mean, not Knights, Militarum Tempust or Legion of the Dammed, I'm talking something actually worthy of the name 'codex'.
Shuffling the rules every 2-4 years (and the codexes) is about all the current crop of GW designers are up to, in my opinion. And it's easy money. I think established wisdom is that GW are struggling a bit, though, so hopefully things will improve with time. If they keep doing these one-unit codexes, we'll know they're selling, and we can expect 4 more weeks of winter, so to speak
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a symptom of a game published by a company that is entirely reliant on one or two games for its profits. To be accurate, GW is now reliant on 40K, because Fantasy has slumped since 8th edition.
Ehh...that's the thing though, there are other companies that rely on just one or two games but are doing it better. A willingness to publicly admit mistakes and fix them quickly is something GW is sorely lacking I think.
I think one can safely remove 'publicly' from that statement. If there was any sort of culture of improvement within the corporation, we'd be seeing evidence of it in the product, public admission or not.
Still, given that they're trying to release a fix edition so to speak (after only 2 years) rather than just forcing us to wait the usual 4+ years for a new edition shows that they obviously realize they're doing something wrong. Who knows, maybe old GeeDubs is beginning to see the error of their ways.
What I have been hearing is that this is going to be 'from the writers' and was requested by them as a redo of a product they were not satisfied with, which gives me an enormous amount of hope for 7th. Provided that means 'improving gameplay' and not 'improving our idea of forging a narrative'...
I personally want to see a good amount of the fluidity and clarity of 5th return, with accomodations to the new units in 6th, and with a sizeable kick in the nuts to the 'D weapon' rule, a very savage reworking of the allies chart to alter some glaring oddities and cut right back on the Battle Brothers rule and current handicapping of any non-imperium army that isn't 'taudar' and every vehicle in the game receive an extra HP. But that's just my wish-listing.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a symptom of a game published by a company that is entirely reliant on one or two games for its profits. To be accurate, GW is now reliant on 40K, because Fantasy has slumped since 8th edition.
There are loads of wargame rulesets that do not have the release profile of 40K, because the publisher was not doing it primarily for profit -- e.g. WRG Ancients and DBA rules -- or because the publisher has lots of other products and does not need to invalidate the rules to make people buy a new version (Osprey's Field of Glory rules).
All of the WRG rules and FoG have had updates: WRG Ancients went though seven editions between 1969 and 1986. There was only one significant change in the rules mechanics -- 7th edition. The rest of the changes were minor and incremental, to introduce a wider selection of armies, correct typos, minor changes to weapon factors, and so on.
Osprey have done Field of Glory Ancients, with a good range of campaign books, then produced Napoleonics and Renaissance. They also have an extensive historical reference book library so they are not reliant on making FoG Ancients players buy a new edition every few years.
In comparison, GW have been developing the WH/FB/40K system since 1981 and still have not managed to "get it right". They have got to the stage now of recycling ideas and mechanics. It starts to look like a shell game rather than a rules development process.
Its not really the same thing though. Historicals game companies usually (and there are exceptions) don't sell models exclusively for their games (FOW tries) because there is a huge number of already existing models in various scales. And besides, a French Grenadier is a French Grenadier. Its not like they're going to get assault cannons in the next ruleset (well, only if you're playing fantasy historicals). Historicals players tend to play multiple rulesets for a given period, depending on whim, and often just play their own versions/variants.
GW has not only the rules to push (which depend on churn to sell), but the models, which have to be pushed as well. The advantage GW has is there isn't another game of the same scope with the same expansive background.
I've been playing since 2nd ed, and was a completist until around 4th, but just couldn't keep up. Now I barely have the rules for the armies I own. I do have a list of models I like and want to paint (rather than game with), but who knows if I'll actually buy them. I have the disposeable income, I think I'm just getting too old to keep up
I will, however, keep am eye on this, and if it includes all the rules for escalation, etc., then I'll likely get it. Its not like the new edition invalidates my current codexes. I do also think this is an attempt to really push the i-books, though, since the faqs/errata will be added right in. I'm never going that way, so if they do really push that, that'll be the end of my playing. Which has nothing to do with cost, just personal opinion about liking physical books.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: What I have been hearing is that this is going to be 'from the writers' and was requested by them as a redo of a product they were not satisfied with, which gives me an enormous amount of hope for 7th. Provided that means 'improving gameplay' and not 'improving our idea of forging a narrative'...
I personally want to see a good amount of the fluidity and clarity of 5th return, with accomodations to the new units in 6th, and with a sizeable kick in the nuts to the 'D weapon' rule, a very savage reworking of the allies chart to alter some glaring oddities and cut right back on the Battle Brothers rule and current handicapping of any non-imperium army that isn't 'taudar' and every vehicle in the game receive an extra HP. But that's just my wish-listing.
So, somewhat cautious, very optimistic from me.
I'd love this to be true, but it sounds too close to made up gak by a red shirt to me, something to try and justify how amazing the new book is going to be to cynical existing players.
It would be great, but past history makes me gun shy at this point.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: What I have been hearing is that this is going to be 'from the writers' and was requested by them as a redo of a product they were not satisfied with, which gives me an enormous amount of hope for 7th. Provided that means 'improving gameplay' and not 'improving our idea of forging a narrative'...
I personally want to see a good amount of the fluidity and clarity of 5th return, with accomodations to the new units in 6th, and with a sizeable kick in the nuts to the 'D weapon' rule, a very savage reworking of the allies chart to alter some glaring oddities and cut right back on the Battle Brothers rule and current handicapping of any non-imperium army that isn't 'taudar' and every vehicle in the game receive an extra HP. But that's just my wish-listing.
So, somewhat cautious, very optimistic from me.
I'm hoping for the best, but then I remember Mat Ward and Jervis are amongst those writers...
And I'll continue to look forward to other events and painting figs. I boxed up my GW and put it away, for now. I keep my army bags handy for a game, but the armies won't be an active project outside of keeping an eye out for OOP figs to add to them (Brets, SoB).
MeanGreenStompa wrote: What I have been hearing is that this is going to be 'from the writers' and was requested by them as a redo of a product they were not satisfied with, which gives me an enormous amount of hope for 7th. Provided that means 'improving gameplay' and not 'improving our idea of forging a narrative'...
I personally want to see a good amount of the fluidity and clarity of 5th return, with accomodations to the new units in 6th, and with a sizeable kick in the nuts to the 'D weapon' rule, a very savage reworking of the allies chart to alter some glaring oddities and cut right back on the Battle Brothers rule and current handicapping of any non-imperium army that isn't 'taudar' and every vehicle in the game receive an extra HP. But that's just my wish-listing.
So, somewhat cautious, very optimistic from me.
I'm hoping for the best, but then I remember Mat Ward and Jervis are amongst those writers...
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Mat Ward writes a good book, most of the time, from a rules perspective. There usually isn't a "bad" Mat Ward unit, just an average one with others being amazing or useful.
Jervis, with his little weekly ramblings in the WD I skim at the local game joint, seem full of "smug".
[tongue in cheek] Jervis and Pals...
Spoiler:
[/tongue in cheek]
All of the other talent at GW left to do their own things. I look forward to each of their products.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: What I have been hearing is that this is going to be 'from the writers' and was requested by them as a redo of a product they were not satisfied with, which gives me an enormous amount of hope for 7th. Provided that means 'improving gameplay' and not 'improving our idea of forging a narrative'...
I personally want to see a good amount of the fluidity and clarity of 5th return, with accomodations to the new units in 6th, and with a sizeable kick in the nuts to the 'D weapon' rule, a very savage reworking of the allies chart to alter some glaring oddities and cut right back on the Battle Brothers rule and current handicapping of any non-imperium army that isn't 'taudar' and every vehicle in the game receive an extra HP. But that's just my wish-listing.
So, somewhat cautious, very optimistic from me.
I'm hoping for the best, but then I remember Mat Ward and Jervis are amongst those writers...
Well, it's not just a case of names like that, it's the perception of the game from the writing types inside GW vs the view of the game from outside. Many of these guys have known each other for years, they are hired, amongst other things, on their ability to socially interact and discuss and partially on their likeability, talking things through as they go. They just don't 'get' that folks could come to serious impasse over a rule in a game they've written and the conventional wisdom there is that everything should be talked over and compromised.
As someone who games at clubs, with pickup games at stores or sometimes even at tourneys, also gaming in America vs the UK, I find a great deal of difficulty gaming to the expectation/understanding of the established ethos of GW's writers, who expect you to have gentleman's agreement over prettymuch anything and place the responsibility of the nature of the game squarely on the shoulders of the players. This is not 'Matt Ward' (poor bloke) or the venerable JJ, this is the ethos of the company's creative types and I think it needs a serious shake up.
GW writers write the games from the expectation of a group of friends who know each other well enough to have arranged the game prior having worked out what bits they want to put in or not, have an entire day set aside to have the game and can easily reach accord over any problems with a quick mutually agreeable compromise being reached or toss for it on a coin.
Which certainly has it's place, I've gamed like that for years back in the UK with a group of guys I've known for about 20 years, it's not however, in my humble opinion, what 'The Gaming Hobby' is like, out there in the world, which is, due to it being a niche hobby, something you may well find yourself gaming against someone you've just met, with a totally different view on a rule to you, likely just as valid. It relies upon an ideal world situation that doesn't exist for many of us.
GW's view works extremely well for, say, roleplaying games, where there is no competition, the players around the table are not 'opponents'. Wargames are built around the basic premise of chess, you are trying to win. You are placed in adversarial roles by the nature of the game and a rule set for such a game should not weigh so very heavily on and place so much faith on, two potential strangers being able to find rapid consensus from an ambiguous rule.
My personal belief? GW writers should have a long sit down and talk about revising the strategy of relying on their players to be nice, balanced and reasonable individuals enjoying a Saturday together before heading out for a slap up pub dinner and instead, write their rules like they were facing Stelek or someone of his ilk across the table at the final of a tournament with a sizable cash prize. Writing tighter like that, exclusively rather than inclusively, and then allowing all expansions and random charts to be added on if the players agree/want it on it is the better idea to me than making anything and everything inclusive and letting the players hash it out over what to exclude. Writing based on a 'highly competitive or difficult' player as your potential opponent rather than a mate you've known for decades and been best man to is road testing your new car in really difficult conditions instead of a nice leisurely jaunt. You make things to withstand the worst rather than get by in the best circumstance.
Less help forging the narrative, more help ensuring fluid and intuitive gameplay.
My personal belief? GW writers should have a long sit down and talk about revising the strategy of relying on their players to be nice, balanced and reasonable individuals enjoying a Saturday together before heading out for a slap up pub dinner and instead, write their rules like they were facing Stelek or someone of his ilk across the table at the final of a tournament with a sizable cash prize. Writing tighter like that, exclusively rather than inclusively, and then allowing all expansions and random charts to be added on if the players agree/want it on it is the better idea to me than making anything and everything inclusive and letting the players hash it out over what to exclude. Writing based on a 'highly competitive or difficult' player as your potential opponent rather than a mate you've known for decades and been best man to is road testing your new car in really difficult conditions instead of a nice leisurely jaunt. You make things to withstand the worst rather than get by in the best circumstance.
Less help forging the narrative, more help ensuring fluid and intuitive gameplay.
I smell a Zwei incoming...
Well written and I agree coming from traveling the US while playing 40k.
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
He also wrote the GK and Necron books.
Fool me twice GW....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: [
My personal belief? GW writers should have a long sit down and talk about revising the strategy of relying on their players to be nice, balanced and reasonable individuals enjoying a Saturday together before heading out for a slap up pub dinner and instead, write their rules like they were facing Stelek or someone of his ilk across the table at the final of a tournament with a sizable cash prize. Writing tighter like that, exclusively rather than inclusively, and then allowing all expansions and random charts to be added on if the players agree/want it on it is the better idea to me than making anything and everything inclusive and letting the players hash it out over what to exclude. Writing based on a 'highly competitive or difficult' player as your potential opponent rather than a mate you've known for decades and been best man to is road testing your new car in really difficult conditions instead of a nice leisurely jaunt. You make things to withstand the worst rather than get by in the best circumstance.
Less help forging the narrative, more help ensuring fluid and intuitive gameplay.
Indeed.
GW needs people to break their games for them in playtesting. There's just so many little things that I honestly cannot believe they missed (was standing right in front of Alessio when he admitted to not seeing people taking 2 Lash Princes... ). A tighter system benefits everyone and less arguments make for a more enjoyable game. No more "4+ I get to cheat" rolls.
My personal belief? GW writers should have a long sit down and talk about revising the strategy of relying on their players to be nice, balanced and reasonable individuals enjoying a Saturday together before heading out for a slap up pub dinner and instead, write their rules like they were facing Stelek or someone of his ilk across the table at the final of a tournament with a sizable cash prize. Writing tighter like that, exclusively rather than inclusively, and then allowing all expansions and random charts to be added on if the players agree/want it on it is the better idea to me than making anything and everything inclusive and letting the players hash it out over what to exclude. Writing based on a 'highly competitive or difficult' player as your potential opponent rather than a mate you've known for decades and been best man to is road testing your new car in really difficult conditions instead of a nice leisurely jaunt. You make things to withstand the worst rather than get by in the best circumstance.
Less help forging the narrative, more help ensuring fluid and intuitive gameplay.
I smell a Zwei incoming...
Well written and I agree coming from traveling the US while playing 40k.
I also anticipate "a well written 40K ruleset is bad because the sky is yellow" type post in the near future!
Still, at least he's the minority, and can be shut down fairly easily, because his argument has no supporting structure when placed under close scrutiny beyond "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you"
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
He also wrote the GK and Necron books.
Fool me twice GW....
Not necessarily true. Remember that it was only recently that we got the whole "Written by the Games Workshop Design Team" thing but it has always been the case of multiple writers work on a book together.
And really, that's two books out of how many Ward has worked on lately?
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No, in my opinion, the absence of Alessio is responsible for 6th ed. His was a strong voice for culling and simplifying and you saw it have a strong effect from 3rd into 5th as 40k traveled that path, the pendulum swinging back into 2nd ed territory so very hard was a result of his leaving and that 'side' of the debate being absent. (Alessio came to GW from the tournament scene, his very (perhaps too) simplified mantic warpath rules show his style and between it and 6th it's like 5th edition went through a transporter accident and was split into two rulesets, one totally stripped of all narrative and minimized on randomness and the other overwhelmed with it.
It's why my optimism for 7th is cautious. The 'narrative', 'work it out for yourselves' school of thought had free reign during 6th, I'm hoping it may have learned a lesson over it and tones it back a bit.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No, in my opinion, the absence of Alessio is responsible for 6th ed. His was a strong voice for culling and simplifying and you saw it have a strong effect from 3rd into 5th as 40k traveled that path, the pendulum swinging back into 2nd ed territory so very hard was a result of his leaving and that 'side' of the debate being absent. (Alessio came to GW from the tournament scene, his very (perhaps too) simplified mantic warpath rules show his style and between it and 6th it's like 5th edition went through a transporter accident and was split into two rulesets, one totally stripped of all narrative and minimized on randomness and the other overwhelmed with it.
Alessio was also responsible for some of the crap like the overly complex "Bloodlines" for Vampire Counts, so saying that he was a "voice for culling and simplifying" is rather laughable.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No, in my opinion, the absence of Alessio is responsible for 6th ed. His was a strong voice for culling and simplifying and you saw it have a strong effect from 3rd into 5th as 40k traveled that path, the pendulum swinging back into 2nd ed territory so very hard was a result of his leaving and that 'side' of the debate being absent. (Alessio came to GW from the tournament scene, his very (perhaps too) simplified mantic warpath rules show his style and between it and 6th it's like 5th edition went through a transporter accident and was split into two rulesets, one totally stripped of all narrative and minimized on randomness and the other overwhelmed with it.
Alessio was also responsible for some of the crap like the overly complex "Bloodlines" for Vampire Counts, so saying that he was a "voice for culling and simplifying" is rather laughable.
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Banner of the World Dragon. 50 points for almost total immunity to magical damage. Able to be taken on a core troops Standard Bearer. That High Elf character who automatically hits any "evil" army with S4 attacks just by being nearby.
Mat Ward is still making broken units/items. It's just he only makes them for the armies he is a fanboy of, hence why Dark Elves didn't get a banner of brokenness. In fact the Standard of Nagarythe, the Dark Elves most expensive magical banner (which costs more that the Banner of the World Dragon) also gives it's Special Rule bonus (Unbreakable, if I remember correctly) to High Elf Shadow Warriors and Alith Anar who are nearby. So High Elf units get a bonus from an item their opponent has.
Mat Ward has not got better at not playing fanboy.
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Banner of the World Dragon. 50 points for almost total immunity to magical damage. Able to be taken on a core troops Standard Bearer.
That High Elf character who automatically hits any "evil" army with S4 attacks just by being nearby.
Mat Ward is still making broken units/items. It's just he only makes them for the armies he is a fanboy of, hence why Dark Elves didn't get a banner of brokenness. In fact the Standard of Nagarythe, the Dark Elves most expensive magical banner (which costs more that the Banner of the World Dragon) also gives it's Special Rule bonus to High Elf Shadow Warriors and Alith Anar who are nearby. So High Elf units get a bonus from an item their opponent has.
Mat Ward has not got better at not playing fanboy.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No.
5th Edition was the "Mat Ward Edition" (having earned the right by writing the LOTR Strategy Battle Game before that).
But everyone hate 5th too at the time, so it shouldn't make any difference.
I think you mean 7th edition orcs. And the other end of that pendulum was 7th edition demons. Admitted to hating orcs and loving demons. We saw how that turned out.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No.
5th Edition was the "Mat Ward Edition" (having earned the right by writing the LOTR Strategy Battle Game before that).
But everyone hate 5th too at the time, so it shouldn't make any difference.
The original Lord of the Rings rules were written by Rick Priestly (Fellowship of the Ring), Rick Priestly and Alessio Cavatore (The Two Towers) and then Allesio Cavatore (The Return of the King). Got the books right here in front of me.
So really, all Mat Ward did was overcomplicate a well written, easy to learn ruleset by making army composition more limited and confusing when he "updated" them to make it so you needed a big rulebook and army books as well.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No.
5th Edition was the "Mat Ward Edition" (having earned the right by writing the LOTR Strategy Battle Game before that).
But everyone hate 5th too at the time, so it shouldn't make any difference.
The original Lord of the Rings rules were written by Rick Priestly (Fellowship of the Ring), Rick Priestly and Alessio Cavatore (The Two Towers) and then Allesio Cavatore (The Return of the King). Got the books right here in front of me.
So really, all Mat Ward did was overcomplicate a well written, easy to learn ruleset by making army composition more limited and confusing when he "updated" them to make it so you needed a big rulebook and army books as well.
Perhaps. Never played older versions, so I cannot comment.
Doesn't change the fact that Mat Ward was (aside from the overarching Jervis Johnson "guidance" and the "Rick Priestly legacy) the main writer for 5th Edition 40K, not 6th Edition 40K.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think you mean 7th edition orcs. And the other end of that pendulum was 7th edition demons. Admitted to hating orcs and loving demons. We saw how that turned out.
Squigsquasher wrote:Still, given that they're trying to release a fix edition so to speak (after only 2 years) rather than just forcing us to wait the usual 4+ years for a new edition shows that they obviously realize they're doing something wrong.
Indications are that they are not fixing the collapse of game balance by Escalation, but reminding everyone that this collapse is intentional. I don't expect any fix.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:What I have been hearing is that this is going to be 'from the writers' and was requested by them as a redo of a product they were not satisfied with, which gives me an enormous amount of hope for 7th.
The release date suggests that this is going to be "from panicking accountants", but writing that in a memo doesn't have the same nice ring to it
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Banner of the World Dragon. 50 points for almost total immunity to magical damage. Able to be taken on a core troops Standard Bearer.
And? Empire can take a pretty nasty banner on a unit of Inner Circle Knights...which just happens to be Core. It allows them to completely ignore barding penalties and is a hell of a lot scarier than the Banner of the World Dragon on a block of Inner Circle Knights who have a Warrior Priest or a Grandmaster hunkered down with them.
That High Elf character who automatically hits any "evil" army with S4 attacks just by being nearby.
Read your rules correctly. Alarielle's "Chaos Bane" only applies to "every unit with the Daemonic special rule within 12" of Alarielle". She also suffers a D3 penalty to her casting attempts if there are "one or more models with the Daemonic special rule within 12 inches".
The attacks are also a D6 S4 hit distributed as for shooting attacks.
The only thing she has in regards to the "Forces of Destruction" is that she gets Heroic Killing Blow for her close combat attacks if directed against models from the Forces of Destruction.
Mat Ward is still making broken units/items. It's just he only makes them for the armies he is a fanboy of, hence why Dark Elves didn't get a banner of brokenness. In fact the Standard of Nagarythe, the Dark Elves most expensive magical banner (which costs more that the Banner of the World Dragon) also gives it's Special Rule bonus (Unbreakable, if I remember correctly) to High Elf Shadow Warriors and Alith Anar who are nearby. So High Elf units get a bonus from an item their opponent has.
Mat Ward has not got better at not playing fanboy.
Oh my God, they give a bonus to a rather pathetic High Elf unit and a character who almost never sees tables?
The "Standard of Nagarythe" does give Unbreakable to Alith-Anar(an over pointed Lord character), Shadow Warriors(an overcosted Special choice in an army book full of far superior Special choices) and the Shadow Walker(the upgrade character for the Shadow Warrior unit).
Shadow Warriors are subpar versions of Shades, and Alith-Anar is a joke. If you are legitimately complaining about the Standard of Nagarythe potentially making a unit of bow wielding skirmishers Unbreakable within 12" of your Unbreakable unit--I do not know whether to pity you or laugh hysterically at you.
Anyways I should point out that there is actually a "Banner of the World Dragon" equivalent in the Wood Elf book...except for the fact that it is a "One Use Per Game" item and you get the effects until the end of the turn or until the Standard Bearer(because it can only be put on a BSB) is killed, whichever comes first.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No, in my opinion, the absence of Alessio is responsible for 6th ed. His was a strong voice for culling and simplifying and you saw it have a strong effect from 3rd into 5th as 40k traveled that path, the pendulum swinging back into 2nd ed territory so very hard was a result of his leaving and that 'side' of the debate being absent. (Alessio came to GW from the tournament scene, his very (perhaps too) simplified mantic warpath rules show his style and between it and 6th it's like 5th edition went through a transporter accident and was split into two rulesets, one totally stripped of all narrative and minimized on randomness and the other overwhelmed with it.
Alessio was also responsible for some of the crap like the overly complex "Bloodlines" for Vampire Counts, so saying that he was a "voice for culling and simplifying" is rather laughable.
You found bloodlines complex? Really?
Also, explain to me how that has any bearing on his influence on the direction of 3rd - 5th 40k?
Or are you just throwing more abstract gak into the wind again, because you like to contradict people whilst having no cause or argument behind why you're doing it?
Puscifer wrote: Is GW doing that badly that it needs to rush through another edition of 40k?
Sorry for being slightly off topic, but I think it's more to address the insane game balance issues ATM.
The two are inextricably linked. GW IS 40K right now, if the game isn't doing well because people are getting turned off by the various issues surrounding the rules, they're not buying stuff.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No, in my opinion, the absence of Alessio is responsible for 6th ed. His was a strong voice for culling and simplifying and you saw it have a strong effect from 3rd into 5th as 40k traveled that path, the pendulum swinging back into 2nd ed territory so very hard was a result of his leaving and that 'side' of the debate being absent. (Alessio came to GW from the tournament scene, his very (perhaps too) simplified mantic warpath rules show his style and between it and 6th it's like 5th edition went through a transporter accident and was split into two rulesets, one totally stripped of all narrative and minimized on randomness and the other overwhelmed with it.
Alessio was also responsible for some of the crap like the overly complex "Bloodlines" for Vampire Counts, so saying that he was a "voice for culling and simplifying" is rather laughable.
You found bloodlines complex? Really?
I'm not talking about the previous book, MGS. I'm talking three books back for Vampires. The cover with a mounted Blood Dragon at the head of a Wight army.
Y'know, the one where a Lahmian army could field heroes from any other army book as "Thralls"?
Also, explain to me how that has any bearing on his influence on the direction of 3rd - 5th 40k?
Pretending that somehow because he did okay with one system means that he should be lauded overall?
Oh, also let's not forget that when we got the first full Codex: Dark Angels, that was something that he had a pretty heavy hand in "behind the scenes".
Or are you just throwing more abstract gak into the wind again, because you like to contradict people whilst having no cause or argument behind why you're doing it?
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
TheKbob wrote: Mat Ward writes a good book, most of the time, from a rules perspective. There usually isn't a "bad" Mat Ward unit, just an average one with others being amazing or useful.
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No, in my opinion, the absence of Alessio is responsible for 6th ed. His was a strong voice for culling and simplifying and you saw it have a strong effect from 3rd into 5th as 40k traveled that path, the pendulum swinging back into 2nd ed territory so very hard was a result of his leaving and that 'side' of the debate being absent. (Alessio came to GW from the tournament scene, his very (perhaps too) simplified mantic warpath rules show his style and between it and 6th it's like 5th edition went through a transporter accident and was split into two rulesets, one totally stripped of all narrative and minimized on randomness and the other overwhelmed with it.
It's why my optimism for 7th is cautious. The 'narrative', 'work it out for yourselves' school of thought had free reign during 6th, I'm hoping it may have learned a lesson over it and tones it back a bit.
Everyone keeps talking about "narrative". What about 6th edition "drives narrative"?
As far as I can make out, there are a few box-outs here and there that contain a paragraph about "forging a narrative".
I didn't buy 40K for a "narrative" game. I bought it for a wide-ranging science fantasy shoot-em-up skirmish kind of game. It didn't use to be talked about as a "narrative" game.
There isn't anything at that I would recognise (from my nearly 40 years of game playing) as being a narrative game. I can name a number of games that are about narrative and contain rules to support and drive it. 40K is not one of them.
I'm not talking about the previous book, MGS. I'm talking three books back for Vampires. The cover with a mounted Blood Dragon at the head of a Wight army.
Y'know, the one where a Lahmian army could field heroes from any other army book as "Thralls"?
Bull0 wrote: Isn't Ward broadly responsible for 6th ed? And you all hate 6th ed. So, yeah. (I'm no huge fan either but I quite like mysterious objectives, sue me)
No, in my opinion, the absence of Alessio is responsible for 6th ed. His was a strong voice for culling and simplifying and you saw it have a strong effect from 3rd into 5th as 40k traveled that path, the pendulum swinging back into 2nd ed territory so very hard was a result of his leaving and that 'side' of the debate being absent. (Alessio came to GW from the tournament scene, his very (perhaps too) simplified mantic warpath rules show his style and between it and 6th it's like 5th edition went through a transporter accident and was split into two rulesets, one totally stripped of all narrative and minimized on randomness and the other overwhelmed with it.
It's why my optimism for 7th is cautious. The 'narrative', 'work it out for yourselves' school of thought had free reign during 6th, I'm hoping it may have learned a lesson over it and tones it back a bit.
Everyone keeps talking about "narrative". What about 6th edition "drives narrative"?
As far as I can make out, there are a few box-outs here and there that contain a paragraph about "forging a narrative".
There isn't anything at that I would recognise (from my nearly 40 years or game playing) as being a narrative game. I can name a number of games that are about narrative and contain rules to support and drive it. 40K is not one of them.
Well, I can see the theory, without necessarily agreeing with it, but they obviously feel rules like being able to use grenades on MCs to represent a heroic soldier lobbing one down it's throat (or other twee sci-fi cliche) allow the player to get more involved.
What they, IMO, completely fail to appreciate is that most players will impose a narrative on events as they unfold regardless of the rules attempts to enforce a story, and a solid ruleset that plays in an intuitive way and presents many tactical options for the player will result in the most narrative games.
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
When GW talks of forging a narrative. They mean on the forums, not in game. And they've succeeded, I've never seen so much narrative.
"The games broken", "what were they thinking", "do they game test at all". The narrative go's on.
Since moneys tight sky sports in the canteen has had to go. Their only entertainment is browsing forums, and chuckling at gamers raging.
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He had his place (initially), as he was a tournament gamer so I would presume he was brought in to break the game in playtesting. This obviously didn't come through in his codexes, as with my twin lash prince example from earlier.
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
TheKbob wrote: Mat Ward writes a good book, most of the time, from a rules perspective. There usually isn't a "bad" Mat Ward unit, just an average one with others being amazing or useful.
Flayed Ones, C'tan shard...
While Codicis Necrons and Grey Knights both have their weak units, the fact that both are still able to cope and adapt to the modern meta and still be reasonably competent prior to the finalized 6E rules shows that Mat Ward is a pretty good guy, in my opinion. Giving him crap for ruining the end of a great edition, GKs at the tail end of 5E, isn't warranted seeing that they are perfectly reasonable, if not underpowered a touch, in the current 6E meta. Dreadknights are considered underpriced now, no one wants to bring purifiers thanks to the Baledrake (stupid FAQ), and Draigowing can still be a curb stomping list. Necrons, besides a few dud units, have multiple play styles that are still very effective as both primary and allied detachments.
Kelly is hit or miss, Cruddance needs relieved after several routinely stinker books, Vettock needs some grooming but has done well, and Ward should be the EIC for rules. Jervis needs to be let out the back door quietly, give him a nice pension, and a new box of models every month and a section in the White Dwarf. Make him the "Andy Rooney" of Games Workshop, we can roll our eyes at his old man views of the game, chuckle and move on.
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Banner of the World Dragon. 50 points for almost total immunity to magical damage. Able to be taken on a core troops Standard Bearer.
And? Empire can take a pretty nasty banner on a unit of Inner Circle Knights...which just happens to be Core. It allows them to completely ignore barding penalties and is a hell of a lot scarier than the Banner of the World Dragon on a block of Inner Circle Knights who have a Warrior Priest or a Grandmaster hunkered down with them.
I'm sorry but how is ignoring the movement penalty for barding better than immunity to magic? Elves have that basically as standard thanks to their horses higher base movement. Stick Barding on an Elven steed and you have a normal horse from any other army.
Tell a Daemons player that ignoring Barding penalties is worse than a 2+ ward against all magical attacks. Go on.
TheKbob wrote: Mat Ward writes a good book, most of the time, from a rules perspective. There usually isn't a "bad" Mat Ward unit, just an average one with others being amazing or useful.
Flayed Ones, C'tan shard...
While Codicis Necrons and Grey Knights both have their weak units, the fact that both are still able to cope and adapt to the modern meta and still be reasonably competent prior to the finalized 6E rules shows that Mat Ward is a pretty good guy, in my opinion. Giving him crap for ruining the end of a great edition, GKs at the tail end of 5E, isn't warranted seeing that they are perfectly reasonable, if not underpowered a touch, in the current 6E meta. Dreadknights are considered underpriced now, no one wants to bring purifiers thanks to the Baledrake (stupid FAQ), and Draigowing can still be a curb stomping list. Necrons, besides a few dud units, have multiple play styles that are still very effective as both primary and allied detachments.
Kelly is hit or miss, Cruddance needs relieved after several routinely stinker books, Vettock needs some grooming but has done well, and Ward should be the EIC for rules. Jervis needs to be let out the back door quietly, give him a nice pension, and a new box of models every month and a section in the White Dwarf. Make him the "Andy Rooney" of Games Workshop, we can roll our eyes at his old man views of the game, chuckle and move on.
I would say a good chunk of the ire for GKs and Necrons was due to the sweeping changes in background to them, rather than gameplay (certainly in the case of Necrons).
Frankly none of them greatly impress me at this point, but i'm always open to the possibility that they will surprise me sometime. I slightly prefer kelly over the others, but he has had his stinkers too.
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Just so you and everyone else here knows it, Matt Ward hasn't written a rule in two years, being a background writer at this time.
He has offered ideas for rules though (Battle Focus as we know) and honestly I think he's fluff is getting better. I mean he was already showing signs of improving back when he co-authored Sisters but he's really improved in his more recent stuff.
One thing that just occurred to me: I've never needed help "forging a narrative". I've been adding narrative to my 40K games since I was 12. There have been few games I've played where my characters haven't had names, my army hasn't had fluff, and I haven't had a specific narrative event in mind when either organising the game/s or just playing them in general. The rules shouldn't encourage "forging a narrative", that should happen naturally. The rules, on the other hand, are never going to be 100% balanced - that's virtually impossible - but they should be unambiguous and well written from a technical standpoint. If they are, the narratives will forge themselves and won't need forcing.
I would say a good chunk of the ire for GKs and Necrons was due to the sweeping changes in background to them, rather than gameplay (certainly in the case of Necrons).
I can certainly understand that some Necron fans might have been peeved at their army becoming a considerable degree less universe dominating and terrifying, just as Tyranid fans might feel at the changes introduced to them in terms of their weaknesses being openly discussed.
This was an intentional change to both these 'ultimate threats' to bring them back down a bit and let the big bad return to center stage, Chaos is supposed to be the ultimate threat, the end of all things and that was a driving force behind the changes to the Necrons and Tyranids, along with the sense that the Necrons were lacking a lot of background and potential for background by being a relentless, faceless force of silver machines, instead of dynasties of warring powers.
Just so you and everyone else here knows it, Matt Ward hasn't written a rule in two years, being a background writer at this time.
I suppose the idea that his rules were "too competitively" focused? Or maybe he likes fluff better than rules writing? I'd rather he back on the rules side versus the fluff. I liked the new Crons and the new GKs because it's the type of grimdark I want; a dash of the zany and everything so serious it can't be taken seriously. New Crons are awesome than the old soulless automatons. Can't speak on how GKs have changed outside of my favorite Mary Sue...
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
He was also criticized because the book was widely held as "garbage".
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
He was as full of himself as Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson. He had this idea that he could do nothing wrong and that anyone who did not "get" what he was doing just did not "get" the game as a whole.
His ego did not go down in his move to Mantic either.
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
I can certainly understand that some Necron fans might have been peeved at their army becoming a considerable degree less universe dominating and terrifying, just as Tyranid fans might feel at the changes introduced to them in terms of their weaknesses being openly discussed.
This was an intentional change to both these 'ultimate threats' to bring them back down a bit and let the big bad return to center stage, Chaos is supposed to be the ultimate threat, the end of all things and that was a driving force behind the changes to the Necrons and Tyranids, along with the sense that the Necrons were lacking a lot of background and potential for background by being a relentless, faceless force of silver machines, instead of dynasties of warring powers.
The daemons and chaos marines are too cartoony to be taken seriously. They have never felt like the big bad to me. Even with the fluff changes (read making Nids boring and making Necrons have a real back story), the universe will either be conquered by one of the two, it feels like. The Imperium is screwed unless they ally with all the xenos, Necrons don't give a damn, and Nids will eat them all.
If GW wants me to take Chaos seriously, dump the stupid dinobots and hire some of the folks from Kingdom Death and make them really horrifying. Not just "Zowy Wowy, Power Armor WITH SPIKES".
TedNugent wrote: Perhaps all of the GW writers are bad and that's why we get bad codexes and why the present unauthored "GW design team" Codexes are bad too.
That or the studio has poor play testing standards (from what I've heard you want play testing you do it on your own time), has too many projects going on at once for there to be a good and proper focus on any one thing, and generally needs an overhaul in how the game is designed from the ground up to make designing more consistent and balanced overall.
TedNugent wrote: Perhaps all of the GW writers are bad and that's why we get bad codexes and why the present unauthored "GW design team" Codexes are bad too.
nothing wrong with the AM dex (except omission of ICs and ogryns and rough riders still sucking)
I have said for years there ought to be a "bible" for the core rules, an editorial board to consider rules changes and how they fit the game, and a technical author or editor to put the rules into clearly understandable language.
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
He was also criticized because the book was widely held as "garbage".
He wasn't criticized at all and no one said that. You're a liar.
Again, see how that works? You can't just make random blanket statements like that because you've decided to create them and then present them as fact. It is common in human communication to follow up such a statement with some examples, some support for such a strong presentation, rather than sounding like you just pulled it out of your arse.
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
He was as full of himself as Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson. He had this idea that he could do nothing wrong and that anyone who did not "get" what he was doing just did not "get" the game as a whole.
His ego did not go down in his move to Mantic either.
Are Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson full of themselves? On which occasions during your meetings with them have they proven themselves so? What did the Mantic employees say to you to show his ego has been detrimental? Or is what you are so painfully stumbling around that you had the perception that they seemed that way? (again, Kan, remember about supporting evidence for your rather obtuse sounding statements, rather than just curling off a concrete turd in the community pool and leaving it there for the rest of us to boggle at)....
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
Your hypocrisy is staggering, as always.
This is not an effective retort, again, you need to explain why this is hypocrisy, or it's just a nonsense retort and makes you sound about 12 years old, shouting 'neener neener' and putting your fingers in your ears and sticking out your tongue.
You're not twelve are you? Start conversing like an adult, Kan, instead of random blanket statements of absolutes with no bloody supporting evidence or expansion.
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
He was also criticized because the book was widely held as "garbage".
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
He was as full of himself as Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson. He had this idea that he could do nothing wrong and that anyone who did not "get" what he was doing just did not "get" the game as a whole.
His ego did not go down in his move to Mantic either.
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
Your hypocrisy is staggering, as always.
As is your ability to take things personally where there is no such intent, and manufacture conflict where none exists. Now, one last time, topic?
My personal belief? GW writers should have a long sit down and talk about revising the strategy of relying on their players to be nice, balanced and reasonable individuals enjoying a Saturday together before heading out for a slap up pub dinner and instead, write their rules like they were facing Stelek or someone of his ilk across the table at the final of a tournament with a sizable cash prize. Writing tighter like that, exclusively rather than inclusively, and then allowing all expansions and random charts to be added on if the players agree/want it on it is the better idea to me than making anything and everything inclusive and letting the players hash it out over what to exclude. Writing based on a 'highly competitive or difficult' player as your potential opponent rather than a mate you've known for decades and been best man to is road testing your new car in really difficult conditions instead of a nice leisurely jaunt. You make things to withstand the worst rather than get by in the best circumstance.
Less help forging the narrative, more help ensuring fluid and intuitive gameplay.
I smell a Zwei incoming...
Well written and I agree coming from traveling the US while playing 40k.
I also anticipate "a well written 40K ruleset is bad because the sky is yellow" type post in the near future!
Still, at least he's the minority, and can be shut down fairly easily, because his argument has no supporting structure when placed under close scrutiny beyond "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you"
That really applies to any playstyle advocacy though, doesn't it. I mean, I'd be happy if GW playtested the rules more thoroughly, took a more careful approach to wording and so on, and I think Escalation was a mistake when they could have gone with a percentage-based Lord of War slot, but MGS' "exclusive not inclusive" concept sounds bloody awful to me, and as soon as you move beyond arguing merely for better written rules and into what the "core" rules should actually permit by default, it all boils down to "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you" regardless of what direction you're coming from.
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Banner of the World Dragon. 50 points for almost total immunity to magical damage. Able to be taken on a core troops Standard Bearer.
And? Empire can take a pretty nasty banner on a unit of Inner Circle Knights...which just happens to be Core. It allows them to completely ignore barding penalties and is a hell of a lot scarier than the Banner of the World Dragon on a block of Inner Circle Knights who have a Warrior Priest or a Grandmaster hunkered down with them.
I'm sorry but how is ignoring the movement penalty for barding better than immunity to magic? Elves have that basically as standard thanks to their horses higher base movement. Stick Barding on an Elven steed and you have a normal horse from any other army.
Tell a Daemons player that ignoring Barding penalties is worse than a 2+ ward against all magical attacks. Go on.
Can't take the BotWD on any core choice, as it's 50 points.
Yodhrin wrote: [
That really applies to any playstyle advocacy though, doesn't it. I mean, I'd be happy if GW playtested the rules more thoroughly, took a more careful approach to wording and so on, and I think Escalation was a mistake when they could have gone with a percentage-based Lord of War slot, but MGS' "exclusive not inclusive" concept sounds bloody awful to me, and as soon as you move beyond arguing merely for better written rules and into what the "core" rules should actually permit by default, it all boils down to "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you" regardless of what direction you're coming from.
I don't like olives. I don't much care for raw onion.
I'm in a restaurant and I order a meal that comes with a complimentary salad as part of the main course.
Option 1 is that I am presented with a salad premixed with many ingredients, added to my plate. 'I don't like olives or bits of onion', I tell the waiter, 'well you can pick them out of it as you go' he replies. I spend tedious time picking out the bits that I don't like from my salad, having to sift through it to remove what I don't like and making sure it's fully removed. This is the inclusive option.
Option 2 is that I am given access to the salad bar with all those same ingredients and can pick and choose what I like, leaving out the olives and onion and adding extra bits of what I want, leaving me entirely satisfied with my own informed choices. This is exclusive, I can add back in as I wish, the same core meal is present for both options, but the salad is what I make it, what I want it to be.
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
I thought the late 4th edition lack of good Codex rules writing was because of a mandate Jervis had at the time? 3-4 books in a row were just bland. And if you want to talk reviled due to CSM, Pete "A model with 2 wounds has quite a lot going for it" Haines would top my list.
The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.
40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.
I dont get it personally, people complain about the rules then complain because they replace the rules. Some people really dont seem happy unless they are complaining!
WayneTheGame wrote: The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.
40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.
If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.
WayneTheGame wrote: The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.
40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.
If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.
Because that's what they did with the Space Marine codex, right?
WayneTheGame wrote: The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.
40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.
If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.
Because that's what they did with the Space Marine codex, right?
Divine_Tyranny wrote: I dont get it personally, people complain about the rules then complain because they replace the rules. Some people really dont seem happy unless they are complaining!
People complained about poor rules, and then complained when they were replaced with rules that had worse balance than the rules they were initially complaining about. That seems perfectly reasonable. If GW had proofread and playtested their rules, then even if they were releasing all the digital supplements etc they'd have more support. But they didn't, so they don't.
Some people really don't seem happy unless they can misunderstand the situation.
Wulfmar wrote: Has there been any further development since the nay-saying on the % based army list being called out as nothing more than a rumor?
Not really, no. BOLS posted something on upcoming ork kits in june, but it's basically just sumarizing the kits that needed a redo for ages, so no surprises there. However, it seems like 7th ed in May is more or less agreed on by everyone and GW tries their good old "we wont say a word to no-one"-tactic, as usuall.
If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.
No, not at all. I keep seeing this pop up, but if you were to stick with facts, none of the codex supplements uses miniatures not available in the parent book. Did the Tyranid dataslates reintroduce the Doom? Spods? Will the theoretic Catachan supplement have Marbo? The answer is there if you look...
If GW were writing the Dark Angels codex now, then the DA codex release would only have rules for Greenwing, with a Ravenwing and Deathwing digital supplement (that's two, mind you) thrown in 1-2 months later.
No, not at all. I keep seeing this pop up, but if you were to stick with facts, none of the codex supplements uses miniatures not available in the parent book. Did the Tyranid dataslates reintroduce the Doom? Spods? Will the theoretic Catachan supplement have Marbo? The answer is there if you look...
Terminators and Bikes would still be in the parent book, just they'd make you pay more to be able to field a proper deathwing or ravenwing army (ie all terminators or all bikes).
Just like they did with the Farsight Enclaves and fielding an all crisis suit army.
The % system for force organisation would shake things up really well. Since balance is out of the question, I'm onboard for just rolling the dice and seeing what comes.
Eldarain wrote: There was:
Clan Raukaan - Not required to play Iron Hands, just added stuff to them for anyone who is a very serious fan of the Chapter, and gave details about one specific company of Iron Hands Sentinels of Terra - Not required to play Imperial Fists, just added stuff to them for anyone who is a very serious fan of the Chapter, and gave details about one specific company of Imperial fists Stormwing Formation - Added to the codex by allowing you to create a formation out of stuff that's already in the codex. Plus people who want to ally Marine flyers for some reason without going Marine heavy benefit Tyrannic Veterans - Added to the codex by allowing you to create a formation out of stuff that's already in the codex. Oh and the allies thing also applies here too. You don't have to take the whole Marine codex to bring these guys Legion of the Damned - Stand alone book for people who want to ally Legion of the Damned to their army but don't want to take other Space Marines to do it.
Responses in yellow. Seriously, none of that stuff is required to play anything. It's a bunch of add on stuff that doesn't add in things that are missing, they just expand on what is already there.
Agreed. It just doesn't fit with the current system of the rumors of a "small rework", it came out of nowhere, and sounds more like GW trying to flush out leaks again.
Leth wrote: Also people have been wanting a all crisis suit army since forever.
Now that gave that option to people with some drawbacks in what you get access too, or that you have to take certain things to do it.
So they gave you the option to do what you have always wanted. But has not been available before nor should have been expected to be available.
With that being said are you happier that the option is available or would you be happier if the option was not available at all.
I think, for me, the criticism that could be laid at the doorstep of GW with regards the mini-dexes, or whatever you want to call them, could be release dates for them.
I think it's weird they are released so soon after, or in conjunction with, their parent codex. I'd personally be inclined to produce a good all round codex with lots of solid builds and as good as it could be and then release it.
Then, several months down the line, when the players of said army were satiated with their new purchases, the army was a part of the 'meta' etc, then I'd have some folks run up the mini-dex, to reinvigorate sales and interest in that same army.
eg Ork codex is released, good all round book, nice new models, ork players happy... - 4 months later: Blood Axe minidex is released, stormboyz and kommandoz in troop choices, loses access to certain other units, may only take deffdreads with mixed cc and ranged weapons not all cc, preferred enemy - orks, may take Astra Militarum as blood brothers but no tempestus or priests in said AM army, ogryn bodyguard mob for warboss etc etc. Sufficient to really change the dynamic of the army without being an 'unlock' to something that should have been in the original codex. Changing up composition, allies, special rules etc you can bring a lot of interest without hamstringing the original book and making the customer feel you've only sold them half a product.
Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)
If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"
The irony being that talking to your opponent about modifying the force org to allow an all Suit Tau list is exactly the sort of thing that "forging a narrative" should be all about..
But if you give GW $50, then they give you permission instead.
If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 codex. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an Space Marine without the Space Marine codex to supplement your rulebook, and the question is "Why?"
TedNugent wrote: Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)
If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"
This. Couple of pages with:
Master of Mont'ka: An army containing Farsight as it's warlord may take Crisis units as troops. In addition, a 3 man crisis team is a 1+ choice.
We Stand Alone: If you choose to do so, you may play an army representing the Farsight Enclaves. A Farsight Enclaves army may choose from any units from this codex but may not include Shadowsun or Aun'va and does not have access to the normal signature systems listed in the wargear section of this book or the Tau Empire Warlord Traits table (unless specified otherwise). Instead they have access to the Enclaves Signature Systems and Enclave Warlord Traits table. If you are playing a Farsight Enclaves army and your army contains Farsight himself, then he must be your warlord.
Blood Brothers: Every unit in a Farsight Enclaves army must take the Bonding Knife Ritual, if it is available to it.
Ork Fighters: All units in a Farsight Enclaves army have Preferred Enemy Orks in close combat.
Enclaves Signature Systems: blah blah blah. Can be taken by Riptides.
Enclave Warlord Traits: blah blah blah
The Eight: If you wish you may take up to 7 members of The Eight (except Farsight himself) in place of the Shas'vre bodyguard available to Farsight. They must be taken as is, with no modifications.
List of the stats and wargear of the eight
Now that wasn't hard and certainly wasn't worth £30
motyak wrote: People complained about poor rules, and then complained when they were replaced with rules that had worse balance than the rules they were initially complaining about. That seems perfectly reasonable. If GW had proofread and playtested their rules, then even if they were releasing all the digital supplements etc they'd have more support. But they didn't, so they don't.
Just to clarify, although I complained about poor rules and then complained when they were replaced with rules that had even worse balance, I also complained that the new, worse-balanced rules were also more expensive and/or less complete than the original badly balanced rules. I don't know about anybody else.
I definitely don't agree with the price point of supplements (I also don't agree with the price of the codexes either and wish they were in the sub $30 range at least) but the idea of supplements isn't a bad one. They can drastically alter an army, change options, offer modellers paint scheme ideas, bring forth new lore for those who dig it, it's a really solid idea.
The problem is it's paired with a really high price point and doesn't just include the basic codex in the book to allow you to just completely sub it for the basic book.
The problem is it's paired with a really high price point and doesn't just include the basic codex in the book to allow you to just completely sub it for the basic book.
Also, this. I hate having to flick between books. Hell, I hate having to flick between pages in some cases.
Worst case example: See a bit of wargear available to a unit in Dark Eldar codex but can't remember what it does. I know! I'll look it up in the armoury section. Find it in the armoury section, it says: look on page 36 (or whatever).
What's the point of having an armoury section if you don't have all the rules for wargear in it?
Because when the book was released you did not have the option.
I would rather have the option than not. Also considering that the books can be sitting around for who knows how long and then they release something after. Something like farsight could have been completed MONTHS after the initial print run of the book, but they didnt release the book until much later.
ClockworkZion wrote: I definitely don't agree with the price point of supplements (I also don't agree with the price of the codexes either and wish they were in the sub $30 range at least) but the idea of supplements isn't a bad one. They can drastically alter an army, change options, offer modellers paint scheme ideas, bring forth new lore for those who dig it, it's a really solid idea.
The problem is it's paired with a really high price point and doesn't just include the basic codex in the book to allow you to just completely sub it for the basic book.
Exactly
The issue with GW has, by and large in the last two years, not been with their ideas for the game, it has been in horrible execution, crazy pricing, poor design choices or a medley of all three.
I have no philosophical objection to super heavies, mini dexes, supplements or any other new concepts that have been introduced since 6th, but I do have a problem with the way a lot of it has been introduced.
TedNugent wrote: Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)
If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"
This. Couple of pages with:
Master of Mont'ka: An army containing Farsight as it's warlord may take Crisis units as troops. In addition, a 3 man crisis team is a 1+ choice.
We Stand Alone: If you choose to do so, you may play an army representing the Farsight Enclaves. A Farsight Enclaves army may choose from any units from this codex but may not include Shadowsun or Aun'va and does not have access to the normal signature systems listed in the wargear section of this book or the Tau Empire Warlord Traits table (unless specified otherwise). Instead they have access to the Enclaves Signature Systems and Enclave Warlord Traits table. If you are playing a Farsight Enclaves army and your army contains Farsight himself, then he must be your warlord.
Blood Brothers: Every unit in a Farsight Enclaves army must take the Bonding Knife Ritual, if it is available to it.
Ork Fighters: All units in a Farsight Enclaves army have Preferred Enemy Orks in close combat.
Enclaves Signature Systems: blah blah blah. Can be taken by Riptides.
Enclave Warlord Traits: blah blah blah
The Eight: If you wish you may take up to 7 members of The Eight (except Farsight himself) in place of the Shas'vre bodyguard available to Farsight. They must be taken as is, with no modifications.
List of the stats and wargear of the eight
Now that wasn't hard and certainly wasn't worth £30
Actually I think the Farsight Enclaves codex is the only semi-decent one out of all the supplements released so far for the content you get. All the others only give you custom warlord traits and custom wargear.
I liked Ilyanden supplement too. I like the farsighted one too but agree with the price point issue. Now I am just awaiting more info on the 7th (6.5) and to see if they update my digital edition of the rule book
Also Farsight somehow fits to the Tau...no other sept has been given any particular attention by GW, so once you have the Farsight supplement, that's that. You feel satisfied as a Tau player and probably dont ask for more.
But with the other supplements, it feels like there should be more.
E.g. with Eldar and Iyanden, you'll end up wondering whether you'll go buy a Biel-Tan supplement, or Alaitoc, Ulthwe, Saim-Hann etc.
Same wirh Space Marines - Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, so where are my Salamanders, Crimson Fists and Black Tempalrs?
One thing that just occurred to me: I've never needed help "forging a narrative". I've been adding narrative to my 40K games since I was 12. There have been few games I've played where my characters haven't had names, my army hasn't had fluff, and I haven't had a specific narrative event in mind when either organising the game/s or just playing them in general. The rules shouldn't encourage "forging a narrative", that should happen naturally. The rules, on the other hand, are never going to be 100% balanced - that's virtually impossible - but they should be unambiguous and well written from a technical standpoint. If they are, the narratives will forge themselves and won't need forcing.
This.
HBMC has it right, there is too much to balance correctly, they just need to tighten up what they've got so it's clearer.
Lastly, why are we all calling it 7th? It's not 7th!!!! If the rumors are to be believed it's a consolidation of FAQ's, errata's, and supplements. That's not a new edition, it's a 'consolidation' of current rules. Either 6.1... or 6.5... or 6thv2 or something.
This could also be 45 pages of rubbish, as we don't know for certain what's coming. Strip the fat from this thread and we'd have 1-2 pages of relevant comment. I'm surprised the MOD's haven't locked it yet tbh.
snowman40k wrote: This could also be 45 pages of rubbish, as we don't know for certain what's coming. Strip the fat from this thread and we'd have 1-2 pages of relevant comment. I'm surprised the MOD's haven't locked it yet tbh.
Welcome to every rumours thread ever. The mods would either have to ban commenting on rumours or spend ages cleaning threads.
snowman40k wrote: This could also be 45 pages of rubbish, as we don't know for certain what's coming. Strip the fat from this thread and we'd have 1-2 pages of relevant comment. I'm surprised the MOD's haven't locked it yet tbh.
There's not much point in having a section of the forum devoted to discussion of news and rumours if you don't allow the discussion of news and rumours in it...
For the love of god please someone leaks something! The wait is killing me :-)
Anyway I think a change (even after just 2 years) is good. No doubt things will still be "broken" but it gives us all something else to work towards. The 6E book will be in my collection (like 2/3/4/5 are even though i only really started with 6th) for years to come. It's a great book and I enjoy all the old books still.
We only have a small community here in Shezhen so any breath of fresh air to rejuvenate the scene is welcome.
Except for the general nerf to CC what was "wrong" with 6th that was to do with the core rules and not with the codexes? I was happy (and i seem to remember many were) that Chaos SM (I am a Chaos player) weren't OP (Drake exempt). Then DA's came out and they weren't OP either. Didn't the problems arise with Eldar / Tau / Daemons and the subsequent allies abuse? Granted it was 6th that brough in allies but it was the codexes that seem to have broken it.
Zanderchief wrote: For the love of god please someone leaks something! The wait is killing me :-)
Anyway I think a change (even after just 2 years) is good. No doubt things will still be "broken" but it gives us all something else to work towards. The 6E book will be in my collection (like 2/3/4/5 are even though i only really started with 6th) for years to come. It's a great book and I enjoy all the old books still.
We only have a small community here in Shezhen so any breath of fresh air to rejuvenate the scene is welcome.
Except for the general nerf to CC what was "wrong" with 6th that was to do with the core rules and not with the codexes? I was happy (and i seem to remember many were) that Chaos SM (I am a Chaos player) weren't OP (Drake exempt). Then DA's came out and they weren't OP either. Didn't the problems arise with Eldar / Tau / Daemons and the subsequent allies abuse? Granted it was 6th that brough in allies but it was the codexes that seem to have broken it.
Not entirely, people were already upset with CSM and DA. It also helps to know that GK and Necrons were obviously designed with at least part of 6th edition in mind. Allied are a big flaw with 6th edition. Will think of others but for the moment I need to think.
If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
TedNugent wrote: Why do you have to make a separate book for people to violate the force org. Just make it a special rule for a given SC just like every other Codex used to do (including DA with DW/RW)
If the models already exist, then there's even less reason for a $50 supplement. The fact of the matter is that you can't play an all-Crisis Suit force org without the Farsight supplement, and the question is "Why?"
Well, why SHOULD you, when you get to the bottom of it? Such an option did not exist in the old Codex either, so it was not anything which was removed.
"SC's with special rules" was big thing of 5th edition Space Marine Codex, but many people didn't like it. You couldn't field a Salamander army without Vulkan, making every Salamander army look the same. Also, you couldn't exactly fit a lot of fluff on a book which was meant to describe nearly every chapter. Non-Ultramarines armies came across as bare-bones and cookie-cutter.
I don't see the problem with these supplements, as long as you can play the faction you want with basic codex. For example, you do not need to buy Iyanden supplement to play Iyanden army. You may want to, for the extra fluff & rules. Arguably it's rather overpriced for what it offers, but it's not mandatory. New Imperial Gu...cough, Astra Militarum codex seems to be bit of an exception as some characters were removed, presumably to return in supplements. One hopes this is not sign of how it's handled in the future.
Yeah 'cause God forbid we discuss upcoming products...
We were discussing the news/rumors... until the latter half of this thread devolved into the beginnings of a fan-made 7th ed...
Then again, my argument just turned in on itself as I'm no longer discussing the current thread topic, only justifying my position (thus creating a forum vortex of doom.. to forever randomly suck in comments that have nothing to do with anything on the present topic).
I think that is exactly how it will be handled in the future.
Based on what has been done with the publications of 6th edition, GW aim to make a lot more money from books (and digital books) than in the past.
We can hardly blame them for trying to profit, but as consumers we have to think about the value-for-money in our own terms, and stop buying if it is too expensive.
Yodhrin wrote: [
That really applies to any playstyle advocacy though, doesn't it. I mean, I'd be happy if GW playtested the rules more thoroughly, took a more careful approach to wording and so on, and I think Escalation was a mistake when they could have gone with a percentage-based Lord of War slot, but MGS' "exclusive not inclusive" concept sounds bloody awful to me, and as soon as you move beyond arguing merely for better written rules and into what the "core" rules should actually permit by default, it all boils down to "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you" regardless of what direction you're coming from.
I don't like olives. I don't much care for raw onion.
I'm in a restaurant and I order a meal that comes with a complimentary salad as part of the main course.
Option 1 is that I am presented with a salad premixed with many ingredients, added to my plate. 'I don't like olives or bits of onion', I tell the waiter, 'well you can pick them out of it as you go' he replies. I spend tedious time picking out the bits that I don't like from my salad, having to sift through it to remove what I don't like and making sure it's fully removed. This is the inclusive option.
Option 2 is that I am given access to the salad bar with all those same ingredients and can pick and choose what I like, leaving out the olives and onion and adding extra bits of what I want, leaving me entirely satisfied with my own informed choices. This is exclusive, I can add back in as I wish, the same core meal is present for both options, but the salad is what I make it, what I want it to be.
Spurious analogy. Your salad does not have its own opinion about what should be included in it, you are the only one making a decision in scenario two, so you can present it as being a neutral option when it evidently is not in the context of 40K. In that context, the inclusive option makes your experience worse, because you have to persuade your opponent to leave things you dislike out, while the exclusive option makes my experience worse, since I have to persuade my opponent to allow things they dislike. I've spent years having to play four turns of "UN Negotiator 40,000, In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only pedantry" before every bloody game to include my Forgeworld stuff, I don't fancy having to do the same thing with every other bloody part of my army as well.
I don't begrudge anyone their different opinion, but it must be acknowledged that it's exactly that, not objective or neutral analysis.
Backfire wrote: "SC's with special rules" was big thing of 5th edition Space Marine Codex, but many people didn't like it. You couldn't field a Salamander army without Vulkan, ...
I don't see the problem with these supplements, as long as you can play the faction you want with basic codex. For example, you do not need to buy Iyanden supplement to play Iyanden army.
One of these statements, it would seem, does not belong...
What's the difference between not buying a supplement and playing your standard Eldar as Iyanden, and not fielding Vulkan and playing your standard Space Marines as Salamanders?
Yes. But that was the time of 2 Codexes per year. Many of the yet-to-be updated 5th Edition books also come with an additional time-bagged due to that.
If they can keep up the 5-6 Codexes a year shedule they started last year, we should be back to CSM and Dark Angels in late 2015, making it a 3-year turn-around max.
As some people noted, more Codexes were released/updated in 6th than in either 4th or 5th. So if you "count time" by the number of releases that fall into each edition, 6th is actually the most populated so far.
For me, the core rules should be bigger, very well balanced, and contain all the basic rules for playing every army (which will encourage people to buy more minis IMO).
Then add codices that are mostly fluff and lavish pics, but with Formations and/or other cool/fun/fluffy rules add-ons. Which are also balanced, please.
I really enjoy narrative forgery -- in fact I'm off to a big friendly 40K sesh with about 15 players playing interactive battles as a big campaign. But I know it's going to be a nightmare, because the rules are imbalanced, so the forces are imbalanced, so it's pretty much impossible for us to set up the ground rules for our forged narration in such a way that everyone is guaranteed to have fun in their forgery.
I enjoy tournaments, too, but haven't played any since 6th came out, yet, because again, where do you start?!?
Kilkrazy wrote: If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.
And yet most other codexes were updated twice while DE were waiting for their update...
Than you should be among the people rejoicing at how GW changed their release schedule these days, abandoning the lazy and incoherent ways of the Rick Priestley & Alessio Cavatore times, no?
Ian Sturrock wrote: For me, the core rules should be bigger, very well balanced, and contain all the basic rules for playing every army (which will encourage people to buy more minis IMO).
Then add codices that are mostly fluff and lavish pics, but with Formations and/or other cool/fun/fluffy rules add-ons. Which are also balanced, please.
I really enjoy narrative forgery -- in fact I'm off to a big friendly 40K sesh with about 15 players playing interactive battles as a big campaign. But I know it's going to be a nightmare, because the rules are imbalanced, so the forces are imbalanced, so it's pretty much impossible for us to set up the ground rules for our forged narration in such a way that everyone is guaranteed to have fun in their forgery.
I enjoy tournaments, too, but haven't played any since 6th came out, yet, because again, where do you start?!?
You and Palindrome both have a good idea about putting the core armies in the main rulebook, and releasing optional add-ons. Though for me, I would like to see fluff/pic books and separate "formation" or variant list books. Just because I am not so interested in fluff and pics.
If you want a good narrative campaign, the best way is to have one or more umpires to handle strategic movement and so on. They can behind the scenes re-balance things if they get out of kilter due to the game's built-in lack of balance, or because one side is too successful too quickly.
I don't think there's much worth in speculating about the idea of dropping individual codexes in favour of a BRB with all the core army lists in, given that:
1) that'd be a huge drop in revenue, at least in the short term
2) GW are doing the opposite at the moment with multiple books per core army rerelease
Ian Sturrock wrote: For me, the core rules should be bigger, very well balanced, and contain all the basic rules for playing every army (which will encourage people to buy more minis IMO).
Then add codices that are mostly fluff and lavish pics, but with Formations and/or other cool/fun/fluffy rules add-ons. Which are also balanced, please.
I really enjoy narrative forgery -- in fact I'm off to a big friendly 40K sesh with about 15 players playing interactive battles as a big campaign. But I know it's going to be a nightmare, because the rules are imbalanced, so the forces are imbalanced, so it's pretty much impossible for us to set up the ground rules for our forged narration in such a way that everyone is guaranteed to have fun in their forgery.
I enjoy tournaments, too, but haven't played any since 6th came out, yet, because again, where do you start?!?
You and Palindrome both have a good idea about putting the core armies in the main rulebook, and releasing optional add-ons. Though for me, I would like to see fluff/pic books and separate "formation" or variant list books. Just because I am not so interested in fluff and pics.
If you want a good narrative campaign, the best way is to have one or more umpires to handle strategic movement and so on. They can behind the scenes re-balance things if they get out of kilter due to the game's built-in lack of balance, or because one side is too successful too quickly.
I think 40k is too big now to be including units / armylists with the main BRB. There's already tons of content inside without duplicating more (which would inevitably be superseded and invalidated by new codexes).
What GW should really look into next is biting the bullet and simply split the 40k rule set into two editions:
A proper set of skirmish rules intended for 250-1000pt games. It would be a smaller rulebook (slightly above codex-sized) with the core game rules, background for all main races, and a basic army list for each.
This would function as the ideal introduction to 40k, as everything would be in one place and no codex would be required. It acts as a taster to get new players building up a collection without needing to sprint all the way to 1000pts+ to be playable.
The usual proper BRB with all the advanced rules such as vehicles, terrain and Lords of War. That is intended to be used alongside a codex for games of 1000pts upward, by players with established collections.
They could also quite easily do discounted starter kits comprised of the standard skirmish edition rulebook, dice, templates plus some choice basic units like Tac Squads, Guardsmen or Gaunts. Because these are comprised entirely of existing products, the only investment needed is in the new packaging, meaning GW can release several different skirmish level starter kits with little overhead (unlike sets like DV or AoBR).
And yet most other codexes were updated twice while DE were waiting for their update...
Than you should be among the people rejoicing at how GW changed their release schedule these days, abandoning the lazy and incoherent ways of the Rick Priestley & Alessio Cavatore times, no?
To be replaced with rushed, lazy and incoherent ways?
I'd rather they came out a bit slower (like every 6/8 weeks) if it meant that they were proofread and playtested beforehand.
Kilkrazy wrote: If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.
I don't think they should roll into the BRB, but they could easily do campaign books which include different lists for all armies in that campaign. So you might have one where all terminator armies are allowed, and another campaign that's more tactical squad biased. Each book would be balanced with itself, but you'd have near endless scope for introducing other books.
Kilkrazy wrote: If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.
This would also give them reasons to have the digital supplements without it feeling like a blatant cash grab or first day DLC. Your supplements either expand on certain forces (e.g. different SM chapters) or are like FW's campaign books detailing a historical conflict with extras for that campaign and maybe even campaign/narrative rules to play it out (e.g. Armageddon #3) but the basics are all contained in a single, balanced "Black Codex" like we had in the olden days.
Of course this is assuming appropriately-priced supplements. Have like a Supplement: Veterans of the Adeptus Astartes that lets you field an entire 1st Company army (and include a section that has like special rules for the Deathwing) as an option, with the "Black Codex" rules representing a Battle Company only. Then you have one for like a fast assault army that is basically the current White Scars kind of all biker army that's given to everybody (with special rules for Ravenwing).
Kilkrazy wrote: If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.
And the people would complain it was a cash grab from GW couch them to buy all the rules when all they want is the core rules and one codex, and what about releases? You couldn't add more rules unless they come with the mini, in which case many people would complain they could only get the rules if they by the mini. I'm not saying that there is no merit in the idea or that the current way works, only that I don't think there is any way GW can do it right for everyone, or even the majority ofpeople.
Kilkrazy wrote: If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
We don't know. In the Lord of the Rings forums, we all thought paying $100 for The Hobbit was crazy since a new rule book would be coming out and a lot of people just quit LotR/The Hobbit because of it. (1/2 minis which equate to a 33% price increase didn't help much either). So we all assumed this would happen and it never did. Now if only GW would have explained and reached to their fans/buyer base and said this was not the case, that supplements would be only needed after the initial $100 purchase.
So with GW, who knows what is going on. It bit GW on the ass with The Hobbit, will see now if it bites them on the cheek with 40K now.
*edit* Just woke up, sorry I read your post wrong. I thought you asked if it was going to be every 2 years for a rules release. Need my coffee now.
Kilkrazy wrote: If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
Codexes should be binned in their entirety given that they one of the biggest sources of imbalance (and customer dissatisfaction). A single book with complete rules for every current army and unit that acts as a base line for which ever edition it is designed for. This could be supplemented with periodic 'campaign' books with variant lists and the like. From a gaming point of view this would be much preferable, of course this would stop GW from reaping its huge mark up on its 'high quality' publications.
And the people would complain it was a cash grab from GW couch them to buy all the rules when all they want is the core rules and one codex, and what about releases? You couldn't add more rules unless they come with the mini, in which case many people would complain they could only get the rules if they by the mini. I'm not saying that there is no merit in the idea or that the current way works, only that I don't think there is any way GW can do it right for everyone, or even the majority ofpeople.
Rules for minis online for free in an army builder that only requires you to have an account on the GW website to use.
New models can be released and added to it at any time so no more waiting years for a new codex.
While they are at it rules online for free, buy the books if you want the art and fluff.
Customers are happy they can now pay less and get releases at a decent pace without being rushed either. GW is happy because people are going to their webstore and buying models.
It's a method that has helped Infinity double in size in the past 3 years or so, it can definitely work for GW if they would just accept that less cash up front but much more sales later is a good business strategy.
Seriously the idea of paying for anything more than a core rulebook is simply outdated.
Kilkrazy wrote: If there is going to be a new rules every two years I think the codexes should be designed with three editions in mind. Considering they can take as long as nine years to be updated.
I honestly think codexes are designed more for the edition they're in and the edition is designed with the last codexes in mind, not the reverse.
Charges are D6+majority init"
Assault out of transport if it moved less than 6"
Assault out of reserve
No Battle Brothers
Max of 2 codices and 1 supplement per list
No invulns can improve beyond 3+
Str D becomes Str 10, AP1, reroll any save
Ignore cover = reduce cover by 2
Remove first blood
purchased fortification placement goes AFTER battlefield terrain setup
Pie in the sky, they won't do it, but I wish they would
Tweak weak units
Improve bolters to be assault 2 and storm bolters to assault 3
Get rid of AV and convert every vehicle to Toughness, Wounds, etc. Give all vehicles move through cover and eternal warrior
TDA +1 T
Let fast skimmer transports unload troops after a 12" move
Giver power weapons rending
Reduce DS scatter to d6"
Let players choose Warlord traits
Radical, no way, but would make a great game wish list stuff
You go/I go (so I move my models, you move your models... I shoot my guns, you shoot yours... remove casualties for both sides... I charge, you charge... fight assaults... rinse, repeat, but next turn its you go, I go... initiative winner decides who goes first the first turn)
High Str weapons can do multiple wounds
Half your reserves come in turn 2, half turn 3 (every delay +1, pushes a unit back a turn, every +1 to bringing in advances a unit a turn)
Honestly I am perfectly happy with most of 6th edition now that I realized that A. The missions were the problem and B. I was a terrible player/was trying to win with gakky lists. Daemons, Wave serpents, deathstars etc, really not bad once I learned to play against them and still had fun.
However what I would like is a re-tooling of psychic powers so the other lores outside divination and telepathy are worth even looking at as well as a tightening up of the language. I dont care if they decide to go against my view of the rules. I just want things to be clear. Like the infiltrating characters, or the wounds/armor issues on vehicles.
Wow. So. Something will happen on 24 May. Something... red, white, diagonal, and connected with Imperial Guard? I wish they'd at least tell us if this was a book, film, or play. :( Worst game of charades ever.
Nah, they want you to log on May 24th to make your pre-order. If they opened it on the 10th you'd have two weeks to get cold feet and cancel. *edit* Then again, with the 24th being a saturday... hmm.
That teaser is probably the least effort of them all so far. Still, I'm not sure what of that could make you "even less" interested - it really is just the poster again. "I didn't mind this when it was a still image, but in motion it's a massive turnoff. I'm out"
May 24th is also the day of the UEFA champions league final between Athletico Madrid and Real Madrid. Athletico play in red and white. Maybe GW are getting in football mood
I thought there wasn't supposed to be a new starter?
If I were to bet on it I'd just say they were re-using the Astra Militarum cover art for the new rulebook...assuming it's even for a new rulebook since I don't know what the hell's going on anymore.
Spurious analogy. Your salad does not have its own opinion about what should be included in it, you are the only one making a decision in scenario two, so you can present it as being a neutral option when it evidently is not in the context of 40K.
So.. your 40k books are sentient and have an opinion on how you should play them? Your understanding of his example is flawed. I assume you mean instead to compare the restaurant with GW instead (which is an apt comparison) but somewhat pointless as he is trying to make the point that the restaurant is letting him choose what he wants instead of forcing the allies/olives into his game/salad and then telling him to take them out.
Spurious analogy. Your salad does not have its own opinion about what should be included in it, you are the only one making a decision in scenario two, so you can present it as being a neutral option when it evidently is not in the context of 40K.
So.. your 40k books are sentient and have an opinion on how you should play them? Your understanding of his example is flawed. I assume you mean instead to compare the restaurant with GW instead (which is an apt comparison) but somewhat pointless as he is trying to make the point that the restaurant is letting him choose what he wants instead of forcing the allies/olives into his game/salad and then telling him to take them out.
What the feth are we talking about? Sentient salad?
Back on topic, ish, thanks to the modern digital technology there is no reason not to publish everything in chunks and let people buy, compile and download the modules they want.
For example, I would like the core rules including vehicles, but not the flyers, D weapons and other Escalation stuff, and no fluff or modelling stuff.
Then the Tau codex, the Tyranid codex, with no fluff or modelling. In the longer term I might like some of the dataslates, an updated Cities of Death, and a Killteam module.
This of course would require GW to organise the rules to be published in this manner, and everyone to accept that everyone does not want to buy and play with everything in the entire rule system.
Precisely. I would pay for a rulebook that came at a reasonable price if it did not have any fluff or modeling stuff. I don't give a single poopoo about anything bar Necrons and all fluff I actually care for came with the 3rd codex anyway. That's why the minibook is awesome - no unnecessary filler stuff.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back on topic, ish, thanks to the modern digital technology there is no reason not to publish everything in chunks and let people buy, compile and download the modules they want.
For example, I would like the core rules including vehicles, but not the flyers, D weapons and other Escalation stuff, and no fluff or modelling stuff.
Then the Tau codex, the Tyranid codex, with no fluff or modelling. In the longer term I might like some of the dataslates, an updated Cities of Death, and a Killteam module.
This of course would require GW to organise the rules to be published in this manner, and everyone to accept that everyone does not want to buy and play with everything in the entire rule system.
That's so meta!
I am hoping that Escalation doesn't make it's way into the new rule book, but will accept it IF they get rid of battle brother's allies.
Bull0 wrote: I don't think there's much worth in speculating about the idea of dropping individual codexes in favour of a BRB with all the core army lists in, given that:
1) that'd be a huge drop in revenue, at least in the short term
2) GW are doing the opposite at the moment with multiple books per core army rerelease
I contest your first point, sir.
Codex Tyranids- 49.50 USD
vs
How to paint Tyranids 15.99
Leviathan Rising Dataslate 1699
Tyranid Onslaught 16.99
Tyranid Vanguard Dataslate 16.99
Digital Downloads total- 65.99 or so. Physical rules, 49.50. The DLC has eclipsed the physical product as a revenue stream- at that point, making the conversion to a FTP model is worthwhile. Now, with the addition of GW's no models without rules policy, imagine a dataslate corresponding to a new and unseen model or two- a release may be a 15 or 16 dollar slate and a dual purpose box. Suddenly, a new release is truly a supplement which will soak $50 from existing players, and not a hail mary to catch anyone who can drop 500-1000 bucks on a brand spankin' new army. The allies structure makes this sort of release approach maintain an even broader appeal. GW has been testing the waters with the Knight codex, and I would imagine their marketing monkeys have informed them that it is successful and will work. Now, I don't know when GW will see the reason in this approach, but I would bet that dataslates have a much higher profit margin than Codices.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back on topic, ish, thanks to the modern digital technology there is no reason not to publish everything in chunks and let people buy, compile and download the modules they want.
For example, I would like the core rules including vehicles, but not the flyers, D weapons and other Escalation stuff, and no fluff or modelling stuff.
Then the Tau codex, the Tyranid codex, with no fluff or modelling. In the longer term I might like some of the dataslates, an updated Cities of Death, and a Killteam module.
This of course would require GW to organise the rules to be published in this manner, and everyone to accept that everyone does not want to buy and play with everything in the entire rule system.
And that everything that they've bought would now be relatively useless similar to what happened back in 3rd edition. If GW had NOT been doing rapid fire $50 releases for the past two years, I'd support the decision as long as those chunks were priced a bit more sensibly unlike the current DLC offerings. I am a bit biased because I play DA, Tau, IG, and Eldar and they've all been updated since 6e and my only remaining force (BA) is rumored to be down the line as well for this year. That said.. I don't expect it to happen. What I see as more likely is that GW will try to have their cake and eat it too and sell mighty morphing digital chunks AND paper copies that are traditionally expected to "last" 5 years before turnover.
Spurious analogy. Your salad does not have its own opinion about what should be included in it, you are the only one making a decision in scenario two, so you can present it as being a neutral option when it evidently is not in the context of 40K.
So.. your 40k books are sentient and have an opinion on how you should play them? Your understanding of his example is flawed. I assume you mean instead to compare the restaurant with GW instead (which is an apt comparison) but somewhat pointless as he is trying to make the point that the restaurant is letting him choose what he wants instead of forcing the allies/olives into his game/salad and then telling him to take them out.
Err, no. In scenario one, he is given a "set" salad, and then is forced to pick out the bits he dislikes, this is meant to equate with a version of 40K in which everything is allowed by default, and then he has to persuade opponents before each game to exclude this or that part that he doesn't like - Escalation, Allies, etc etc. Scenario two is supposed to describe an exclusive version of 40K, in which only the core rules are permitted by default, as a neutral "pick and choose what I like" situation, but it fails to acknowledge that what he likes may not be what his opponent likes.
Lets dispense with the salad, as I say it's flawed.
Scenario one, inclusive rules. MGS and I arrive for a game, I have a Knight, Allies, and an Inquisitorial Detachment. MGS doesn't want to play with Knights and Allies, but because the "default" position of the rules is that these things are allowed, the burden is on him to convince me to change my list. MGS is disadvantaged.
Scenario two, exclusive rules. MGS and I arrive for a game, I have a Knight, Allies, and an Inquisitorial Detachment. MGS doesn't want to play with Knights and Allies, and because the "default" position of the rules is that these things are not allowed, the burden is on me to convince him to allow me to use my army. I am disadvantaged.
MGS is seeking to present scenario two as being objectively better than scenario one, but it is not, merely better for him and those who agree with him. In both cases, the players disagree and must negotiate, all that changes is who starts out at an advantage because the "official" way of doing things agrees with their preference.
And yet most other codexes were updated twice while DE were waiting for their update...
Than you should be among the people rejoicing at how GW changed their release schedule these days, abandoning the lazy and incoherent ways of the Rick Priestley & Alessio Cavatore times, no?
I would say a good chunk of the ire for GKs and Necrons was due to the sweeping changes in background to them, rather than gameplay (certainly in the case of Necrons).
See, this really irritates me. Necron fluff did not change, it was expanded.
In the previous Necron book, it was written from the point of view of the imperium. The current book is written as by a narrator, so we see what is actually going on, not just what mankind assumes based on their limited observations.
Now with grey knights, I can understand the issues.
Uriels_Flame wrote: I'm pretty sure the Necron Pariah's would like a word about "expansion" (along with Squats) ....
Pariahs were removed, that's the only real retcon. Removing one bad unit from a codex is not the same thing as removing an entire army because they were too silly for the new direction 40k was going. I do wish squats would come back, it would be sweet to have space dwarves again.
Uriels_Flame wrote: And I'm sure the sisters didn't like being used to grease the psychic trail for the GK's.
I am glad we agree on the SoB blood sacrifice being ridiculous.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Stupid is as Stupid does, and those "expansions" were dumb and added nothing to the fluff.
So, actually telling the story of the necrons, rather than imperial conjecture, was "dumb" and added nothing to the fluff? Have you even read either of the Necron books?
2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
Psychic phase? Well I'm kinda open to that.
Currently most psychic disciplines arent worth gak except divination and telekinesis.
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
Psychic phase? Well I'm kinda open to that.
Currently most psychic disciplines arent worth gak except divination and telekinesis.
Well, we brought back running and Overwatch (albeit in new forms) from 2nd edition, might as well bring back Strategy Cards and the psychic phase while we're at it.
It's like we're going full-circle. If that means I get back Boarboyz, insane artillery, Madboyz, and other zany stuff for my Orks, I'm game.
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
I hope, hope, hope that the mission cards and psychic phase are true. The magic system in fantasy is one of its most interesting components. I just hope they make more trees viable besides just divination.
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
Battle Forged = something roughly balanced for pick up/competitive play, Unbound = forge the feth out of that narrative?
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
Battle Forged = something roughly balanced for pick up/competitive play, Unbound = forge the feth out of that narrative?
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
Is this from the white dwarf?
Why do people type like they are being held hostage and have managed to make it to a key board to type 1 desperate message?!?! You managed that much, could you elaborate a little?
edit:
That's not directed at anyone, more of a general question.
I guess if true "Unbound" would allow for things like all Terminators, but still.. that's their idea of balance?? It's like how could you mess things up even more? At least if they do this maybe they'll TRY to balance the armies, since you have Unbound for unbalanced take whatever you want.
WayneTheGame wrote: I guess if true "Unbound" would allow for things like all Terminators, but still.. that's their idea of balance?? It's like how could you mess things up even more? At least if they do this maybe they'll TRY to balance the armies, since you have Unbound for unbalanced take whatever you want.
It is a good step though because it allows us to separate the two types of lists using the main rulebook. That's good, if true.
Uriels_Flame wrote: I'm pretty sure the Necron Pariah's would like a word about "expansion" (along with Squats) ....
Pariahs were removed, that's the only real retcon. Removing one bad unit from a codex is not the same thing as removing an entire army because they were too silly for the new direction 40k was going.
A direction that included "Sly Marbo," bugs becoming even more of a lame basic sci-fi trope, Necrons suddenly talking it up and palling with Space Marines, and so many more examples... Right, not to mention Ciaphis Cain. Yeah, they were totally "too silly."
The only "silly" thing about them was their version of Terminators being kind of egg-shaped, but you could easily fix that aesthetic. And if the name was bad, you just change it and say "Squats" was a term the Imperium used to refer to them in a degrading manner, and they really call themselves something else. But come on, we still have Ratlings, is that really better?
Uriels_Flame wrote: I'm pretty sure the Necron Pariah's would like a word about "expansion" (along with Squats) ....
Pariahs were removed, that's the only real retcon. Removing one bad unit from a codex is not the same thing as removing an entire army because they were too silly for the new direction 40k was going.
A direction that included "Sly Marbo," bugs becoming even more of a lame basic sci-fi trope, Necrons suddenly talking it up and palling with Space Marines, and so many more examples... Right, not to mention Ciaphis Cain. Yeah, they were totally "too silly."
The only "silly" thing about them was their version of Terminators being kind of egg-shaped, but you could easily fix that aesthetic. And if the name was bad, you just change it and say "Squats" was a term the Imperium used to refer to them in a degrading manner, and they really call themselves something else. But come on, we still have Ratlings, is that really better?
Astra Mimimeum
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jdicarlo wrote: Typing from mobile so calm down. New psychic discipline available to everyone but nids(lol). Psychic phase sounds a lot like fantasy.
Phew! I thought the kidnappers had retaken you! LOL!
I'd accept Battle Brothers being removed if they reworked the Allies table so that each army has roughly the same amount of Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies and banned alliances. Otherwise Dark Eldar become almost as anti-social as Tyranids.
I got a feeling unbound will be all your nonsense lists like countless flyers and bunch of bizarre multiple heavy's or something that feels like somebody is "trying" something out.
The structured might be a way of introducing the concept of % by unit type for composition similar to WH Fantasy which would be quite nice, then again... I don't have too many games under my belt but when somebody does not bring many troops as you start playing with them you question what are they playing for ...
New allies matrix, new card based missions sound really fun ( not sure how they would translate to events though) multiple in play per turn/game provide points at end of turn.
Not having seen all the rumors of an upcoming new Rule Book, I would have been convinced this poster was a teaser for an Imperial Guard supplement.
In fact, not having known that GW pulled back current 6th edition books from their store, I would be really convinced it was a IG supplement.
I don't see much new in the OP so I'm guessing we're still waiting to hear more... but if it really is $100 and similar rules to now, I'll definitely be waiting for the small paperback, instead.
Uriels_Flame wrote: I'm pretty sure the Necron Pariah's would like a word about "expansion" (along with Squats) ....
Pariahs were removed, that's the only real retcon. Removing one bad unit from a codex is not the same thing as removing an entire army because they were too silly for the new direction 40k was going. I do wish squats would come back, it would be sweet to have space dwarves again.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Stupid is as Stupid does, and those "expansions" were dumb and added nothing to the fluff.
So, actually telling the story of the necrons, rather than imperial conjecture, was "dumb" and added nothing to the fluff? Have you even read either of the Necron books?
Yes, I've read both editions of the necrons. They were my 2nd army ever with their cute little WD list back in the day. Also played in 3rd and I actually thought the Pariah fluff was excellent. Re-tool them, vs scrapping the idea.
Souless transient beings fighting the old ones/eldar, Star Gods and the Dragon on Mars - all good stuff.
Now they are even more like TK in Space, though their chariots are much more effective than their TK versions.
And yet most other codexes were updated twice while DE were waiting for their update...
Than you should be among the people rejoicing at how GW changed their release schedule these days, abandoning the lazy and incoherent ways of the Rick Priestley & Alessio Cavatore times, no?
Squidbot wrote: I can make better videos than that, GW. As much as I try to remain optimistic it does feel like an abusive relationship.
How does GW cheaping out on videos feel like an abusive relationship? They've been making these vague teaser videos for a couple years now.
Some people just really want an argument, huh?
It is only really an issue for people who think that a 21st century £100 million international corporation ought to be able to put out a better video than the "Sitar Tandoori Restaurant" in the local advertising trailers at your local cinema in the 1970s.
jdicarlo wrote: 2 new Force Organizations. ("Battle-Forged" or foc And "Unbound" take whatever) battle forge gives bonuses. New Missions using tactics cards in addition to our current Eternal War Missions, a new "Psychic Phase" of the game, and the full article next week.
Psychic phase? Well I'm kinda open to that.
Currently most psychic disciplines arent worth gak except divination and telekinesis.
Yeah, telepathy and biomancy suck... no wait, they don't.
Seriously, how small of a marketing budget does GW have? I can understand the teaser not being chock full of information, but seriously they just used the fething poster? Hell they put more effort into the bloody knights trailer than this.
Jaceevoke wrote: Seriously, how small of a marketing budget does GW have? I can understand the teaser not being chock full of information, but seriously they just used the fething poster? Hell they put more effort into the bloody knights trailer than this.
Officially they don't have a marketing department, so the videos are likely made in someone's "free time."
Jaceevoke wrote: Seriously, how small of a marketing budget does GW have? I can understand the teaser not being chock full of information, but seriously they just used the fething poster? Hell they put more effort into the bloody knights trailer than this.
You'll feel quite the fool come May 24th and you get your hands on Codex: Posters of the 41st Millennium and you realize it was a perfect teaser trailer.
You'll feel quite the fool come May 24th and you get your hands on Codex: Posters of the 41st Millennium and you realize it was a perfect teaser trailer.
Jaceevoke wrote: Seriously, how small of a marketing budget does GW have? I can understand the teaser not being chock full of information, but seriously they just used the freaking poster? Heck they put more effort into the bloody knights trailer than this.
Now, now. In their defense. That was just an addition to the existing rules and it could only boost sales.
This has a potential to be a wholesale slaughter of the existing paradigm and could cause people to stop buying stuff if they knew that their purchases would be worthless. Gotta keep selling that stuff until the 11th hour!
( I edited your post for language, but attempted to keep the tone.)
Edit: I had no idea that the language filters changed the spiritual successor word for "feth" into the actual word "feth". That's pretty cool. I no longer have to filter myself. YAY!
Jaceevoke wrote: Seriously, how small of a marketing budget does GW have? I can understand the teaser not being chock full of information, but seriously they just used the fething poster? Hell they put more effort into the bloody knights trailer than this.
You'll feel quite the fool come May 24th and you get your hands on Codex: Posters of the 41st Millennium and you realize it was a perfect teaser trailer.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
The FoC chart is still in the new 40k edition and if you follow it you have what is known as a "Battle Forged" army. It awards (unlisted) bonuses for using the FoC.You can also take a unbound army, these allow you to take whatever you want from your collection and toss out the FoC (while still adhering to unit size and heeding the relationships described in the new Allies Matrix.
Another thing is objective cards, so the objectives of the game can change each turn. The deck will be 36 cards.
There is also a physic phase confirmed now. A pool of warp charge dice is created at the start of the psychic phase, equal to 1d6 + mastery lvl of psychers. You can use as many dice as you like, but increase risk of perils of the warp (which is now a table you roll on.) Enemy psychers can draw on warp charge pool to Deny the Witch and nulify powers.
Also Eternal warrior missions still exist but in addition there are 6 new Maelstrom of War Missions.
via another anonymous source on Faeit 212
Additional information that a Battle Forged list can take as many detachments as they wish, and still get bonus's.. The Unbound lists, is very much whatever you want to throw in to do a battle, and you get to choose which you want to play, and your opponent can do the same.
So looks like the Battle Forged stuff is true. So bonuses for following FOC but an option allowing you to basically go hogwild and run whatever, without the bonuses. Interesting.
You know, these two different FOCs might explain why we're hearing "%" and "no change to FOC", each only got half the info.
I'm definitely getting a set of those cards because knowing GW they'll be a limited release and you'll have to make your own otherwise.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
The FoC chart is still in the new 40k edition and if you follow it you have what is known as a "Battle Forged" army. It awards (unlisted) bonuses for using the FoC.You can also take a unbound army, these allow you to take whatever you want from your collection and toss out the FoC (while still adhering to unit size and heeding the relationships described in the new Allies Matrix.
Another thing is objective cards, so the objectives of the game can change each turn. The deck will be 36 cards.
There is also a physic phase confirmed now. A pool of warp charge dice is created at the start of the psychic phase, equal to 1d6 + mastery lvl of psychers. You can use as many dice as you like, but increase risk of perils of the warp (which is now a table you roll on.) Enemy psychers can draw on warp charge pool to Deny the Witch and nulify powers.
Also Eternal warrior missions still exist but in addition there are 6 new Maelstrom of War Missions.
via another anonymous source on Faeit 212
Additional information that a Battle Forged list can take as many detachments as they wish, and still get bonus's.. The Unbound lists, is very much whatever you want to throw in to do a battle, and you get to choose which you want to play, and your opponent can do the same.
so if we believe this, we get fantasy magic phase,
aaaand unlimited detachments in the FOC, so sorc +2 cultist + 3 drakes x however many points you can jam it in?
eep thats risky business....
EDIT: with those cards, i hope 1 deck per game, not 1 per player.....
Additional information that a Battle Forged list can take as many detachments as they wish, and still get bonus's..
That would be disappointing if true. There is no point in keeping the FOC if the multiple detachments and dataslate whatevers just end up ignoring or adding to it. Dropping everyone down on the allies matrix one slot if not from the same codex and making multiple detachments/formations/etc go off of the same FOC chart is what is needed at a minimum to bring some common sense back to 40k non-apoc games. This just ends up being a lateral move that solves nothing and adds even more APOC to normal games. Only got a few DE models and some Nids plus a space marine librarian? You've got a legal tourney army! :(
There is also a physic phase confirmed now. A pool of warp charge dice is created at the start of the psychic phase, equal to 1d6 + mastery lvl of psychers. You can use as many dice as you like, but increase risk of perils of the warp (which is now a table you roll on.) Enemy psychers can draw on warp charge pool to Deny the Witch and nulify powers.
Anybody else incredibly pissed off by the "run anything you like" change?
your "bonus" for sticking to FoC will be worth gak when you face an army consisting of Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism and some scoring units. Their S9 lance weapons will destroy your armour, their AP2 small blasts your terminators, and their AP3 large blasts your infantry. Any stragglers can be mopped up by serpents. And good luck trying to kill an entire army that gets 4+ inv. on the move.
I'm sure my example was mediocre at best but you've already seen what 6th has done to the meta regarding deathstars.
When you throw the entire FoC restrictions out of the water, what little sense of order this game had, is lost.
"But you can still refuse to play someone if he doesnt use the FoC"
yeah, no you cant. Unless you are a TO, it would be called a house rule, at best. Right now in 6th you can very much refuse to play someone who brings 4 Heavy Supports into a 1000 point game because its clearly illegal, but if it is a legal option in "Apoc 7th ed 40k", I'm out.
Wait, let me get this straight this unbound "FOC" lets you use whatever models you want (provided they follow allies)? So that means that you could have multiple deathstars and no troops, suddenly every game is purge the alien. Time for me to start getting ten more annihilation barges.
Sir Arun wrote: Anybody else incredibly pissed off by the "run anything you like" change?
your "bonus" for sticking to FoC will be worth gak when you face an army consisting of Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism Fire Prism and some scoring units.
Not at all. There isn't enough info to generate an opinion yet.
I highly doubt we have the full story already
Not believing any of this. If you take these rumors as true, it sounds like GW finally decided to go "Screw all of this!", flip the table and randomly mash any rules together without even pretending to care about balance.
Didn't see anything about unlimited detachments via battle-forged (which is what I expect tourneys to use). Unbound sounds nuts though. New ally matrix has me hopefull that it might make sense.
There is also a physic phase confirmed now. A pool of warp charge dice is created at the start of the psychic phase, equal to 1d6 + mastery lvl of psychers. You can use as many dice as you like, but increase risk of perils of the warp (which is now a table you roll on.) Enemy psychers can draw on warp charge pool to Deny the Witch and nulify powers.
Wonder what happens if you got no psyker.
Likely the same thing you get in Fantasy when you have no wizards. I'm guessing your 1d6 per turn can just be added as stated above to any deny the witch roll you choose.
Sigvatr wrote: Not believing any of this. If you take these rumors as true, it sounds like GW finally decided to go "Screw all of this!", flip the table and randomly mash any rules together without even pretending to care about balance.
....wait, that sounds exactly like GW.
True or not, I'm willing to bite the bait and, given the direction this game is currently heading in, I wouldnt be surprised if this rule went into print in the upcoming rulebook.
Yes, realistically speaking if you get your 40k game fix only via your friend circle, you will most likely agree to not do this (just like its usually easy to agree with your mate whether any of you should take allies in your army or not). But for pickup games at FLGS etc., if it is okay to just bring whatever models you want to (even if there is a restriction that it has to only be from one faction), game balance will completely go down the toilet. And the thought of something even theoretically completely breaking the game is one that doesnt sit well with me, even if it most likely wont end up affecting my local gaming group.
It may be true, but that sounds like people are just making up the most bizarre stuff they can and seeing what Nafka will post. I don't buy "the FoC is optional", although tempted to try that with someone who refuses to play against my Knight with the "everything is optional" argument.
If they execute it well, this is exactly what people keep asking for, its not eliminating organization/anything goes... its two game-play modes. RPG vs RTS. Great idea, in fact (which, of course, makes it very likely for this rumor to be untrue).
Likely the same thing you get in Fantasy when you have no wizards. I'm guessing your 1d6 per turn can just be added as stated above to any deny the witch roll you choose.
Looking forward to any sort of compensation then for armies that can't take "wizards". The Dwarf method would be acceptable.
Lobukia wrote: Oh for crying out loud... how dense are we??!!
Unbound = apocalypse / forge narrative etc
Battle Forged = tourney / club play friendly
If they execute it well, this is exactly what people keep asking for, its not eliminating organization/anything goes... its two game-play modes. RPG vs RTS. Great idea, in fact (which, of course, makes it very likely for this rumor to be untrue).
Except that the battle forged blurb above says it includes the dataslates and the detachments that make the lists relatively tourney/club unfriendly. YMMV and we of course don't have concrete info but screwing that up wouldn't be out of character given the last 2 years.
I can see the Unbound vs. Battle-Forged being the direction GW goes. It should maximize profits by reaping from both groups of people: those who want to go "pew-pew!" and those who want to say "damn the dice!"
I do wonder though if such a setup will further reinforce the divide between 40k players. Soon will be like the (Space) Jets and the (Space) Sharks!
I think anyone who is upset about the "Unbound" rumor is forgetting that it's just a rumor and that even if it's mentioned in the WD we need a lot more info about how the new FOC rules work that aren't being talked about (like the bonuses for "Battle Forged") before we draw real conclusions on how good or bad things are.
Basically: don't jerk your knee because all you'll end up doing is banging it on your desk.
). A tighter system benefits everyone and less arguments make for a more enjoyable game. No more "4+ I get to cheat" rolls.
