Wulfmar wrote: Why do I feel that my Thousand Sons Army (x4 HQ Psykers, 2 Aspiring Sorcerers and x1 Be'Lakor Dataslate) have been utterly shafted by this new Psychic power thing?
Sounds like a mystery to me. I mean you get an extra 1d6 warp charges (plus whatever Be'lakor gives you), meaning you can case those Warp charge 2 powers a lot easier.
It may be just the way I read it but I got the impression the likelihood of perils increased if you were not a Daemon (If you are not daemon spawn yourself the perils increase') - or how ever they wrote it. The Thousand Sons are all humans in my army (except Be'Lakor himself).
Add to that they stated you were more likely to suffer perils the more you use psychic powers - I already have enough perils as it is with my force blowing itself up (maybe that's just the cursed dice)
Yeah, that's what I don't understand. What extra dice? You mean I can roll 2d6+ML to generate powers, but may perils? Still a lot of info to come on this.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The very fact that the new "Summon Daemons all the time!" powers are split into two groups - the badly named good-guy power deck, and the bad-guy deck. Clearly Grey Knights and Marines won't get the bad guy deck.
And now you can bring an army of Land Raiders. Just consider that for a moment.
My full DE Wych army is salivating right now.
As things stand because of the knights anyway I am actually seriously considering swapping to a full Wych army anyway as Haywire Grenades are simply the best Weapons that DE have!
Sure, there are fluff reasons that Tyranids shouldn't be able to summon daemons. But there are equally valid fluff reasons for Eldar, various flavours of Marines and Orks to not do so. Making it a blanket 'Everyone except nids' is just silly.
Perhaps they cannot.
it's not impossible that Eldar, Loyal Space Marines, etc.. can only use the goody-two-shoes "Sanctic"-half of Daemonology.
Yeah, that's kind of how I read that too - that and the veiled line about there being nasty consequences of using the evil half. I mean, we've gone straight to "Eldar farseers summoning daemonettes, that's farcical" but we don't actually know how it's going to work at all, much as Zion said.
I dont like the idea of "good" daemonic ward powers, as you basically have to sacrifice 1 slot/chart just for a list of wards that protect you from the eventuality of the opponent summoning daemons
So, 6th was messed up because of unbalanced units and combinations.
7th seeks to fix that by adding more ridiculous imbalance so that people can show up with all riptides and just win without rolling dice.
Seems legit.
(Good thing I'm starting a Warmachine army for when I actually want a game and not an exercise of putting models on the table and promptly removing them.)
MWHistorian wrote: So, 6th was messed up because of unbalanced units and combinations.
7th seeks to fix that by adding more ridiculous imbalance so that people can show up with all riptides and just win without rolling dice.
Seems legit.
(Good think I'm starting a Warmachine army for when I actually want a game and not an exercise of putting models on the table and promptly removing them.)
Well, GW is making it clear like many thread-goers have said before.
"If you want balance, this is not the game for you."
I just don't know what driving away people who want to play an actual strategic game is going to do to their bottom line.
MWHistorian wrote: (Good think I'm starting a Warmachine army for when I actually want a game and not an exercise of putting models on the table and promptly removing them.)
Amen to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: I call it now, battleforged armies will get +1 VP to offset the disadvantage against unbound ones.
Sure, there are fluff reasons that Tyranids shouldn't be able to summon daemons. But there are equally valid fluff reasons for Eldar, various flavours of Marines and Orks to not do so. Making it a blanket 'Everyone except nids' is just silly.
Perhaps they cannot.
it's not impossible that Eldar, Loyal Space Marines, etc.. can only use the goody-two-shoes "Sanctic"-half of Daemonology.
I mean eldar are the reason that an entire brand of daemons exist in the first place. . .
buddha wrote: Like when 6th came out tournament organizers will figure out what they want to keep and what they dont to tun a successful event. I'm excited for the new possibilities personally.
Indeed, if Unbound (lol stealing Warmachine terminology) is just Apocalypse in normal games then its fairly safe to say that competitive tournaments will ignore it. If Bound/Unbound actually have some balanced strengths and weaknesses (i.e they steal the tier list concepts from Warmachine) then they could actually be interesting.
Otherwise I'm actually thinking this is sounding more positive than negative. Obviously the short edition/need to buy another expensive rulebook sucks, but I think the fact that GW are actively addressing rules issues (i.e 6th is insanely unbalanced atm) outweighs this (although it remains to be seen whether they actually fix anything). The psychic phase might be annoying/a step towards Fantasy, but it a) sorts out a heap of timing issues (psychic powers are now in the psychic phase, less start of turn overlap) b) solves one of the biggest issues with psychic powers that the buff powers (Prescience, Fortune etc) are the ones which are really powerful and atm they can't be countered. I like the sound of the mission/objective cards in theory, as asymetrical games are always great, but I worry that they won't be even slightly balanced.
Looks like the GT circuit will need to get on the "tournament ban list" if things shake out how they are rumoring to. I HIGHLY doubt that "Unbound" armies will be tournament legal.
I think this is the wrong direction for GW. They're chasing away too many people with this. Now if they had unbound and then a tighter version of the ruleset, that could work.
You can play a real game or just throw models on the table and say "pew pew" a lot. Both sides would be happy.
Again I feel this comes down to what I said (now many) pages back:
We don't need rules to "forge a narrative". We've been perfectly capable of doing that ourselves since the day 40K was invented. Unbound is unnecessary clutter. People have always been able to play with whatever they wanted, so why codify it in the rules? Why focus on creating rules that say "Do whatever you want" rather than focus on making a well written and technically proficient set of rules.
Ignoring balance for a second, 40K is structurally broken. There are too many special rules. There are too many random cinematic tables. There are too many combinations of armies thanks to the dumb allies rules. Putting in a “whatever” play-stay doesn’t help that. If exacerbates it. And then you want to and yet add another time-sucking phase to the fething game?
On the bright side this will really shake up the meta. No longer will there only be 4-5 stupid powerful lists from 4 armies, but now there will be 20 stupid powerful lists from those 4 armies.
10 thunderfire cannons. Riptides as far as the eye can see. So many farseers. How many deathstrike missiles can I fit in a list hidden behind barebone russes?
MWHistorian wrote: I think this is the wrong direction for GW. They're chasing away too many people with this. Now if they had unbound and then a tighter version of the ruleset, that could work.
You can play a real game or just throw models on the table and say "pew pew" a lot. Both sides would be happy.
I would hope that would be the case. Have a rigid version of the rules and a "narrative" version. Would just mean they wouldn't have label one as the "tournament" ruleset while, you know, actually having one.
MWHistorian wrote: So, 6th was messed up because of unbalanced units and combinations.
7th seeks to fix that by adding more ridiculous imbalance so that people can show up with all riptides and just win without rolling dice.
Seems legit.
(Good think I'm starting a Warmachine army for when I actually want a game and not an exercise of putting models on the table and promptly removing them.)
Well, GW is making it clear like many thread-goers have said before.
"If you want balance, this is not the game for you."
I just don't know what driving away people who want to play an actual strategic game is going to do to their bottom line.
you want really balanced sci-fi strategic game - play Warzone Resurrection, you want "roll a dice and take models off" stay with 40k ,I propose.
I don't think "Unbound" is totally unrestricted, though. I mean, by the sound of it I could take an army of Ghazghkull Thrakas, but most likely I won't be able to.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ignoring balance for a second, 40K is structurally broken. There are too many special rules. There are too many random cinematic tables. There are too many combinations of armies thanks to the dumb allies rules.
Those things are only a problem if you care about who is winning. There are other, better games if you want to care about who is winning .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agent_Tremolo wrote: I mean, by the sound of it I could take an army of Ghazghkull Thrakas
Agent_Tremolo wrote: I don't think "Unbound" is totally unrestricted, though. I mean, by the sound of it I could take an army of Ghazghkull Thrakas, but most likely I won't be able to.
It's not. The White Dwarf says that unit restrictions and allies still apply.
You can make a Space Marines army only of Terminators, but you can not give every single one an Assault Cannon. You can ally it with a Wraithknight or a Riptide, but not with a Soul Grinder.
Of course, the remaining restrictions are nearly negligible.
While I have called for a return to a Psychic phase ever since the dominance of "Blessings" powers became apparent, I am worried about the implementation here.
From the WD leak it seems you get D6 + all your psykers mastery levels. This seems worrisome as it reminds me of 7th edition Fantasy's Power Dice overload issues all over again.
While 8th's Magic System has it's problems the reigning in of the "Haves" and "Have-nots" in terms of Power/Dispel dice was a big improvement.
The other thing about the "unbounded" freakout is the removal of the human element. I totally get it from a tournament standpoint (though it's probably wise to see what the actual rules are before a freakout).
By the "human element" I'm referring to local meta. My flngs has a very relaxed competitive atmosphere where the 15-20 of us talk regularly, theorycraft and spend game playing days chatting about strategy as much as playing.
In 5th edition a guy moved to town who was a hardcore tournament power gamer. He took everything WAY too seriously, always wanted to gamble on games and was an ass at the table.
Nobody gave him a game for six weeks until he chilled out. This is probably a "your mileage may vary" thing, but I suppose one of the reasons I'm not concerned is that I know my local meta wont try to game the system with stupid lists unless we agree to them first, because that's our human element. Be an ass, don't get a game.
The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get no respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?
Here: do our job for us please and you continue to say yes...
I can only think about the definition of insanity here coupled with the next $100 everyone will have to shell out for your next BRB.
also we'll all be buying 8th edition once it releases in June 2015 as it supposedly will "fix everything" as I'm sure the GW team will promise in White Dwarf issue 58
Auswin wrote: In 5th edition a guy moved to town who was a hardcore tournament power gamer. He took everything WAY too seriously, always wanted to gamble on games and was an ass at the table.
Uriels_Flame wrote: The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ignoring balance for a second, 40K is structurally broken. There are too many special rules. There are too many random cinematic tables. There are too many combinations of armies thanks to the dumb allies rules.
Those things are only a problem if you care about who is winning. There are other, better games if you want to care about who is winning .
So if you don't care about winning, then I guess you enjoy games where all you do is take your models off the table by the handful until they're gone at the bottom of Turn 3?
Hmm, but perhaps you don't play games against really competitive lists, seeing as how its very easy to discuss expectations with your opponent so everyone has fun. But that would mean, practically speaking, that you only play games in which you have a substantial chance at winning - but I thought winning doesn't matter. I don't really understand that logic.
As far as this whole Unbound vs. Battle-Forged thing goes, I really worry that this is going to fracture the 40k playerbase. Unbound, at its core, benefits mostly extremely casual players and extremely competitive players. The casuals get to have their perfect fluff lists without having to contort around the ungainly FOC, while competitives get to bring their hardest, most broken combos without restriction. So what I expect we may end up seeing is a lot of casual players either getting demolished in Unbound vs. Unbound games or being refused games against Battle-Forged players because of a perceived "cheesiness" of having an Unbound list.
In the end, everything may end up swinging back to where we are now, with everyone just negotiating beforehand - only we'll have 4 categories instead of Casual/Competitive: BF-Casual, BF-Competitive, Unbound-Casual, Unbound-Competitive.
Eldarain wrote: So the way that sounds you get to make the bound vs unbound decision at list creation? So it's not two divergent game modes.
In effect it is as there is nothing stopping tourney organizers from saying "battle forged lists only" or even friendly players from doing the same. As always the devil is in the details and we don't have those yet.
Bull0 wrote: ...and the veiled line about there being nasty consequences of using the evil half.
Well yes, there will no doubt be a random table that you roll on, that may do something nasty, may do nothing at all, and may make your summoning even more powerful.
Because having random effects with wildly varying impact on the game somehow 'balances' things...
Uriels_Flame wrote: The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
I think the competetive scene is the only scene doing all the rigorous playtesting free-of-charge for GW but they wont listen and update their codexes and instead continue to persue the "fun evening among gentlemen" type of game that sees imperial knights pitted against helldrakes just to forge a narrative instead of balancing unit costs across the board, arguably all doable within 1 edition by less than a dozen underpaid outsourced workers
H.B.M.C. wrote: Again I feel this comes down to what I said (now many) pages back:
We don't need rules to "forge a narrative". We've been perfectly capable of doing that ourselves since the day 40K was invented. Unbound is unnecessary clutter. People have always been able to play with whatever they wanted, so why codify it in the rules? Why focus on creating rules that say "Do whatever you want" rather than focus on making a well written and technically proficient set of rules.
Ignoring balance for a second, 40K is structurally broken. There are too many special rules. There are too many random cinematic tables. There are too many combinations of armies thanks to the dumb allies rules. Putting in a “whatever” play-stay doesn’t help that. If exacerbates it. And then you want to and yet add another time-sucking phase to the fething game?
Bloody hell...
Exactly.
These "I'm a narrative gamer and I don't care one bit about game balance, and if you care about game balance you're just an American WAAC douche!" arguments make no sense whatsoever. If all you want is to put some dudes on the table and create a narrative about the grimdark future, then why the hell would you pay GW £50 for basically telling you to do whatever you want? Why not just spend those £50 on a night out with the missus and then do whatever you want in your next "game" of 40k anyway?
The way I read it was that you could choose to play an 'Unbound' army against a 'Battle-forged' army, but would forgo in-game bonuses. So it's not a choice of having an 'Unbound' game, but an 'Unbound' army. Therefore I don't think it's an attempt to make a competitive and casual ruleset.
I'll withhold judgement until we get more information, but what's interesting to me is that they have introduced new rules that, as far as I know, literally no-one wanted. I've read quite a lot of 'How to improve 40k' threads on this site and others and not one said "Wouldn't it be great if they just threw out the FOC and let you take what you wanted?" AFAIK no-one wanted a Fantasy style psychic phase either.
With such an enthusiastic, learned and vocal fanbase I think it's crazy not to include their input into new releases.
Somewhere, I can hear a TO feverishly scratching "bound armies only" or "no unbound armies" onto a rules packet. This scratching will eventually give rise to a chorus which will eventually entice GW to write yet another edition, omitting bound armies all together. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only APOC!
Zweischneid wrote: If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
You're talking about Jervis here, right?
Because 4th edition was the period where Jervis decreed that FAQs would take the side of RAW over what they had originally intended...
I'm going to ignore the absurdity of blaming the players for expecting the rules to be, you know, the rules... You're welcome.
Nah, take a bunch of cheap barebones russes to hide 5-6 deathstrike missile launchers behind. If you're on the table turn 2, you won't be there for turn 3.
gealgain wrote: Somewhere, I can hear a TO feverishly scratching "bound armies only" or "no unbound armies" onto a rules packet. This scratching will eventually give rise to a chorus which will eventually entice GW to write yet another edition, omitting bound armies all together. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only APOC!
But that would require GW to listen to its fan base....which just doesnt happen
Auswin wrote: In 5th edition a guy moved to town who was a hardcore tournament power gamer. He took everything WAY too seriously, always wanted to gamble on games and was an ass at the table.
What?
YEP! Oh god, he was so bad. The store had to ask him to stop coming because he was harassing people for money games, at which point he spammed everyone with text messages for tournaments at his house. "$10 entry fee, winner takes the pot." One of my most treasured gaming moments was when he moved.
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
Xca|iber wrote: So if you don't care about winning, then I guess you enjoy games where all you do is take your models off the table by the handful until they're gone at the bottom of Turn 3?
I do sometime care about winning. I play Warmachine. But sometime I just want to play as an excuse to do something with a friend and have a nice time, and then who is winning does not matter much.
Xca|iber wrote: Hmm, but perhaps you don't play games against really competitive lists, seeing as how its very easy to discuss expectations with your opponent so everyone has fun.
Last time I played 40k, my opponent played tau+eldars+inquisition+force field from Stronghold assault . I just wish my flgs would give everyone a voucher equal to the entry price, instead of getting all the entry prices as voucher for the winner of the tournament. Apart from that… if I want a game where winning means something, I play Warmachine .
Zweischneid wrote: If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
You're talking about Jervis here, right?
Because 4th edition was the period where Jervis decreed that FAQs would take the side of RAW over what they had originally intended...
I'm going to ignore the absurdity of blaming the players for expecting the rules to be, you know, the rules... You're welcome.
Speak for yourself. I always know the correct interpretation of the rules! And if an FAQ says otherwise, well then GW is just caving in to the pressure from the uninformed masses!
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
I'm glad you concede there are problems.
The rest of what you just said is drivel.
Of course. I never said there were no problems.
To paraphrase Churchill, 40K is probably the worst miniatures wargame out there, except for all those other games.
Uriels_Flame wrote: The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
I really can't tell if you're still serious or just giggling at people responding.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Those things are only a problem if you care about who is winning. There are other, better games if you want to care about who is winning
If you're going to post, please try to make sense. Nothing in the above quote has any real meaning.
Xca|iber wrote: So if you don't care about winning, then I guess you enjoy games where all you do is take your models off the table by the handful until they're gone at the bottom of Turn 3?
I do sometime care about winning. I play Warmachine. But sometime I just want to play as an excuse to do something with a friend and have a nice time, and then who is winning does not matter much.
Oh I agree, but in the case of "doing something with a friend to have a nice time" you actually want both people to be participating, rather than one person standing around picking up their models. It may not matter who is winning, but (IMHO) it absolutely matters if one player feels that they have no practical means of winning at all.
At least if the rules are clear, players can have a sense of what will be good/bad matchups, rather than finding out mid-game that there is a disagreement about how their army/unit/rule functions.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you're going to post, please try to make sense.
Sorry, I am too excited with the awesome new changes to make any kind of sense . 40k too a new level of awesome now that you can make a whole army with only riptides !
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Sorry, I am too excited with the awesome new changes to make any kind of sense . 40k too a new level of awesome now that you can make a whole army with only riptides !
Yeah. Instead of a whole army that's mostly Riptides.
Certainly there is more to this game than winning. I have hardly EVER won a game. xD Yet it was still amazing fun. But where is the fun in the experience when the experience is getting steam rolled by a mass collection of flyers, knights and other stuff.
That White Dwarf makes it pretty clear to me that they are becoming completely unhinged and that there is very slim chance that this new edition will be better than 6th edition.
Unbound armies? 4 Riptides? An army composed entirely of Leman Russes? This is completely off the deep end. Why would anyone take Tactical Marines?
What's the worst outcome of the new info in relation to where we are now?
The game will still be fethed, it will just be officially fethed. Which if you play that all GW produced stuff is allowed without opponent permission, it already is.
For the time being at least, we are aware of a handful of changes, with no idea how they fit into the broader fabric of the new ruleset.
Now, I'm as cynical as the next person (and as I write, that's HBMC) about GWs desire, or ability, to fix the issues with the current edition, but I'm not going to write things off completely until we have more info.
Pretty sure I won't be playing Unbound much though.
Xca|iber wrote: At least if the rules are clear, players can have a sense of what will be good/bad matchups, rather than finding out mid-game that there is a disagreement about how their army/unit/rule functions.
Yeah, but if we want to still use our lovingly painted models, we need to lower our expectations, man! Well-written rules are not going to happen, and neither is balance.
So, we've essentially changed the conversation from "This new edition will probably be 6.5 with minor tweaks, no need to panic!" to "We don't know how all these major changes will affect the game until we see the actual rulebook, no need to panic!"
We've decided to ignore the rather ridiculous idea of a 2 year rules cycle involving $100 BRBs and $50 Codices. But it's cool, no need to panic.
I've been playing this game for a mere 14 years, but I've seen the following disappear: GTs/RTTs, Games Day, bitz ordering, Outriders, respect for Independent Retailers, metal miniatures, unit entries from codices, White Dwarf, Black Gobbo, and on, and on..
GW has jumped the shark for me, fellas. The few friends I have left who still play 40K will be sticking with 6th Edition. I love the game, but my relationship with the company has to end at this point.
azreal13 wrote: So much negativity over such little information. .
It's almost as if, when you don't tell people what's going on, and then just trickle a little information out at a time, people may form negative opions when they don't like what they're hearing...
I just came back to 40K so it might be a good or bad time. At least I don't have to worry about learning 6th Edition so thoroughly now. I'm not keen on the no FOC aspect, but just because you can take all of one type of unit, doesn't mean it will be a wise decision. I'm going to remain optimistic about this new edition, mostly since the group I play in is not all concerned with playing the best units in a dex, more of what they like. I think we'll be fine.
I'm curious to see how the new allies chart looks and how this affects the Unbound options. Perhaps an Unbound army can't take allies...that would be one balancing factor for sure.
The other thing to consider, as alarmingrick rather bitingly pointed out a number of pages back, is that there will be people who insist on playing Unbound yet still throw a fit at the thought of someone using a Forge World unit.
"Let's play Unbound! I have an army of Chaos Land Raiders and Helldrakes! This is so much fun!" "Ok, well I've got a Griffon and-" "A Griffon? That's Forge World!" "Yeah but-" "Forge World units are cheese!" "You realise this was in the Guard Codex not 3 months ago, with the exact same rules." "But it's FW cheese!" "You have an army of Land Raiders and Helldrakes. The Griffon can't even hurt your army." "CHEESE!!!"
I guess you just can either Forge World, or Forge a Narrative, but not both...
Well, can't say that any of these leaks make me excited, or happy, or anything positive really. I'll wait for the full release before my full judgement, but I truly think GW have gone right off the deep end with this unbound nonsense.
And here I still had a little hope they'd fix the game, even if just a little.
azreal13 wrote: So much negativity over such little information.
What's the worst outcome of the new info in relation to where we are now?
[...]
For the time being at least, we are aware of a handful of changes, with no idea how they fit into the broader fabric of the new ruleset.
It's already clear from what was revealed in the WD that the changes aren't what anyone was (fervently) suggesting, and they are utterly insane.
Unbound FOCs when they have grossly imbalanced units would require such ridiculous rules contrivances that it could only make it worse than what was already revealed. When I get my hands on this White Dwarf I expect there to be a stupidity vortex that forces me to roll on a Perils of the What chart.
Uriels_Flame wrote: The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.
the_Armyman wrote: So, we've essentially changed the conversation from "This new edition will probably be 6.5 with minor tweaks, no need to panic!" to "We don't know how all these major changes will affect the game until we see the actual rulebook, no need to panic!"
We've decided to ignore the rather ridiculous idea of a 2 year rules cycle involving $100 BRBs and $50 Codices. But it's cool, no need to panic.
I've been playing this game for a mere 14 years, but I've seen the following disappear: GTs/RTTs, Games Day, bitz ordering, Outriders, respect for Independent Retailers, metal miniatures, unit entries from codices, White Dwarf, Black Gobbo, and on, and on..
GW has jumped the shark for me, fellas. The few friends I have left who still play 40K will be sticking with 6th Edition. I love the game, but my relationship with the company has to end at this point.
Yep, it hurts so much to see a franchise you love just get driven by a disgusting motive for profit and to not feel it as what it once was. Warhammer is one of those hobbies which I have to really escape 'reality' or I dont know how to say it, its something which I can just totally disconnect myself with from everything and truly relax. To feel that relaxation be disrupted by the very gak that fills me with hatred in this world makes me hate so so so so so so much.
I'm really not seeing the new "unbound" thing working out well, it sounds like GW tossing in the towel and saying "yeah, just buy whatever and do whatever" in a lame attempt to generate sales. It really sounds like someone has gone off the deep end in the rules area, and none of this sounds particularly fun.
So, noone else is a bit excited to see how will the game evolve thanks to unbound army ? My flgs tend to allow just everything when they organize a tournament, so I think unbound will be okay. I sense a LOT of fun coming!
I'm probably in a small minority in that I like the idea of unbound armies. I'm pretty much a painter and collector and only really see gaming as an excuse to use the miniatures I spent ages on and meet up with mates. Now I can include whatever I want from my collection without having to worry about restrictions, so I'm happy. Full titan army? Hell yeah!
Also, if you think unbound is a bad idea, you don't have to play it that way. I'll take my unbound army, you take your battle-forged army. It'll be interesting to find out what bonuses unbound armies sacrifice.
I don't see many places allowing unbound armies. As a "just for fun" game type it makes me happy that I could do a Night Lords army with tons of Raptors, or an Iron Warriors army with lots of Predators, Helbrutes, and Maulerfiends.
I doubt too many people in my area will be buying 5-10 Riptides or anything but I can see some WAAC players in other areas doing it.
I'll still buy the book then decide if I want to keep playing or just paint.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The other thing to consider, as alarmingrick rather bitingly pointed out a number of pages back, is that there will be people who insist on playing Unbound yet still throw a fit at the thought of someone using a Forge World unit.
I don't think Unbound is a game mode. You can just either adhere to the FOC while army building, or not. If you use the FOC you get an army wide bonus. Your opponent will then play against you with just a giant Jetseer Council that generates 100 power dice a turn since you just add their mastery levels together.
That said, I do get what you're saying. People will never cease to be ignorant.
l0k1 wrote:I don't see many places allowing unbound armies.
Better start writing that tournament rules package. The list of what you will want to ban (superheavies, stupid forts, allies, d weapons, forgeworld units, unbound armies, dataslates, formations, etc.) will be as long as the actual rulebook. In fact, you should start working on 8th edition right away.
So it looks like the rumored breakdown is ballpark value is: $243 w/ current Meganob price, but more like $163 value, likely sold at $100.
Blood Angels (approx $70)
five scouts - $25.00
five blood angels - $30.00
a commander with jump pack - $15.00
Orks (approx $153, totally skewed by current meganob state, probably more like $70-80 value with new Ork edition models rumored to be new meganobz)
five meganobs - $110.00
10 armoured ork shootas including a nob with two-handed axe $30.00
10 gretchins $13.00
Nonmodel $20.00
scenery - $20.00
rulebook? - by description it sounds to be of no value.
BRB coming in at $100.
Box price likely won't change from $100, even in the absence of a complete use rule book.
I'd love to kick up a fuss, but my brain is so geeked up to see new Ork models I won't mind. Just need to convince a friend to get REALLY into blood angels.
My read of the note from WD attached implies that they know they goofed up in 2012.
As an Ork player I have been agitated about there not being a new codex until this rumor of the new edition.
Kind of glad they didn't go about screwing up Orks in the mix up. Sorry if other people feel the new edition pinch.
But I don't think there is a 40k player out there who isn't at list a little inspired by the idea of have a Meganob force.
So I hope people can find comfort in what sounds like a great box set.
azreal13 wrote: So much negativity over such little information. .
It's almost as if, when you don't tell people what's going on, and then just trickle a little information out at a time, people may form negative opinions when they don't like what they're hearing...
It's a crazy, crazy world.
Nope - just the understanding (and same one by GW) that there is a branding effect and people will leave/come back/start new. It sucks to see GW continually dump on their 40k fanbase though.
Start a support group/web ring for no-longer supported games - Banhammer
3rd Party distributor who actually makes items you don't - Banhammer
Start a comic that is funny and based on pointy sticks - Banhammer
Start a website that actually promotes your game - Banhammer
I am not a chapter house fan, but when you get pushed around and then actually fight back - Banhammer; whoops - except they find out the hammer doesn't work so well anymore and are just turning over and trying to make as much money as possible as seen by their pricing schemes and non-loyalty to the FLGS who have supported them and made them what they are today (branding anyway).
First lets see the positives and negatives of this unbound and forged thing. I am interested but like so many others sitting on the edge of jumping off the GWEN ship...
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm probably in a small minority in that I like the idea of unbound armies. I'm pretty much a painter and collector and only really see gaming as an excuse to use the miniatures I spent ages on and meet up with mates. Now I can include whatever I want from my collection without having to worry about restrictions, so I'm happy. Full titan army? Hell yeah!
azreal13 wrote: So much negativity over such little information. .
It's almost as if, when you don't tell people what's going on, and then just trickle a little information out at a time, people may form negative opions when they don't like what they're hearing...
It's a crazy, crazy world.
No, it's almost as though people are massively overreacting based on limited information.
Like they do every fething week when the "bad" model pics "leak" before we get the "leaks" of better pics and a whole ton of people calm down.
It's a "fool me once" scenario, if people are going to get up in arms every time there's partial information on a GW release and whip themselves into a frenzy over it, only to revise their opinion once more/better information becomes available, then at a certain point it ceases to be GW's fault.
TedNugent wrote:
azreal13 wrote: So much negativity over such little information.
What's the worst outcome of the new info in relation to where we are now?
[...]
For the time being at least, we are aware of a handful of changes, with no idea how they fit into the broader fabric of the new ruleset.
It's already clear from what was revealed in the WD that the changes aren't what anyone was (fervently) suggesting, and they are utterly insane.
Unbound FOCs when they have grossly imbalanced units would require such ridiculous rules contrivances that it could only make it worse than what was already revealed. When I get my hands on this White Dwarf I expect there to be a stupidity vortex that forces me to roll on a Perils of the What chart.
So, just don't play Unbound?
Just like I currently don't play Apocalypse for the same reasons.
the_Armyman wrote: So, we've essentially changed the conversation from "This new edition will probably be 6.5 with minor tweaks, no need to panic!" to "We don't know how all these major changes will affect the game until we see the actual rulebook, no need to panic!"
We've decided to ignore the rather ridiculous idea of a 2 year rules cycle involving $100 BRBs and $50 Codices. But it's cool, no need to panic.
I've been playing this game for a mere 14 years, but I've seen the following disappear: GTs/RTTs, Games Day, bitz ordering, Outriders, respect for Independent Retailers, metal miniatures, unit entries from codices, White Dwarf, Black Gobbo, and on, and on..
GW has jumped the shark for me, fellas. The few friends I have left who still play 40K will be sticking with 6th Edition. I love the game, but my relationship with the company has to end at this point.
personal feelings on the new rules aside, the above makes me grumpy. the rather ridiculous idea of a 2 year rules cycle involving $100 BRBs and $50 Codices
I'm not looking to drop boat loads of cash every few years just on books
We've decided to ignore the rather ridiculous idea of a 2 year rules cycle involving $100 BRBs and $50 Codices. But it's cool, no need to panic.
Right there with you. I am having a difficult time mustering any sort of enthusiasm for this new edition and very may well suggest to my gaming group that we stay with 6th or come up with our own home rules.
Because if this becomes the new normal for GW's rules cycle then I want off this ride.
Call me a dinosaur but rules editions should last 4-6 years. Less than 2 years is a slap in the face.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm probably in a small minority in that I like the idea of unbound armies. I'm pretty much a painter and collector and only really see gaming as an excuse to use the miniatures I spent ages on and meet up with mates. Now I can include whatever I want from my collection without having to worry about restrictions, so I'm happy. Full titan army? Hell yeah!
What stopped you from doing this before?
The same thing that riles you up when people refuse Forgeworld.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm probably in a small minority in that I like the idea of unbound armies. I'm pretty much a painter and collector and only really see gaming as an excuse to use the miniatures I spent ages on and meet up with mates. Now I can include whatever I want from my collection without having to worry about restrictions, so I'm happy. Full titan army? Hell yeah!
What stopped you from doing this before?
Everyone knows you need GW's explicit permission to Forge the Narrative™. Gees.
We've decided to ignore the rather ridiculous idea of a 2 year rules cycle involving $100 BRBs and $50 Codices. But it's cool, no need to panic.
Right there with you. I am having a difficult time mustering any sort of enthusiasm for this new edition and very may well suggest to my gaming group that we stay with 6th or come up with our own home rules.
Because if this becomes the new normal for GW's rules cycle then I want off this ride.
Call me a dinosaur but rules editions should last 4-6 years. Less than 2 years is a slap in the face.
id atleast like to see all codices get updated to the current edition before a turn over to a new edition
Just like I currently don't play Apocalypse for the same reasons.
Bro, they didn't say that you can just not play it. They said that you can take an Unbound army or a Battleforged (e.g. FOC-bound) army. I don't think this is like Apocalypse.
So one player could take a Battleforced army and the other player could take an Unbound army, the only difference is one side ignores FOC restrictions and the other gets special bonuses.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm probably in a small minority in that I like the idea of unbound armies. I'm pretty much a painter and collector and only really see gaming as an excuse to use the miniatures I spent ages on and meet up with mates. Now I can include whatever I want from my collection without having to worry about restrictions, so I'm happy. Full titan army? Hell yeah!
What stopped you from doing this before?
My gaming group are pretty rigid on things like the FOC - I was always up for chucking the FOC out of the window but playing against myself isn't fun. There's quite a lot of resistance to the direction 40k is heading - half of them refuse to play against anything with a D-weapon so I've only used my titan once. Now I've got the rules on my side...
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, noone else is a bit excited to see how will the game evolve thanks to unbound army ? My flgs tend to allow just everything when they organize a tournament, so I think unbound will be okay. I sense a LOT of fun coming!
Yea I really dislike the fact that everyone just thinks this will mean endless streams of players you have never met (and are FORCED to play with) fielding 10 riptides.
Look at Miniwargaming's recent narrative campaigns (which are, in my opinion, excellent). Nearly all of those missions threw the force org out the window, and it resulted in some really fluffy stuff (Tyranid scout force, Ork Air Force, etc.)
I get that people are annoyed, but to me this hobby is a lot like Dungeons and Dragons- with the wrong people, playing DnD is just about the worst thing you can do with your time. But with the right people, it's completely awesome.
Fantasy Battle is next. Everyone I know that play FB are already expecting to quit once the new edition comes out. Allies and fortifications and mega monsters and random cinematic events are in, force organisation and traditional armies are out.
Just like I currently don't play Apocalypse for the same reasons.
Bro, they didn't say that you can just not play it. They said that you can take an Unbound army or a Battleforged (e.g. FOC-bound) army. I don't think this is like Apocalypse.
So one player could take a Battleforced army and the other player could take an Unbound army, the only difference is one side ignores FOC restrictions and the other gets special bonuses.
Well, unless you're attached to some sort of device that will detonate if you refuse a game of 40K, we're all good.
I get that people are annoyed, but to me this hobby is a lot like Dungeons and Dragons- with the wrong people, playing DnD is just about the worst thing you can do with your time. But with the right people, it's completely awesome.
And how many people actually play DnD now vs. Pathfinder?
It doesn't matter what the disadvantages are of a unbound army if you are allowed to just ignore FOC then it just breaks the game because "Sure you get bonuses but I just alpha striked you with my 3 Manticores, 3 Basilisks, 3 Wyverns, and 3 CCS w/ Master of Ordnance.
We've decided to ignore the rather ridiculous idea of a 2 year rules cycle
Hopefully this will be the one time in GWs rules release.....
GW has never ever said how long a rules set will be valid...
however, as rule sets longevity are concerned,
The first was 6 years, then 5, 6, 4, and then 4 years again....average is 5 years really (keep hearing 4, 4, 4, 4, etc...). I'd hope that this next edition would last 5 to 7 years (5 year avg we should expect +2 years we are getting shorted on 6th...). But that is unlikely....
These rules are not like iPhones, or Microsoft Windows, or PS4 or Xbox ONE, that have tech advancement and justification for a new version every few years (hear us GW?)....
I for one, feel conflicted, like a double sided coin. I want to continue to play 40k so I will buy the rules, but feel short changed about 6th...
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, noone else is a bit excited to see how will the game evolve thanks to unbound army ? My flgs tend to allow just everything when they organize a tournament, so I think unbound will be okay. I sense a LOT of fun coming!
Yea I really dislike the fact that everyone just thinks this will mean endless streams of players you have never met (and are FORCED to play with) fielding 10 riptides.
I did not make myself clear. I think I will actually face armies of 10 riptides if I continue to play 40k tournament at my FLGS, and I think it will be hilarious to watch!
With Allies, Formations and Detachments FOC was already a joke. Still, getting rid of the restrictions altogether was not exactly the kind of fix I was hoping for...
djphranq wrote: Oh man this is going to be so cool. I'm totally pre-ordering.
Get out of here Matt Ward!
Meanwhile at the GWHQ....
Assistant- Lord Kirby, there seem to be some complaints about 6th edition.
Kirby - Impossible. People are still buying stuff.
Assistant - But lord, people don't like the imbalance obviously over powered units like riptides does for the game.
Kirby - Not sure what a Riptide is, but if its overpowered that means more people will buy it.
Assistant - Lord, They're saying an army with three riptides is too powerful against almost every other army out there.
Kirby - Why only three?
Assistant - It has to to with the force organization chart. You can only take so many of anything.
Kirby - Well, then get rid of that chart! I want to sell more Riptides!!
azreal13 wrote: Points will still be a thing you know, it isn't literally throw everything on the table.
Oh, so you mean I can expect fair and balanced games ?
I just don't see all the panic over Unbound, when the game's fethed already.
If they're trying to move all the bat gak crazy crap into Unbound and trying to make "Battle Forged" something clubs, tourneys and FLGSs can use as a shorthand for "sensible gaming only please" then it could be a good thing.
My confidence that it will happen is a separate issue, but we haven't, at this point, seen anything to exclude that from happening.
Colpicklejar wrote: Yea I really dislike the fact that everyone just thinks this will mean endless streams of players you have never met (and are FORCED to play with) fielding 10 riptides.
Gee, it's almost as if GW wrote an article explicitly supporting people using Riptide and Broadside spam.
azreal13 wrote: Points will still be a thing you know, it isn't literally throw everything on the table.
7th edition is off to a great start There's still point costs! It isn't literally throw everything on the table!
That'll be next edition.
"Throw your favorite action figure on the table and start making whizz-bang noises."
Oh bummer. I can't believe they missed that for 7th edition. The possibilities for wicked cool narratives are endless once points costs are removed. They are such an arbitrary hurdle!
azreal13 wrote: Points will still be a thing you know, it isn't literally throw everything on the table.
Oh, so you mean I can expect fair and balanced games ?
It's not impossible; X-Wing really doesn't have any restrictions on what ships you can take, for example.
However, the designers at FFG were much smarter about balance than GW's thus far, and I doubt the retrofit will end well. That's just GW's bad points costing to-date, not that a FOC is a requirement for balance.
For my part this news fills me with all sorts of "meh" and makes me doubt I'll continue with GW's rulesets. Kind of glad I got lazy and didn't buy the last few codexes now too.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I fully expect "Battle Forges" to be the standard and enforced by most tournaments
Definitely. But why include it as a core feature of a ruleset which is coming after less than two years of the previously released edition. The disconnect between the rules writers and how many people play the game is pretty staggering. When the most oft repeated reaction is "We'll house rule it" somethings off.
What bonuses could battle forged armies possibly get to even out the option to not use the foc and thereby spamming what ever the heck you want?
Im gonna guess that battle forged has access to titans while Unbound armies do not.
Holy Crap! Unbound armies are just what GW needed!!! how can we get rich kids to buy more expensive models, I got it! let the little fools use nothing but 130$ wraith knights as an elder army!! this does all make the new knight codex make more sense!
azreal13 wrote: I just don't see all the panic over Unbound, when the game's fethed already.
I am not panicking, I am looking forward to it. Really. Since last time I played against Tau+Eldar+Inquisition+Stronghold assault, I just want to see how my opponents will beat that, and what kind of monster they will introduce me too!
Krinsath wrote: It's not impossible; X-Wing really doesn't have any restrictions on what ships you can take, for example.
Yeah, but it is not written by GW . And IIRC, it has been stated in the WD leaks that the current codices will still be used.
azreal13 wrote: It's a "fool me once" scenario, if people are going to get up in arms every time there's partial information on a GW release and whip themselves into a frenzy over it, only to revise their opinion once more/better information becomes available, then at a certain point it ceases to be GW's fault. .
Well, yes... it ceases to be GW's fault when they start releasing actual, complete information on upcoming releases.
So long as they continue to keep everyone guessing, it can hardly be a surprise that people latch onto whatever information that they can get.
Colpicklejar wrote: Yea I really dislike the fact that everyone just thinks this will mean endless streams of players you have never met (and are FORCED to play with) fielding 10 riptides.
Gee, it's almost as if GW wrote an article explicitly supporting people using Riptide and Broadside spam.
Yes, they did.
Did the article also support explicitly support going to a FLGS, finding someone you don't know, and then forcing them to field an FOC army against you, only to be blasted to pieces before your withering firepower?
tyrannosaurus wrote: ... I'll take my unbound army, you take your battle-forged army.....
Yes, that's the problem.
You're being forced to do this now?
It's not a matter of being forced to play. For those of us who predominantly play pick-up games, it's simply another barrier to actually getting a game in. The more crazy stuff that they try to throw into the game that a large chunk of the player base doesn't want to use, the harder it is to find an opponent whose expectations for the game match your own.
It removes the ability to just write up an army list and show up with the expectation of there being someone you can play against... Instead, every potential game turns into a negotiation as you both establish which rules you do and don't want to use.
Wulfmar wrote: Why do I feel that my Thousand Sons Army (x4 HQ Psykers, 2 Aspiring Sorcerers and x1 Be'Lakor Dataslate) have been utterly shafted by this new Psychic power thing?
Sounds like a mystery to me. I mean you get an extra 1d6 warp charges (plus whatever Be'lakor gives you), meaning you can case those Warp charge 2 powers a lot easier.
What extra dice? You mean I can roll 2d6+ML to generate powers, but may perils? Still a lot of info to come on this.
I have no actual facts for this, but might I suggest taking a look at the Magic Phase from Warhammer Fantasy Battles. I have a sneaking suspicion that something very similar to that is on its way.
Warsmith262 wrote: Holy Crap! Unbound armies are just what GW needed!!! how can we get rich kids to buy more expensive models, I got it! let the little fools use nothing but 130$ wraith knights as an elder army!! this does all make the new knight codex make more sense!
You're right! Then we can create a game where the Wraith Knight becomes just like an Eldar Guardian; then we'll "require" they take at least a squad of 5 and give them a "serpent like" transport! Oh god this is great!
We can turn Epic into 40k into Apocalypse into Epic using 54mm scale!
It will be Awesome!!!!111
Then we'll make lifesize suits that 40k LARPers can get into and play the game for real!!! Going to be huge!!! (pun intended)
They're already using the American Business model for this process.
azreal13 wrote: It's a "fool me once" scenario, if people are going to get up in arms every time there's partial information on a GW release and whip themselves into a frenzy over it, only to revise their opinion once more/better information becomes available, then at a certain point it ceases to be GW's fault. .
Well, yes... it ceases to be GW's fault when they start releasing actual, complete information on upcoming releases.
So long as they continue to keep everyone guessing, it can hardly be a surprise that people latch onto whatever information that they can get.
But, if I, as no idiot but an individual not exactly of Einsteinian intellect either, have learned not to overreact to the initial drips of info, and wait and see before coming to any sort of firm conclusions, exactly how hard can it be?
azreal13 wrote: But, if I, as no idiot but an individual not exactly of Einsteinian intellect either, have learned not to overreact to the initial drips of info, and wait and see before coming to any sort of firm conclusions, exactly how hard can it be?
That's assuming it's an over-reaction.
GW have done nothing in the last year to give me any sort of suggestion that this release will be a positive one. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in the hope that 7th edition would turn the game around... but the aspects of the game that they have chosen to draw attention to do not show the new edition in a positive light.
If I come away from that feeling a little negative about the release, that's kind of to be expected.
Just to be clear here... there is no 'frenzy'. I'm way past getting that worked up about a GW release. Just disappointment at the current direction of a game that I have poured an awful lot of time, effort and cash into.
I really hope the bonuses for doing Battle-Forged will be good enough to be worth it. I've never been a fan of cheese-lists anyway, so I don't really want to buy a gakload of Anni-barges (I play Necrons) just because that's the only way i won't get tabled on turn 2 (I know I'm exaggerating, but I tend to be negative about this kind of stuff).
Also the new psychic phase scares me a bit as a Necron player as all they say in this document for deny-the-witch is that enemy psykers can do it.
azreal13 wrote: It's a "fool me once" scenario, if people are going to get up in arms every time there's partial information on a GW release and whip themselves into a frenzy over it, only to revise their opinion once more/better information becomes available, then at a certain point it ceases to be GW's fault. .
Well, yes... it ceases to be GW's fault when they start releasing actual, complete information on upcoming releases.
So long as they continue to keep everyone guessing, it can hardly be a surprise that people latch onto whatever information that they can get.
But, if I, as no idiot but an individual not exactly of Einsteinian intellect either, have learned not to overreact to the initial drips of info, and wait and see before coming to any sort of firm conclusions, exactly how hard can it be?
Apparently quite difficult because you can't seem to stop mentioning it. If that's the case, why are you participating in a this thread?
If you're going to "wait and see" why post anything in this thread?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I fully expect "Battle Forges" to be the standard and enforced by most tournaments
And if that's exactly the same as the "foc" we have now? You know, this simple to use little guy:
Spoiler:
I don't see the current FOC system remaining untouched, though. Reading between words in that WD article, it seems there's going to be a number of FOCs to choose from, each with a set of supporting special rules kind of like formations or the old 5th edition spearhead rules.
Anyways, I suppose the prime users of this unbound thing will be little timmies and starting players.
azreal13 wrote: But, if I, as no idiot but an individual not exactly of Einsteinian intellect either, have learned not to overreact to the initial drips of info, and wait and see before coming to any sort of firm conclusions, exactly how hard can it be?
That's assuming it's an over-reaction.
GW have done nothing in the last year to give me any sort of suggestion that this release will be a positive one. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in the hope that 7th edition would turn the game around... but the aspects of the game that they have chosen to draw attention to do not show the new edition in a positive light.
If I come away from that feeling a little negative about the release, that's kind of to be expected.
Just to be clear here... there is no 'frenzy'. I'm way past getting that worked up about a GW release. Just disappointment at the current direction of a game that I have poured an awful lot of time, effort and cash into.
More psyker counterplay, reallignment of the allies chart, and two game modes; one traditional and one where you can choose to take whatever you want? Not sure how this is bad
azreal13 wrote: But, if I, as no idiot but an individual not exactly of Einsteinian intellect either, have learned not to overreact to the initial drips of info, and wait and see before coming to any sort of firm conclusions, exactly how hard can it be?
That's assuming it's an over-reaction.
GW have done nothing in the last year to give me any sort of suggestion that this release will be a positive one. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in the hope that 7th edition would turn the game around... but the aspects of the game that they have chosen to draw attention to do not show the new edition in a positive light.
If I come away from that feeling a little negative about the release, that's kind of to be expected.
Just to be clear here... there is no 'frenzy'. I'm way past getting that worked up about a GW release. Just disappointment at the current direction of a game that I have poured an awful lot of time, effort and cash into.
It's certainly disheartening for them to mention battle forged and unbound and then gleefully focus primarily on the latter.
djphranq wrote: All I can see are Tanks everywhere... Tanks and walkers... it'll be glorious!
What have you been playing? Walkers are terrible!
Anyways, on topic, I think GW has now jumped the shark.
On the one hand, it would be nice to field all my dreadnoughts at the same time, and still use other elites. BUT as it has been pointed out already, you have always been free to house rule or create campaigns with what ever kind of FOC you want. Most campaigns involve FOC manipulation.
I see arguments on both sides.
What isn't totally 'fluffy' about an all Leman Russ force? They won't be able to score. (if you survive to make it to objective calculation)
But just like the 1999+1 army lists, I'm sure tournaments will just ban 'unbound' army lists. Unless the bonuses for 'Battle Forged' are just that good. But if the warlord charts are any indication, the bonuses will be terrible.
azreal13 wrote: But, if I, as no idiot but an individual not exactly of Einsteinian intellect either, have learned not to overreact to the initial drips of info, and wait and see before coming to any sort of firm conclusions, exactly how hard can it be?
That's assuming it's an over-reaction.
Nope, based on a small amount of information, I'm stating it is an overreaction. People ITT have explicitly stated that they're quitting the game based on what is essentially a fluff article in WD, who, let's face it, are going to be targeting all the little Timmys in what they emphasise and draw attention to.
GW have done nothing in the last year to give me any sort of suggestion that this release will be a positive one. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in the hope that 7th edition would turn the game around... but the aspects of the game that they have chosen to draw attention to do not show the new edition in a positive light.
Again, consider who WDW is chiefly aimed at. If the new Psychic phase has all the nuanced tactical bluff and double bluff of championship poker, that isn't really going to appeal to the likely pocket money purchaser of the magazine.
If I come away from that feeling a little negative about the release, that's kind of to be expected.
Just to be clear here... there is no 'frenzy'. I'm way past getting that worked up about a GW release. Just disappointment at the current direction of a game that I have poured an awful lot of time, effort and cash into.
Ditto, and I'm not really including your comments when I say some people appear to be overreacting, I'm very much of the same mind, but I'm not willing to close the door on 7th being a good thing based in just this article.
Also the new psychic phase scares me a bit as a Necron player as all they say in this document for deny-the-witch is that enemy psykers can do it.
It sounds very Warhammer-esque; in which you always have a chance of dis-spelling enemy magic even if you have no wizards.
I'd remember though that this 'document' is just a short summary of new ideas rather than the hard rules.
Yeah, but the most equivalent army in WFB would be the dwarfs with their close to zero magic phase, but they get a lot more ways to dispel instead. I kinda hope this happens with the necrons too, but it would require a new FAQ or codex.
But you're right about this just being a short summary, surely GW must have thought about this already (at least I hope they have)
I just find it disheartening that we have an edition where the FOC is a mess, where allies and formations and dataslates are making the game far more complicated than it ever should be, and GW's solution to this is... throw out the FOC!
Great.
Puscifer wrote: I've wanted to play a Harlequin Army (like 2nd Ed) for years, but never could until now.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just find it disheartening that we have an edition where the FOC is a mess, where allies and formations and dataslates are making the game far more complicated than it ever should be, and GW's solution to this is... throw out the FOC!
Great.
Puscifer wrote: I've wanted to play a Harlequin Army (like 2nd Ed) for years, but never could until now.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay I just realized that Eldar is getting Daemonology, and might summon daemons.
Can someone explain to me what is going on there.
There appears to be 2 disciplines of it. One to summon and buff Daemons and one to banish and debuff Daemons. Presumably the divide between the two should be good/bad armies. It's true purpose is to sell more Daemons.
The lack of the FOC and the way it was stated in the WD, "the only limit is what models you have", just SCREAMS we only did this to sell more obnoxiously priced miniatures
The best thing about this is that 6th edition has a rule that literally never did anything, and now it never will (ie that "summoning" psychic discipline, whatever it was called).
It's like GW heard the complaints of six and deliberately did the exact opposite just to give the players the middle finger.
(Of course that's not what happened. GW doesn't listen to complaints.)
There were lots of people who wouldn't play against flyers at the start of 6th. After a few months, people had to accept them, even if they didn't have any skyfire or their own flyers. Same thing will happen here.
"I'm following the rules, what's the problem? I don't get it"
"Well, I read on the internet that unbound army lists are only for power gamers, so I'm not going to play."
MWHistorian wrote: It's like GW heard the complaints of six and deliberately did the exact opposite just to give the players the middle finger.
(Of course that's not what happened. GW doesn't listen to complaints.)
Isn't what they do every edition?
Gamer: 'Vehicles are too powerful in 5th edition! It's Metal Boxes everywhere!'
GW: Well now they are completely useless in 6th! But now MC will destroy everything.
Reading the last dozen or so pages is like being in a leaky life raft and someone tells you the good news that they cut a hole in the bottom for all the water to drain out.
I'm already having trouble staying interested in the game and finding out we are getting super short editions at an increased cost does nothing to make me feel motivated towards the game. A short edition tells me that the company realizes they sold a product that's worth it's weight in poo and instead of trying to rectify that issue they will try and sell another shovel full of manure just to make an extra buck. This is how I felt BEFORE finding out about Unhinged. Or Unbound. Whatever.
This is why GW needs marketing and PR. This is like the Xbox One release where they didn't mention games at all and informed how difficult it would be to share.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay I just realized that Eldar is getting Daemonology, and might summon daemons.
Can someone explain to me what is going on there.
There appears to be 2 disciplines of it. One to summon and buff Daemons and one to banish and debuff Daemons. Presumably the divide between the two should be good/bad armies. It's true purpose is to sell more Daemons.
The former sounds like it's going to break my daemon army. Well guys, nice playing this game but the ride is about over for me. I thought it was going to be a sidegrade but this is just too much BS at once. Any vague interest has crumbled. I'll probably stick to this game a bit but.... I dunno. This is just so remarkably stupid on so many levels that I can't even really say I want to play 40k that much. I guess it's time to start working on warmahordes or drop zone commander?
At this point, why even buy codices? They come out too fast and basically say to throw the rules out.
It's certainly disheartening for them to mention battle forged and unbound and then gleefully focus primarily on the latter.
Let's be honest, battle forged will be treated, by GW, as the beaten and abused red headed stepchild of the two choices. It's basically there as a bone for the older players. They don't want anything getting in the way as many little timmys buying as many of the cool awesome model as they can. That include rules.
There were lots of people who wouldn't play against flyers at the start of 6th. After a few months, people had to accept them, even if they didn't have any skyfire or their own flyers. Same thing will happen here.
"I'm following the rules, what's the problem? I don't get it"
"Well, I read on the internet that unbound army lists are only for power gamers, so I'm not going to play."
That can only last so long...
Most people didn't want to play against fliers at the beginning of 6th because most armies didn't have fliers or AA of their own.
With "Unbound" aka. Clusterfeth" there's nothing your "warforged" list can realistically do against an army of riptides or Heldrakes.
That's a big difference. You think "unbound" sounds cool, but look at it hot it will actually play out and its a total unworkable mess that is a free reign for abuse and shafts the guy that goes for a pickup game with his tac-list.
What I don't get is why make rules for this? Why not just make fluffy players do what they always do? I'm a fluffy player. There's no rule for making your own characters but my group have. We've made special rules and ignored the FOC before. So why?
That's a big difference. You think "unbound" sounds cool, but look at it hot it will actually play out and its a total unworkable mess that is a free reign for abuse and shafts the guy that goes for a pickup game with his tac-list.
There is a thread in the general forum discussing all the stupid possible combinations now.
I just can't understand the thinking behind why people suddenly say "Now I can field this!". You always could. Nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent.
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay I just realized that Eldar is getting Daemonology, and might summon daemons.
Can someone explain to me what is going on there.
There appears to be 2 disciplines of it. One to summon and buff Daemons and one to banish and debuff Daemons. Presumably the divide between the two should be good/bad armies. It's true purpose is to sell more Daemons.
Sure it's a cash grab...
But it means I can finally do the stuff I did back in 2nd and 3rd! A return to summoning daemons by chaos! And slight more importance placed on the armies of Chaos and their effects..
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
Campaigns are fun, we use old veteran rules to establish certain units are a far more credible threat in specific battles.
Savageconvoy wrote: There is a thread in the general forum discussing all the stupid possible combinations now.
That didn't take as long as I thought it would.
GW dropped the ball by putting out that half-assed cock tease of an article and not giving us the big rundown from the following week's WD and instead spending that WD talking about what they want to do with the rules.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay I just realized that Eldar is getting Daemonology, and might summon daemons.
Can someone explain to me what is going on there.
There appears to be 2 disciplines of it. One to summon and buff Daemons and one to banish and debuff Daemons. Presumably the divide between the two should be good/bad armies. It's true purpose is to sell more Daemons.
Sure it's a cash grab...
But it means I can finally do the stuff I did back in 2nd and 3rd! A return to summoning daemons by chaos! And slight more importance placed on the armies of Chaos and their effects..
True enough. I am a bit worried about how the Banishment element will play out against people fielding an army from Codex: Daemons.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay I just realized that Eldar is getting Daemonology, and might summon daemons.
Can someone explain to me what is going on there.
There appears to be 2 disciplines of it. One to summon and buff Daemons and one to banish and debuff Daemons. Presumably the divide between the two should be good/bad armies. It's true purpose is to sell more Daemons.
Sure it's a cash grab...
But it means I can finally do the stuff I did back in 2nd and 3rd! A return to summoning daemons by chaos! And slight more importance placed on the armies of Chaos and their effects..
True enough. I am a bit worried about how the Banishment element will play out against people fielding an army from Codex: Daemons.
Considering you could possibly summon more (portalglyph) and then even more summoning with buffs (it mentions being daemonspawn specifically), you might be able to buffer yourself against it, and summon more to deal with things.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't understand the thinking behind why people suddenly say "Now I can field this!". You always could. Nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent.
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
The problem has always been some people playing against people who refuse to play against armies that don't follow the GW written rules (despite the game supporting homebrew and fan tweaks).
Hmm not willing to buy in for yet another 40k book, warpath (as an option to use my marines for another system) is still a year or better away, guess I didn't need to dust my marines off recently afterall. Guess I will let you guys speculate and then do the actual tooth-cutting, will have to look again in a number of months after the dust has settled to see if its worth dusting them off again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't understand the thinking behind why people suddenly say "Now I can field this!". You always could. Nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent.
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
I completely agree with you.
I already have my Harlequin army leftover from 2nd ed. I just haven't been able to play them, purely down to player objection.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay I just realized that Eldar is getting Daemonology, and might summon daemons.
Can someone explain to me what is going on there.
Yeah, not what you think, the "good" armies get an anti-demon lore, so they'll be able to banish, rather than conjure, by the sounds of it.
I just hope that there's some in built protection for daemon armies, otherwise we could end up with 5th GK Warpquake auto win type nonsense again.
This is pretty much exactly my main fear, it's bad enough that GK's exist in the form they do and I've been dreading them getting an update, no army should be tailored to pound another army, imagine the outcry if they did ordo xenos with masses of specific anti-ork or eldar weaponry.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't understand the thinking behind why people suddenly say "Now I can field this!". You always could. Nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent.
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
The problem has always been some people playing against people who refuse to play against armies that don't follow the GW written rules (despite the game supporting homebrew and fan tweaks).
and that's much easier to do in pick up games where you really need a governing set of rules otherwise your whole night is taken up by what is and isn't acceptable.
If you could "always do that", then you don't need a rulebook. Just make up your own rules, push some minis around and have fun.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't understand the thinking behind why people suddenly say "Now I can field this!". You always could. Nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent.
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
I completely agree with you.
I already have my Harlequin army leftover from 2nd ed. I just haven't been able to play them, purely down to player objection.
I don't have my 2nd Edition Chaos Warband any more, but these changes would let me field it again, without the need to pre-arrange a game or try and find a willing victim at my somewhat orthodox club.
I'm hoping the fact that primary detachments of Chaos Daemons carry a Warpstorm with them means this Daemonic banishment stuff only applies to Daemonic allies or summoned daemons.
Otherwise my Mono-Khorne list is about to get even worse along with a brand new phase my army can do little to nothing in!
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't understand the thinking behind why people suddenly say "Now I can field this!". You always could. Nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent.
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
I completely agree with you.
I already have my Harlequin army leftover from 2nd ed. I just haven't been able to play them, purely down to player objection.
How is that any different from now though? There's two options and the people who didn't let you probably will usually still not let you.
There were lots of people who wouldn't play against flyers at the start of 6th. After a few months, people had to accept them, even if they didn't have any skyfire or their own flyers. Same thing will happen here.
"I'm following the rules, what's the problem? I don't get it"
"Well, I read on the internet that unbound army lists are only for power gamers, so I'm not going to play."
That can only last so long...
Most people didn't want to play against fliers at the beginning of 6th because most armies didn't have fliers or AA of their own.
With "Unbound" aka. Clusterfeth" there's nothing your "warforged" list can realistically do against an army of riptides or Heldrakes.
That's a big difference. You think "unbound" sounds cool, but look at it hot it will actually play out and its a total unworkable mess that is a free reign for abuse and shafts the guy that goes for a pickup game with his tac-list.
It can be cool, if it is not abused, but I won't be playing it in the beginning anyway.
I guess then that the problem isn't the people saying "Now I can play my Chaos Necron Tyranids-infested Riptide army! WOO!", and more the people who would never allow any variation who suddenly will because the rulebook says so.
I guess that's the same menality - the same binary switch - that sees people go from "Griffons are great!" to "Griffons are Forge World! No go!".
I just want to see what could balance out an army of nothing but Riptides and Broadsides? What are these Battle Forged bonuses going to be? Free S: D Orbital Bombardments? I care about how stupidly they're going to handle the way that most of us will intend to play.
azreal13 wrote: Yeah, not what you think, the "good" armies get an anti-demon lore, so they'll be able to banish, rather than conjure, by the sounds of it.
What have you seen that 'sounds' like that?
Because all that has been shown so far is the White Dwarf excerpt, which simply says that everyone except Tyranids has access to Daemonology, which is broken into two different types.
There has been nothing said so far that suggests that some armies will only have access to one 'type' of Daemonology spell.
I think the price of the book is going to be the deal breaker more than any of the rules. While many have slogged through various editions of changes they've love or hated, no one has yet slogged through a less than 24 month edition change at, rumored, $100 for the revision.
More so during a time of a peak competition in the wargaming space with almost every flavor being catered towards save the 28mm Sci-Fi Company Level game. And I give Warlord Games a nod if they would consider making their own run at it given the rampant success of Bolt Action and being the one company looking like it's inline to "challenge the throne."
Time will tell, but $100 rulebook would have me incredibly leery. I could buy 6 gamers a copy of the Malifaux rules, tell them they could have a "full" army for $100 and have a new club started.
Savageconvoy wrote: I just want to see what could balance out an army of nothing but Riptides and Broadsides? What are these Battle Forged bonuses going to be? Free S: D Orbital Bombardments?.
Only if you roll a 6 on the Battle Forged table. If you roll a 1, half of your army doesn't show up.
azreal13 wrote: Yeah, not what you think, the "good" armies get an anti-demon lore, so they'll be able to banish, rather than conjure, by the sounds of it.
What have you seen that 'sounds' like that?
Because all that has been shown so far is the White Dwarf excerpt, which simply says that everyone except Tyranids has access to Daemonology, which is broken into two different types.
There has been nothing said so far that suggests that some armies will only have access to one 'type' of Daemonology spell.
The actual information posted in this thread doesn't suggest at all that Daemonology is split between different armies. That was just what various people have suggested 'must' be the case because the alternative is stupid.
TheKbob wrote: I think the price of the book is going to be the deal breaker more than any of the rules. While many have slogged through various editions of changes they've love or hated, no one has yet slogged through a less than 24 month edition change at, rumored, $100 for the revision.
More so during a time of a peak competition in the wargaming space with almost every flavor being catered towards save the 28mm Sci-Fi Company Level game. And I give Warlord Games a nod if they would consider making their own run at it given the rampant success of Bolt Action and being the one company looking like it's inline to "challenge the throne."
Time will tell, but $100 rulebook would have me incredibly leery. I could buy 6 gamers a copy of the Malifaux rules, tell them they could have a "full" army for $100 and have a new club started.
Orrr logically $100 is the price of the starter set akin to Dark Vengeance (wild speculation I know.. like much of this thread) Wait and see
Expect a hardback rule book and a 'just the rules' book without models for less than $100 a piece perhaps... (And i know its soon... as it happens I got a hardback 6th within the last 12months :/ bahh but its got pwetty pictures and I do like those more than the game itself lol )
If they want a hundred bucks for the rulebook I'm definitely out. Heck even $75 would probably drive me away given how little I've managed to put the 6th ed book to use.
I'm unfamiliar with Warlord Games, but this may end up giving me the last push I need to just call it quits with my 'never really got started' marine collection, in which case those proceeds will go to the Warpath kickstarter, or something else if it's promising. Might actually do me some good and clear out my closet a bit
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't understand the thinking behind why people suddenly say "Now I can field this!". You always could. Nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent.
It's like "forging a narrative", you've never needed a set of rules to tell you that you can field anything. You could always do that.
I completely agree with you.
I already have my Harlequin army leftover from 2nd ed. I just haven't been able to play them, purely down to player objection.
How is that any different from now though? There's two options and the people who didn't let you probably will usually still not let you.
My gaming buddies have now agreed to play it as it'll be legal to play.
I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the cost of the rulebook, I mean compared to the cost of an army its nothing. Hell I bought my army almost entirely second hand and it still cost me around 2k and thats only because I shopped around and went to dubious retailers, just seems odd to me.
Honestly $100 bucks every two years is nothing as far as luxury hobbies go. I have no problems spending 50 bucks a year for a game I enjoy. Would I like it to last longer? Sure, I would also like my comcast bill to be cheaper. But while it remains worth it to me to buy I will continue to do so.
Orrr logically $100 is the price of the starter set akin to Dark Vengeance (wild speculation I know.. like much of this thread) Wait and see
Expect a hardback rule book and a 'just the rules' book without models for less than $100 a piece perhaps... (And i know its soon... as it happens I got a hardback 6th within the last 12months :/ bahh but its got pwetty pictures and I do like those more than the game itself lol )
I am using logic, as in referencing what GW has done over the past 5 months along with the other rumors.
$100 BRB and $100 for the starter set, but only includes starter rules. Meaning the minirulebook we normally grab will probably be the third tier release much later this year and probably $50 as the current one is, $40 for the iPad variant.
If we didn't just go through "The December to Remember" event along with the supplement and mini-codex hell, all at full codex price, I'd be a bit more willing on the optimism. As of now, I'll stick with the notion the new book will be $100.
And because wake-up... we are being fleeced for a bad product. For $100, I could acquire the rules to probably 3 ~ 5 other games. And for $2000 USD, I would have armies for each of those games, if not two of each. And I wouldn't need to worry about "forging the narratives" or waiting a year for FAQs.
Jaceevoke wrote: I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the cost of the rulebook...
Because we only got the last one.
2 years really isn't that short of a time frame, it just feels short because we're used to it being longer.
That said, $100 strikes me as a bit steep. I mean the old one wasn't that bad and unless this one has been eating all the meat pies it shouldn't be so thick that it could warrant that price.
Then again I still say the basic codex should be $25 ($30 for the Marine one) tops so what do I know?
Leth wrote: Honestly $100 bucks every two years is nothing as far as luxury hobbies go. I have no problems spending 50 bucks a year for a game I enjoy. Would I like it to last longer? Sure, I would also like my comcast bill to be cheaper. But while it remains worth it to me to buy I will continue to do so.
Two wrongs (and bad analogies) don't make a right.
At this point I don't even care about the rulebook being too early, and I don't see why anybody else does, because "unbound" armies pretty much sound like this game is over for me. Those "bonuses" from following the FoC better be so spectacular that unbound armies become useful for nothing more than fun, because otherwise I'm outtie. Luckily I still have a sealed Heldrake to sell to unbound players.
GW can't even a balance a codex, let alone the entire fething game with no FoC. I thought I was screwed this edition for running CC marines in a shooting edition. In 7th edition, it sounds like I will be screwed for running CC marines in a ZOMG LOL HAX RIPTIDE HELDRAKE SEER COUNCIL SCREAMERSTAR ARMY XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD edition.
I think this also debunks the "GW never listens to its players" mantra, because they clearly do. They listen to what players complain about and amplify it by 1,000,000. Meh.
The cost is directly connected to the quality of the product and its usefulness. GW charges for too much already for the BRB and dexes yet these continue to go up. If GW adds a couple of extra pages that costs a dollar to produce/distribute they increase the price by 10 dollars. If there products were quality products and the company ensured that errata was done properly and timely I think more people would be fine with a 2 year change in the case of the 6th edition mess (not something to regularly happen). It is our experience getting poor quality at outrageous prices that have to be paid in increasingly shorter time spans that upsets many of us.
Jaceevoke wrote: I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the cost of the rulebook...
Because we only got the last one.
2 years really isn't that short of a time frame, it just feels short because we're used to it being longer.
What is the renewal timetable for comparative games? How long as Infinity or Warmahordes gone between editions?
Warmahordes just had their ten year anniversery, and they are still going strong on edition 2. I suspect 2-4 more years until we see Mark iii at the earliest.
Oh dear god I am so glad I just traded my IG, oops I mean AM, for another pile of privateer press models. I'm running outta stuff to paint anyway, and 40k looks like it is about to be a clusterfeth...
Jaceevoke wrote: I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the cost of the rulebook...
Because we only got the last one.
2 years really isn't that short of a time frame, it just feels short because we're used to it being longer.
What is the renewal timetable for comparative games? How long as Infinity or Warmahordes gone between editions?
Warmachine came out in 2003, did a Prime Remix in 2007 and then Mk2 in 2010. So 3-4 years? I don't know if Prime Remix counts as an edition or not, I wasn't aware of Warmachine back then.
Infinity went 7 years between 1st and 2nd edition.
Frankly if this edition actually handles some of the issues we've been having with 6th (which for the most part has been my favorite edition to date, but is not perfect) then 2 years is fine by me. Especially if we're moving to a "living ruleset" that gets updated/adjusted more often to address problems. If not, well then I will definitely take issue with the new rules. Depending on the rules I may drop playing 40k completely. Maybe I'll pick up Fantasy or another game instead, I don't know. But if the game ends up being broken by this update then I won't have a reason to stick with it.
Infinity looks to have started in 2005 and is set to release their third edition perhaps late this year. There are also two rulebook-esque supplements, so they're pretty close to the book/2 years thing, but they don't have anything like a codex.
I'm just mystified that there is a contingent of 'Unbound' partisans who are very excited about being able to field their cool, interesting fluffy army (and who were never able to do so because their rule-bound, inflexible gaming groups would only allow 'official rules stuff') that also don't understand that the new "official rules" not only allows their cool, interesting, fluffy army, as well as a lovely Grey Knights/Daemons of Chaos army composed entirely of Dreadknights and Heldrakes. Will those people really rejoice in plonking down their awesomely cool Genestealer Cult army of Cultists, Imperial Guardsmen, and Genestealers to face off against, say, nothing but Annhilation Barges?
If I wanted to try to be positive about this release, it sounds like the development team is trying to deliberately (but deniably) screw up the entire rules system so damn badly that people stop buying GW rulebooks and develop their own, fan-based, vastly superior system, letting GW focus entirely on the Black Library fiction and making cool models. A man can dream...
I believe that rumour landed with the same one that claimed that this book was going to be twice the length of the current one, which is stretching credibility somewhat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Butcha wrote: I'm just mystified that there is a contingent of 'Unbound' partisans who are very excited about being able to field their cool, interesting fluffy army (and who were never able to do so because their rule-bound, inflexible gaming groups would only allow 'official rules stuff') that also don't understand that the new "official rules" not only allows their cool, interesting, fluffy army, as well as a lovely Grey Knights/Daemons of Chaos army composed entirely of Dreadknights and Heldrakes. Will those people really rejoice in plonking down their awesomely cool Genestealer Cult army of Cultists, Imperial Guardsmen, and Genestealers to face off against, say, nothing but Annhilation Barges?
If I wanted to try to be positive about this release, it sounds like the development team is trying to deliberately (but deniably) screw up the entire rules system so damn badly that people stop buying GW rulebooks and develop their own, fan-based, vastly superior system, letting GW focus entirely on the Black Library fiction and making cool models. A man can dream...
Unbound must still respect allies and unit structure, so no 50 man Purifier units supporting 100 strong Daemonettes or similar. There's still plenty of abuses of rules or fluff possible, but that won't be one of them!
Maybe they'll have feedback forums on their website - Banhammer
Maybe they'll open up comments on their facebook page - Banhammer
Maybe they'll support their specialist game ranges - Banhammer
Maybe they'll support their player base vs. just pandering to the new kids with hordes o'cash their parents don't need - Winning!
Maybe they'll release all the armies before initiating a new edition - Banhammer
Maybe, Maybe, Maybe - there's 67+ pages of things "maybe" GW will do and ZERO precedence for it. The only thing they've consistently done is raise prices and sell a shitton of models.
Don't you worry folks, If you want IG/AM, I'll have them posted in my trade thread tomorrow.
I'm out of 40k. Send me your Horde Trolls and I'll just finish painting my Fantasy Empire.
TheKbob wrote: And because wake-up... we are being fleeced for a bad product. For $100, I could acquire the rules to probably 3 ~ 5 other games.
That's the kicker for me. I've been getting into Warmahordes and X Wing lately, and it's just weird how little I pay by comparison for game systems which are comparable or higher quality than 40k. ~$200 has gotten me a nice Orboros army, a bunch of X Wing minis and all the rulebooks and counters for both systems. With GW products, I'm plopping down $200 for a rulebook and a starter set of models - you get so much less for your money when you buy GW.
Jaceevoke wrote: I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the cost of the rulebook...
Because we only got the last one.
2 years really isn't that short of a time frame, it just feels short because we're used to it being longer.
What is the renewal timetable for comparative games? How long as Infinity or Warmahordes gone between editions?
Oh dear god I am so glad I just traded my IG, oops I mean AM, for another pile of privateer press models. I'm running outta stuff to paint anyway, and 40k looks like it is about to be a clusterfeth...
Believe it or not there's a whole forum dedicated to Warmachine on this very site. Go there.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Maybe they'll have feedback forums on their website - Banhammer
Maybe they'll open up comments on their facebook page - Banhammer
Maybe they'll support their specialist game ranges - Banhammer
Maybe they'll support their player base vs. just pandering to the new kids with hordes o'cash their parents don't need - Winning!
Maybe they'll release all the armies before initiating a new edition - Banhammer
Maybe, Maybe, Maybe - there's 67+ pages of things "maybe" GW will do and ZERO precedence for it. The only thing they've consistently done is raise prices and sell a shitton of models.
Don't you worry folks, If you want IG/AM, I'll have them posted in my trade thread tomorrow.
I'm out of 40k. Send me your Horde Trolls and I'll just finish painting my Fantasy Empire.
A reasoned and proportional response to a fluff piece in a sales brochure ladies and gentlemen! *clap clap*
If you want to quit, that's your choice, of course, I understand there is much to criticise GW for, I can often be found doing it, but... for this.. really?
Uriels_Flame wrote: Maybe they'll have feedback forums on their website - Banhammer
Maybe they'll open up comments on their facebook page - Banhammer
Maybe they'll support their specialist game ranges - Banhammer
Maybe they'll support their player base vs. just pandering to the new kids with hordes o'cash their parents don't need - Winning!
Maybe they'll release all the armies before initiating a new edition - Banhammer
Maybe, Maybe, Maybe - there's 67+ pages of things "maybe" GW will do and ZERO precedence for it. The only thing they've consistently done is raise prices and sell a shitton of models.
Don't you worry folks, If you want IG/AM, I'll have them posted in my trade thread tomorrow.
I'm out of 40k. Send me your Horde Trolls and I'll just finish painting my Fantasy Empire.
LOL, so let me get this straight, you're getting out of 40k, which looks to be destroyed this edition (I have absolutely NO faith that GW won't screw this up and nobody else has any reason to believe otherwise either as far as I can tell) and instead playing another game made by the same company?
Fantasy is still GW. If they do it to 40k, I don't see why they won't do the same to WHFB eventually.
Maybe, Maybe, Maybe - there's 67+ pages of things "maybe" GW will do and ZERO precedence for it. The only thing they've consistently done is raise prices and sell a shitton of models.
Don't you worry folks, If you want IG/AM, I'll have them posted in my trade thread tomorrow.
I'm out of 40k. Send me your Horde Trolls and I'll just finish painting my Fantasy Empire.
I feel the same, but sleep on it. No reason to hurry this decision, if the other half the coin is to believed. Those folks will love to pick up your models at a premium, still.
If the book comes out and stinks, I'll probably be hitting up bartertown with my Sisters and Eldar armies. I just know if I'm not playing them, I won't paint them. I'll keep Dayglow Wing as a show piece and my Bretonnian to paint up. There are at least 3 list ideas I had planned to build after my Eldar, but I am no longer their crowd to be catered to.
However, I will be accepting Firestorm Armada, Cryx, Cricle of Orboros, Ariadna, Yu-Jing and collectors/painters models...
Here is the thing. IT is not about comparative value. It is about straight value.
If those other things are so valuable for 100 bucks, then buy them instead. Why is there even a conversation or comparison? It would be a no brainer that you should buy the others if you felt the values were equal but the prices are not.
It was not a bad analogy, do I wish I got more for my dollar? Sure I wish I got more for my dollar on everything. But that does not change the fact that if I feel like I am getting my value I will buy it, if I dont I wont.
If you dont feel like you are getting your value but continue to buy it that sounds like idiocy on your part, not GW.
Let me present it to you a different way. Since those games are so cheap it does not make sense to charge a lot for anything. I would not be willing to spend 100 to keep playing with 200 dollars worth of models. However for the 2k+ I have spent over the years I have no problem paying 100 every few years to keep playing a game with a much more wide spread audience, that I enjoy playing, and knowing that I can go to almost any city and be able to play the game. These niche games are great and cheap but are in no ways equal in the grand scheme of things that 40k offers.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
azreal13 wrote: If you want to quit, that's your choice, of course, I understand there is much to criticise GW for, I can often be found doing it, but... for this.. really?
From my standpoint, it's been pages and pages of ranting over next to nothing. I expected better out of certain posters, TBH.
If you dont feel like you are getting your value but continue to buy it that sounds like idiocy on your part, not GW.
There are reasons why the idiom "a fool and his money are soon parted," exist. If you can separate yourself from the adoration of 40k and compare two similar companies (or all the similar companies) that offer you a service, wargaming as a hobby, choose which one legitimately gives you the best value for your dollar? Value in terms of measurable quality of content, customer support, product longevity, and player/community support.
Breaking it down objectively will always leave Games Workshop and their products at the bottom of that list. Our love of Warhammer 40k and our Spess Mehrines and what not obfuscates rational judgement. Sunk cost also does this.
I'm not saying you're a fool for buying GW products or liking 40k, but to ignore their business practices or accept them blindly, including price, is foolish. They could do better. And we should spend our money better.
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
You seem to be implying that you won't be tabled by an army of riptides.
They already have done worse to Fantasy, but there's no one up in arms as no one cares.
I've been around long enough to play all editions of 40k and this is by far the the biggest bunch of crap I've ever seen.
They can't do this amount of crap to Fantasy because they've already run off everyone with their tinkering - but for some reason 40k is the only thing that generates the nerd rage.
Enjoy the rest of the 40+pages to come of rage/quit or rationalization of why 7th ed of GW40k will be the best eva!
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
You seem to be implying that you won't be tabled by an army of riptides.
I won't be. Not after I have two Revenant Titans standing in as many voidshields I can further buy.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
I just don't intend to regularly play Unbound games, and sure as hell won't be playing ANY as pick up games. You can too!
Honestly, I have reservations, I really do, but I'm just not willing to throw myself out of the window yet.
Others are, inexplicably, reminding me of these guys..
Jaceevoke wrote: I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the cost of the rulebook...
Because we only got the last one.
2 years really isn't that short of a time frame, it just feels short because we're used to it being longer.
What is the renewal timetable for comparative games? How long as Infinity or Warmahordes gone between editions?
Oh dear god I am so glad I just traded my IG, oops I mean AM, for another pile of privateer press models. I'm running outta stuff to paint anyway, and 40k looks like it is about to be a clusterfeth...
Believe it or not there's a whole forum dedicated to Warmachine on this very site. Go there.
I'm just as concerned as anyone with these 7ed changes but comments like the above add nothing of value. And yes, I know that this doesn't either.
It just staggers the mind as to how so many people who only wish to dance on GWs grave fill their time with posting on GW threads/topics.
I do find it very interesting that you bash my comment AFTER editing out my answer to the previous question that Warmahordes is on 2nd edition after TEN YEARS! Way to go purposefully editing out my contribution to the conversation, so that you can say that I'm dancing on GWs grave. You know this game that I have played since Rogue Trader days that I just traded off my last 40k minis because I can no longer in anyway support how they abuse their customers by putting out a ridiculously poor product. I fail to see how my unedited comments failed to add to the conversation.
Could be a good thing to happen maybe it will seperate the game for those who want to play WAAC with ridiculous combos and those who want to play normally
I'm trying to remain optimistic, I really am, but the first thought upon reading the unbound/battle forged thing was "dear God, what have they done". I'll wait and see what it does, but if this truly pushes 40k from being a "game" to being simply an exercise in collecting models and going "pew pew", this may be the straw that breaks my back for 40k and Games Workshop in general.
I'm going to assume that no force org is a special game scenario that wasn't couched correctly by the article author. If it is not it has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen in gaming. 40k is not like WarmaHordes, that is built around taking whatever you want, force org makes the lists some what balanced. Removing it requires the game to be rebalanced from the ground up.
Either way, I'm not buying it at least until the fall after things sort out. It's not like I play much anyway being as csm player.
If you dont feel like you are getting your value but continue to buy it that sounds like idiocy on your part, not GW.
There are reasons why the idiom "a fool and his money are soon parted," exist. If you can separate yourself from the adoration of 40k and compare two similar companies (or all the similar companies) that offer you a service, wargaming as a hobby, choose which one legitimately gives you the best value for your dollar? Value in terms of measurable quality of content, customer support, product longevity, and player/community support.
Breaking it down objectively will always leave Games Workshop and their products at the bottom of that list. Our love of Warhammer 40k and our Spess Mehrines and what not obfuscates rational judgement. Sunk cost also does this.
I'm not saying you're a fool for buying GW products or liking 40k, but to ignore their business practices or accept them blindly, including price, is foolish. They could do better. And we should spend our money better.
I have tried other systems, and I just dont get the value that I do for 40k. I can go to any city and play 40k, I can go to plenty of 2 day tournaments(there are 4-5 within the next three months that I could easily attend). I get to convert and paint and play whatever I want and make it my own. I never said I was a fan of their business practices and the value you get from a product is 100% subjective.
You cant objectively value those things because the weight an individual places on each thing is going to be different. I have seen many games come and go over the years. GW wins in longevity. I have models that are 20 years old that I can still play with today. I actually throughly enjoyed 6th edition, much more than other games I have tried. Player and community support? See the above comments. Player support? Over the years I have probably gotten a thousand or more in replacements or free things from GW.
So once again you are trying to make an objective argument that is based in subjective views. Also lets do actual amounts we pay versus retail. I never see discounts on warmachine infinity etc but I can always get GW for 25% off if I want to.
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
You seem to be implying that you won't be tabled by an army of riptides.
You are also implying that tabling your opponent will still be an auto win.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
I just don't intend to regularly play Unbound games, and sure as hell won't be playing ANY as pick up games. You can too!
Honestly, I have reservations, I really do, but I'm just not willing to throw myself out of the window yet.
Others are, inexplicably, reminding me of these guys..
If your opponents want to use over-abusive armies, than don't play against them that's all.
I play with friends, we are 12 in this group and no one wants to play with these rules = we will keep playing with the previous ones.
This situation reminds me of Microsoft Windows : windows XP was very good and was mainely used. Windows Vista was a piece of scrap and nobody used it, peoples kept running with their old be reliable XP. Microsoft had no choice but to offer an new version to correct the situation.
If gamers don't buy and play the new W40k rules, than GW would have to correct the situation to keep their gamers hooked on W40k.
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
You seem to be implying that you won't be tabled by an army of riptides.
I won't be. Not after I have two Revenant Titans standing in as many voidshields I can further buy.
Little did you know, that THIS SUMMER...
INTRODUCING
*drumroll*
RIPTIDE TITANS WITH Z STRENGTH WEAPONS.
Z STRENGTH DAMAGE TABLE:
1 - weapons malfunction: your mega blaster super death fire sunstrike alpha launcher explodes, you must rip the gun off your model and purchase a new one
2 - reality tear: the sheer awesomeness of your guns have torn a hole in reality, now you must put 10k point of units from Codex: Chaos Demon Emperor Clones. If you do not have 10k points of CCDEC units, you lose the game and must kill yourself
3 - boom shokka lokka - the result explosion from your gun kills 50% of your opponent's army and he/she must immediately donate d6 x $100 to Games Workshop
4 through 6 - whatever we forgot to write these rules, deal with it
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 years really isn't that short of a time frame, it just feels short because we're used to it being longer.
Yes it is. Look at the other games listed. 2 years is nothing. And it means one of two things:
1. GW know 6th is a mess, so have 7th to fix it (but this would imply that they acknowledge the game is problems).
2. They just want to boost the figures for that quarter, and edition releases always boost sales.
Given that we have no indication that the people writing the game understand the game they're writing (Ref. everything they've done for the past year, their obsession with 'Forging a Narrative'), my money's on the former: A cynical cash-grap to tick a box in a quarterly report.
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
Don't be surprised if the concept of troops being the only scoring units goes away. After all, we can't have unbound armies getting crushed because the "awesome" all-LRBT army the WD author is going to to buy can't claim objectives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commander_Farsight wrote: What do you guys make of the Psychic Phase and the open FOC now form the leaked White Dwarf issue?
Stupid as hell. But that's what we should expect from GW, stupid changes for the sake of having changes.
meecham63 wrote: If your opponents want to use over-abusive armies, than don't play against them that's all.
I read this and my mind immediately went to "if your opponents want to try and use the rules of the game you're playing to try and win, don't play against them". I'm not a WAAC player by any means, but it just seems comically silly to me that such things even have to be said.
I play with friends, we are 12 in this group and no one wants to play with these rules = we will keep playing with the previous ones.
This situation reminds me of Microsoft Windows : windows XP was very good and was mainely used. Windows Vista was a piece of scrap and nobody used it, peoples kept running with their old be reliable XP. Microsoft had no choice but to offer an new version to correct the situation.
If gamers don't buy and play the new W40k rules, than GW would have to correct the situation to keep their gamers hooked on W40k.
It's possible that many people will stay with the old edition, but rarely (ever?) is a split in the community to be good for that community.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
Actually, "verbatim", it says 4 Riptides and a bunch of Broadsides.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
People are reacting to Games Workshop's own attempt to present 7th edition in the best possible light. They put their best foot forward, and it has gangrene on it.
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
Don't be surprised if the concept of troops being the only scoring units goes away. After all, we can't have unbound armies getting crushed because the "awesome" all-LRBT army the WD author is going to to buy can't claim objectives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commander_Farsight wrote: What do you guys make of the Psychic Phase and the open FOC now form the leaked White Dwarf issue?
Stupid as hell. But that's what we should expect from GW, stupid changes for the sake of having changes.
To be honest it really pisses me off how much we have to pay for this hobby sometimes. Like they are just racking in the cash by putting out a new book, when arguably, it really isnt needed yet. I would be fine with another year or two of 6th edition thank you.
meecham63 wrote: If your opponents want to use over-abusive armies, than don't play against them that's all.
I play with friends,...
...and that's why you're not understanding what people are cranky about.
For those of us who play predominantly pick up or tournament games, it's not as simple as just ignoring the bits of the game you don't like if you actually want to get in any games at all.
If gamers don't buy and play the new W40k rules, than GW would have to correct the situation to keep their gamers hooked on W40k.
Which is presumably why we have 7th edition coming out 2 years after 6th.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
Actually, "verbatim", it says 4 Riptides and a bunch of Broadsides.
"Verbatim" it says all his Riptides (last count 4)
Peregrine wrote: Don't be surprised if the concept of troops being the only scoring units goes away. After all, we can't have unbound armies getting crushed because the "awesome" all-LRBT army the WD author is going to to buy can't claim objectives..
Yeah, it wouldn't be too surprising if all units in Unbound armies count as scoring, ala Knights.
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 years really isn't that short of a time frame, it just feels short because we're used to it being longer.
Yes it is. Look at the other games listed. 2 years is nothing. And it means one of two things:
1. GW know 6th is a mess, so have 7th to fix it (but this would imply that they acknowledge the game is problems).
2. They just want to boost the figures for that quarter, and edition releases always boost sales.
Given that we have no indication that the people writing the game understand the game they're writing (Ref. everything they've done for the past year, their obsession with 'Forging a Narrative'), my money's on the former: A cynical cash-grap to tick a box in a quarterly report.
In all the ways 40k can't be compared to the other games due to poor quality of rules, scale of the game and scope of the setting and now we want to compare how long the edition lasted?
Like I said, if 2 years becomes the new norm but they're actively correcting things with each new ruleset, I'm okay with that. If this ruleset, or any other one after this doesn't and actually makes the game a broken mess, then I'll be moving away from 40k and looking at Fantasy, or another system entirely until things change. I like40k, but I can't ethically support a system that's being turned into a quick cash in and if the rules turn out to be that then I'll be on hiatus from it fro a while.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
Actually, "verbatim", it says 4 Riptides and a bunch of Broadsides.
read it again, the article refers to "Glenn" having 4 riptides (now).....and using his 4....and lots of broadsides.....
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
I just don't intend to regularly play Unbound games, and sure as hell won't be playing ANY as pick up games. You can too!
Honestly, I have reservations, I really do, but I'm just not willing to throw myself out of the window yet.
Others are, inexplicably, reminding me of these guys..
Meh it's just, I've been frustrated for so long and this is just touching on the last straw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mitch_rifle wrote: Could be a good thing to happen maybe it will seperate the game for those who want to play WAAC with ridiculous combos and those who want to play normally
Until you have the guy wanting to play his battlesuit/riptide spam army because he just likes them.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
Actually, "verbatim", it says 4 Riptides and a bunch of Broadsides.
"Verbatim" it says all his Riptides (last count 4)
And that's not an army made completely of Riptides, it's 4 Riptides AND Broadsides. Words mean things and if we're going to use them we should do so correctly. We already ruined "literally" lets not ruin "verbatim" while we're at it.
mitch_rifle wrote: Could be a good thing to happen maybe it will seperate the game for those who want to play WAAC with ridiculous combos and those who want to play normally
Until you have the guy wanting to play his battlesuit/riptide spam army because he just likes them.
Which if we had better rules, there wouldn't be this problem, sadly. I, too, would love a Quint-tide army because Giant Robots are awesome. Who doesn't?
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
The WD scan states verbatim that you can literally take an army of riptides. If you feel that throwing in the towel is an "overreaction" to that, then I envy you for your Zen mastery.
Actually, "verbatim", it says 4 Riptides and a bunch of Broadsides.
read it again, the article refers to "Glenn" having 4 riptides (now).....and using his 4....and lots of broadsides.....
I don't need to read it again because apparently I'm the only one paying attention to what it actually says. 4 Riptides + a bunch of Broadsides is not the magazine saying "verbatim" that he's taking an Army of Riptides, that's implied, not explicitly stated.
And with how often WD gets rules wrong I'm not even counting on that idea being correct.
This might help balance an Unbound list vs. a battle-forged list.
Battle-forged - you obey all FOC rules and stick to one Codex.
If you bring a battle-forged list and play against an unbound list you immediately receive the following VP bonuses.
You receive Victory Points determined by what your OPPONENT brings.
For every Codex/Dataslate/Formation after the first one that your opponent brings, you receive two VPs.
For every duplicate of a unit your opponent brings (other than troops and their transports) you receive one VP.
For every superheavy your opponent brings you receive five VPs.
For every flyer (including FMC) after the first one your opponent brings, you receive two VPs.
For every MC your opponent brings after the first one, you receive two VPs.
For every D strength weapon your opponent brings, you receive three VPs.
For every 2++ rerollable your opponent rolls during the game you immediately receive seven VPs.
Victory Point conditions stack and are cumulative. Ergo, the second FMC in your opponent's list will yield you five VPs (+2 flyer, +2 MC, +1 duplicate unit).
In all instances in which a dispute arises the maximum number of VPs must be conveyed to the battle-forged list player.
James, you should have figured out by now that you shouldn't be posting that in this thread as if it's worth gak. We don't need more people mistaking it for actual rumours.
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
Don't be surprised if the concept of troops being the only scoring units goes away. After all, we can't have unbound armies getting crushed because the "awesome" all-LRBT army the WD author is going to to buy can't claim objectives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commander_Farsight wrote: What do you guys make of the Psychic Phase and the open FOC now form the leaked White Dwarf issue?
Stupid as hell. But that's what we should expect from GW, stupid changes for the sake of having changes.
Wow cool wow all tank regiment! It's not like FW already maeks that and we are slightly stepping on their toes or anything
James, you should have figured out by now that you shouldn't be posting that in this thread as if it's worth gak. We don't need more people mistaking it for actual rumours.
....Again.
Seriously take it to Proposed Rules if you're going to post it.
azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I do believe that wagamers are worse than football (soccer) fans when it comes to overreacting to little or no information and a whole load of supposition.
People are reacting to Games Workshop's own attempt to present 7th edition in the best possible light. They put their best foot forward, and it has gangrene on it.
Make no assumptions on that, look at some of the shoddy paint jobs on some recent releases, GW have repeatedly failed to present their products in the best light, even when the product has actually been decent.
Alright I was trying to be respectful but it seems that you are not capable of giving the same courtesy in response so lets go through your points one by one.
"So you don't like any other game (odd), great."
I didnt say I didnt like other games, I said I did not enjoy them enough to invest instead of getting more 40k
"I have traveled across the USA over 4 years and have found 40k commuinities and communities for every other game routinely mentioned on Dakka. I know of just as many Malifaux, Infinity, and Warmachine events as I do 40k."
and I have been playing for 15 years and I have huge communities come and go. ALWAYS they are going to be the one that topples GW, and yet many of them are gone and GW is still here.
"Almost every major GT this year features these events and they are usually sponsored or supported by the company that makes said product. And volunteers identified by the companies are running slow grow events, leagues, tournaments, etc. all supported by the companies, too. They feature fully supported social media functions, open play tested rules, up-to-date FAQs, and tournament season rules."
and none of these games offer the same versatility in armies, models, and rules interactions. They are small, they started in recent years, they are dealing with a different structure. They are also much smaller so it will be interesting to see how they continue going forward, if they maintain the functions the same way. It is too new to tell and make any conjectures.
"And you never see discounts on Infinity, Warmachine, etc? You're just being plain dumb now:
and I was talking about my local game store that I try to support so once again your arguement is not valid. I used to get 20-25% in store for GW and they didnt discount warmachine. That is the experience I was talking about.
"And those games are cheaper to play. Stop talking out your bum. "
I said value not price, so pull the cotton out of your ears. Yes you can play those games for cheaper but it doesnt mean that I am getting the same VALUE for my investment. Or is that a concept that is too difficult for you?
"I said objective. Here are objective facts. GW's community support is non-existent, their rules are overpriced and slipshod, their model quality is not "the best in the industry" or shall we discuss Finecast? Yes, they have the same customer service record as all the other companies: when you have a dud model, you get a free replacement in the mail 99 out of 100 times if you're not taking advantage of the company. They have checked one box. Great. "
Community support is based on what you want from them. I would like them to do more so I will agree on that front. Once again overpriced is subjective so you cant say it is or isnt, the level of slipshod is also subjective. Are the rules as tight as others? Nope but that is not a big deal in my decision making so I dont value it highly. For the most part I enjoy playing and there are not problems with the rules that are not easily resolved. Best in the industry is also subjective combined with price, are they the best on all models? Nope but across everything? I have never had a problem with finecast, in fact it has been better for me than metals. Didnt get any bubbles and it was easier to convert and work with so once again SUBJECTIVE OPINION. How many companies do you know that will send you a new plastic kit when you open a 15 year old box and it is missing a piece? Go on? I called about my old screamer killer carnifex missing a claw and they sent me a new plastic one. Go on, how many companies would do that?
So you are countering my subjective view with your own subjective view then calling me an idiot because I call your subjective view a subjective view. I didnt say that the other games were bad, I said I did not enjoy them to the same extent. Price =/ Value, or is that something that doesnt register to you? I could play warmachine for less than 40k that is true, but it doesn't mean that per dollar I am getting the same subjective value.
James, you should have figured out by now that you shouldn't be posting that in this thread as if it's worth gak. We don't need more people mistaking it for actual rumours.
Well, we are in a rumours section...
You have to admit it makes taking spam/deathstars a little less enticing.
There is still too many unknowns about 7th edition and the 'unbound' army rules to make any kind of real judgements. Often things that sound absurd turn out to be relatively fine once you see the whole puzzle put together.
However, part of keeping that positive outlook is trust in the company producing the rules/game that they have a firm understanding of how their rules changes affect different gaming circles. Unfortunately, GW has shown in the past couple years an increasing detachment from either knowing what their rules changes are doing to certain segments of their player base, or else not caring what their rules changes are doing…and either answer is pretty much equally troubling.
Without seeing the entirety of the 7th edition rules, it seems like the concept of the 'unbound' (no FOC) army being able to be relatively balanced against a 'battle-forged' (FOC army) rests almost solely upon whatever those 'in-game bonuses' a player using a battle-forged army gains. However, 40K is such a massive unbalanced game that it seems almost impossible to come up with any sort of single 'in-game bonus' that could make up for the other player getting to completely ignore the FOC.
The reason for this is because frankly there are units that are way too good for their points cost compared to other units and their relative points cost. Throughout the history of 40k, those players who like to win their games, naturally looked at which units were undercoated for their value, and stuffed as many of those units into their army as they could. Then when 6th edition was released and allies came into play, players now had more opportunity than ever to circumvent the FOC (through the ally rules) to include even more of these undercosted units into their armies. This created a much greater imbalance than ever before between the 'hardcore' army list and the casual 'theme' army list…the latter would be completely obliterated by the former, where in previous editions of the game, it wasn't quite so big a disparity, because armies were still limited by a single FOC and a single codex (not including the first two editions of the game, which also had rules for allies).
The concept of an 'unbound' army takes this absurdity to almost its absolute peak. Now a player's army can be comprised of only the most points efficient units in the game, with the *only* restriction seeming to be the new ally matrix (and we still do not know how this is organized).
However, if you're giving a battle-forged force bonuses to combat those gained by a player taking an unbound army, how can this be done? How can you create bonuses that are fair if the opponent is taking a completely 'fluffy' unbound army filled with overcosted (comparatively weak) units vs. if the opponent is taking an army filed with only the most undercosted (comparatively powerful) units in the game? It just doesn't seem possible. Either these bonuses are so amazing that a battle-forged army will walk all over a weak unbound army all day long or the bonuses are so pathetic that they won't come even close to making up for an army across the table that is going to completely destroy your battle-forged force in a few turns.
If you look how GW handled Escalation's 'in-game bonuses' when playing against a Lord of War, I think you get a big clue to how terrible this is likely going to be. In Escalation, if one side has a Lord of War and the other player doesn't, the side without the Lord of War gets a special Warlord table (which is mediocre at best) and damaging Lords of War gives out additional VPs to the opponent. If a player is taking a fairly benign Lord of War, like a Baneblade, then these compensation bonuses are pretty fair…but as soon as a Lord of War enters the game with a ranged D-weapon, those compensation bonuses are completely pathetic because of how ridiculously undercosted ranged D-weapons are.
And that is the biggest clue to me that GW just doesn't give a crap anymore. Any person or company that could put out a set of rules where ranged D-weapons cost the same amount of points as ANY other type of weapon either has no idea about how their rules function, or they don't care.
And I just don't see any evidence that they've learned anything since then, so frankly I'm expecting more of the same from these new rules, which is really, really bad news IMHO.
Well I've got my expectations sufficiently lowered enough I think. I'm fully mentally prepared to move onto something else if this update doesn't actually improve things. Which sucks as a choice but I WANT 40k to get better not worse.
I don't even know what to expect at this point, guess I should go with the old standby of "it'll be on fire and thrown at my head when I buy it via a trebuchet" just so things look better by comparison and I don't get my hopes too far up.
Yeah, the signs don't look good... but at least you may be able to more easily deny buffs to enemy units now. Hopefully it is not too much like the fantasy magic phase, as that has been very unpopular!
Objective cards sound interesting, though... I'm open to the idea, at least.
So... All through 6th I kept an eye on my local meta hoping things might improve and I could return to the game.
I think I'm now at the point where I can simply stop watching this thread, stop watching the meta and just enjoy the other games on the market now. I suppose I have just lost the last bit of interest I had.
There is a LOT of off-topic discussion going on this thread.
PLEASE STOP. This topic is of great interest to lots of people, so every off-topic post just adds needless bloat to the thread.
I will be going through and deleting OT posts for the last few pages, so PLEASE STOP discussing TV shows, other game company's business practices, etc, etc, etc.
Leth wrote: Alright I was trying to be respectful but it seems that you are not capable of giving the same courtesy in response so lets go through your points one by one.
"So you don't like any other game (odd), great."
I didnt say I didnt like other games, I said I did not enjoy them enough to invest instead of getting more 40k
"I have traveled across the USA over 4 years and have found 40k commuinities and communities for every other game routinely mentioned on Dakka. I know of just as many Malifaux, Infinity, and Warmachine events as I do 40k."
and I have been playing for 15 years and I have huge communities come and go. ALWAYS they are going to be the one that topples GW, and yet many of them are gone and GW is still here.
"Almost every major GT this year features these events and they are usually sponsored or supported by the company that makes said product. And volunteers identified by the companies are running slow grow events, leagues, tournaments, etc. all supported by the companies, too. They feature fully supported social media functions, open play tested rules, up-to-date FAQs, and tournament season rules."
and none of these games offer the same versatility in armies, models, and rules interactions. They are small, they started in recent years, they are dealing with a different structure. They are also much smaller so it will be interesting to see how they continue going forward, if they maintain the functions the same way. It is too new to tell and make any conjectures.
"And you never see discounts on Infinity, Warmachine, etc? You're just being plain dumb now:
and I was talking about my local game store that I try to support so once again your arguement is not valid. I used to get 20-25% in store for GW and they didnt discount warmachine. That is the experience I was talking about.
"And those games are cheaper to play. Stop talking out your bum. "
I said value not price, so pull the cotton out of your ears. Yes you can play those games for cheaper but it doesnt mean that I am getting the same VALUE for my investment. Or is that a concept that is too difficult for you?
"I said objective. Here are objective facts. GW's community support is non-existent, their rules are overpriced and slipshod, their model quality is not "the best in the industry" or shall we discuss Finecast? Yes, they have the same customer service record as all the other companies: when you have a dud model, you get a free replacement in the mail 99 out of 100 times if you're not taking advantage of the company. They have checked one box. Great. "
Community support is based on what you want from them. I would like them to do more so I will agree on that front. Once again overpriced is subjective so you cant say it is or isnt, the level of slipshod is also subjective. Are the rules as tight as others? Nope but that is not a big deal in my decision making so I dont value it highly. For the most part I enjoy playing and there are not problems with the rules that are not easily resolved. Best in the industry is also subjective combined with price, are they the best on all models? Nope but across everything? I have never had a problem with finecast, in fact it has been better for me than metals. Didnt get any bubbles and it was easier to convert and work with so once again SUBJECTIVE OPINION. How many companies do you know that will send you a new plastic kit when you open a 15 year old box and it is missing a piece? Go on? I called about my old screamer killer carnifex missing a claw and they sent me a new plastic one. Go on, how many companies would do that?
So you are countering my subjective view with your own subjective view then calling me an idiot because I call your subjective view a subjective view. I didnt say that the other games were bad, I said I did not enjoy them to the same extent. Price =/ Value, or is that something that doesnt register to you? I could play warmachine for less than 40k that is true, but it doesn't mean that per dollar I am getting the same subjective value.
Ok. Not liking other games as much is fine, but is subjective.
Being in the game for 15 years isn't that long. I've been in it for 25, and have seen more companies come and go. Others have been in longer. It's not a pissing contest. Frankly I haven't heard of other games "toppling GW" before, but now that other games have ten plus years in the industry GW is quickly loosing its "big dog" status,
I do find it interesting that you used to get 25% discounts on GW, but no longer. Really a discount has nothing to do with the manufacturer in thus industry. When you get a discount your retailer is giving you a deal. Online retailers giving 20% off are making it up in volume. GW still gets their full cut. Don't give them any credit for your LGS's discounts.
Personally I do not find as much "value" with GW as you describe it. I find too large of the player base in my age range to be Waac, and other less nice words. I'd rather play a more fun game, with better rules (yes it's subjective) than give that soulless corporation anymore of my money.
The community is better, the company player support is better, the rules are better and the tourney scene (if you're into that) is better with other games at this point. Those other games have also proven that they're here to stay, and more vets are bailing out for them everyday.
You could already take 6 Riptides/Heldrakes in a double force organization game. That is the way GW wanted you to play the game in 6th plus escalation and all the other things. Unbounded just allows you to take infinite Riptides. This is a logical escalation of the direction GW was going.
Remember that space marine chapter that was $11,690? All the special edition codices that are double the price? The constant drip of DLC? People buy it. Why limit these people? Unbound them!
Maybe not all of you can keep up with the wallet hammer, but understand that you are not GW's key demographic.
They may WANT to get rid of you as a customer. They hate complainers and will take zero criticism on Youtube or Facebook. They want the obedient 1% that buys everything they put out who are fanatical and have 1 million point of miniatures, buy every codex as special edition, and enjoy games that include 25 Riptides (someone will buy this many easily).
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
You can still get points for killing the Warlord and First Blood, etc right? So in the end if no scoring units then only those types of killing points will decide who wins. Right? lol
Leth wrote: So if your army of riptides loses because I got one victory point on turn two and you have no scoring units. Is your army of riptides still good?
You can still get points for killing the Warlord and First Blood, etc right? So in the end if no scoring units then only those types of killing points will decide who wins. Right? lol
impossible to say as we wont know till more official rules drop. For all we know with unbound everything counts as scoring
Leth wrote: Alright I was trying to be respectful but it seems that you are not capable of giving the same courtesy in response so lets go through your points one by one.
"So you don't like any other game (odd), great."
I didnt say I didnt like other games, I said I did not enjoy them enough to invest instead of getting more 40k
"I have traveled across the USA over 4 years and have found 40k commuinities and communities for every other game routinely mentioned on Dakka. I know of just as many Malifaux, Infinity, and Warmachine events as I do 40k."
and I have been playing for 15 years and I have huge communities come and go. ALWAYS they are going to be the one that topples GW, and yet many of them are gone and GW is still here.
"Almost every major GT this year features these events and they are usually sponsored or supported by the company that makes said product. And volunteers identified by the companies are running slow grow events, leagues, tournaments, etc. all supported by the companies, too. They feature fully supported social media functions, open play tested rules, up-to-date FAQs, and tournament season rules."
and none of these games offer the same versatility in armies, models, and rules interactions. They are small, they started in recent years, they are dealing with a different structure. They are also much smaller so it will be interesting to see how they continue going forward, if they maintain the functions the same way. It is too new to tell and make any conjectures.
"And you never see discounts on Infinity, Warmachine, etc? You're just being plain dumb now:
and I was talking about my local game store that I try to support so once again your arguement is not valid. I used to get 20-25% in store for GW and they didnt discount warmachine. That is the experience I was talking about.
"And those games are cheaper to play. Stop talking out your bum. "
I said value not price, so pull the cotton out of your ears. Yes you can play those games for cheaper but it doesnt mean that I am getting the same VALUE for my investment. Or is that a concept that is too difficult for you?
"I said objective. Here are objective facts. GW's community support is non-existent, their rules are overpriced and slipshod, their model quality is not "the best in the industry" or shall we discuss Finecast? Yes, they have the same customer service record as all the other companies: when you have a dud model, you get a free replacement in the mail 99 out of 100 times if you're not taking advantage of the company. They have checked one box. Great. "
Community support is based on what you want from them. I would like them to do more so I will agree on that front. Once again overpriced is subjective so you cant say it is or isnt, the level of slipshod is also subjective. Are the rules as tight as others? Nope but that is not a big deal in my decision making so I dont value it highly. For the most part I enjoy playing and there are not problems with the rules that are not easily resolved. Best in the industry is also subjective combined with price, are they the best on all models? Nope but across everything? I have never had a problem with finecast, in fact it has been better for me than metals. Didnt get any bubbles and it was easier to convert and work with so once again SUBJECTIVE OPINION. How many companies do you know that will send you a new plastic kit when you open a 15 year old box and it is missing a piece? Go on? I called about my old screamer killer carnifex missing a claw and they sent me a new plastic one. Go on, how many companies would do that?
So you are countering my subjective view with your own subjective view then calling me an idiot because I call your subjective view a subjective view. I didnt say that the other games were bad, I said I did not enjoy them to the same extent. Price =/ Value, or is that something that doesnt register to you? I could play warmachine for less than 40k that is true, but it doesn't mean that per dollar I am getting the same subjective value.
Ok. Not liking other games as much is fine, but is subjective.
Being in the game for 15 years isn't that long. I've been in it for 25, and have seen more companies come and go. Others have been in longer. It's not a pissing contest. Frankly I haven't heard of other games "toppling GW" before, but now that other games have ten plus years in the industry GW is quickly loosing its "big dog" status,
I do find it interesting that you used to get 25% discounts on GW, but no longer. Really a discount has nothing to do with the manufacturer in thus industry. When you get a discount your retailer is giving you a deal. Online retailers giving 20% off are making it up in volume. GW still gets their full cut. Don't give them any credit for your LGS's discounts.
Personally I do not find as much "value" with GW as you describe it. I find too large of the player base in my age range to be Waac, and other less nice words. I'd rather play a more fun game, with better rules (yes it's subjective) than give that soulless corporation anymore of my money.
The community is better, the company player support is better, the rules are better and the tourney scene (if you're into that) is better with other games at this point. Those other games have also proven that they're here to stay, and more vets are bailing out for them everyday.
I actually lost the discount because I moved and my local game store only does 10. I never said it was a pissing contest, he was mentioning his 4 years as if it was more significant than mine. I dont think mine is but he started the pissing contest, I just chugged a beer and found a wall.
Also I have NO problem with someone else getting different value from GW, that is 100% okay for me, but for people to argue that their subjective opinion is anything but and then insult people who have different values is what I have a problem with. I fully support spending your money where you want. I fully support your artistic preferences. Just dont insult people with different ones, or state your preferences as fact.
I have found that the 40k tourney scene is a lot of fun for me, that warmachines rules did not appeal to me, even in casual games. I realized that for the 40k tournament scene the problem was more me than anything else. I can still bring a non optimized list and play to the mission and do okay, which is all I want. I was bringing gak lists and was not very good. Once I fixed that it was a lot more fun.
Personally I like both the Options of Unbound vs. Battle-Forged.
Unbound: For myself it will allow me to play a few of the armies I always wanted to play.
>Space Wolves with Harlequin Allies and Leman Tanks.
>Space Marine Armored Company
>Paladin/Purifier/Inceptor only Army without taking 2 Special Characters.
For a friend of mine: >His one squad of Sisters that has without buying more overpriced Models.
>All Dreadnaught Army.
>Genestealer Cult Army.
40k radio said on their Facebook that battle forged armies gain race specific bonuses. That might be useful enough to help counteract unbound shenanigans. Also scoring units might well be far more important with the new mission cards. We are looking through a very tiny window at a very large animal here. The good thing is we should be getting a bigger picture very rapidly as we are just over 2 weeks from the release.
Cynical me is looking at this and thinking 'is this slightly odd timing?'
IIRC 5th and 6th editions were released in mid July 2008 & late June/early July 2012.
Having 7th edition up for pre-order May 24th seems like it might just be scraping in to the 2013-2014 financial year for what would presumably be their single biggest product release.
ClockworkZion wrote: In all the ways 40k can't be compared to the other games due to poor quality of rules, scale of the game and scope of the setting and now we want to compare how long the edition lasted?
*record scratch*
Wait... we can't compare 40K to other war games?
ClockworkZion wrote: Like I said, if 2 years becomes the new norm but they're actively correcting things with each new ruleset, I'm okay with that.
Good for you. I'm not ok with buying a giant expensive hardback that will be obselete in two years time.
It feels like the concept of the two list strategies will just further divide the Warhammer 40k community. Or maybe they are specifically ignored along the lines of mysterious terrain (who uses that, show of hands?).
TheKbob wrote: It feels like the concept of the two list strategies will just further divide the Warhammer 40k community. Or maybe they are specifically ignored along the lines of mysterious terrain (who uses that, show of hands?).
Divide the 40K community? But all 40K players get together with friends for a casual bout of narrative forging... don't they? Are you saying that not everyone plays the same way the GW design team does?
It depends if they retro or not. In 2nd you just got one.
Im fully expecting to have to buy the objective cards separately I also wouldnt be shocked if they changed the size and or shape of the standard templates. I assume the cards will likely come in the starter set, if there is a 7th starter set which I assume they will, but they will have to sell the cards separately for the people that dont buy the starter
ClockworkZion wrote: In all the ways 40k can't be compared to the other games due to poor quality of rules, scale of the game and scope of the setting and now we want to compare how long the edition lasted?
*record scratch*
Wait... we can't compare 40K to other war games?
What's the point if every time it just ends up being highlighting what other companies are doing and how it's different? We already know GW does things differently, so I'm not sure what the point really is of going down that road about every single thing. It's like listing all the ways an orange is not an apple on an almost constant basis.
It think it will break down like this:
>Those who hate taking “Mandatory Units” are going to play “Unbound”
>Those who love using their Troops will stay with “Battle-Forged” List
>Casual Players will probably stick with “Battle Forged List”
>Fluffily Players will end up going with “Unbound” most of the time.
>WAAC will Play “Unbound”.
>TFG will play what ever you don’t like.
ClockworkZion wrote: What's the point if every time it just ends up being highlighting what other companies are doing and how it's different? We already know GW does things differently, so I'm not sure what the point really is of going down that road about every single thing. It's like listing all the ways an orange is not an apple on an almost constant basis.
From my perspective, it's that this hobby isn't just Games Workshop. The notion that it is just them comes from us brought into war gaming because they were the biggest dog. Or for many moons ago, the only dog. When we compare the games, yes, apples to oranges in terms of design. Comparing the companies, however, war game company to war game company, we see the failings of the former versus the new breed of the latter.
Which realistically, it's just the new upstarts doing what Games Workshop did in the past to get them where they are today.
We might be a vocal lot of rabble rousers having our internet forum tussles, but this discussion of "what's coming?" will be on every gaming groups minds and discussions platforms for the coming few weeks. After seeing many groups disbanding or shifting elsewhere, I can only see this measure expediting more folks to do the same. And that's not healthy for the company or the community of 40k. You may be left with one type of customer and is that healthy from a business perspective? I'd wager not.
From my perspective, it's taking a game I enjoyed in 5E and further shifting it away from that image.
Anpu42 wrote: It think it will break down like this:
>Those who hate taking “Mandatory Units” are going to play “Unbound”
>Those who love using their Troops will stay with “Battle-Forged” List
>Casual Players will probably stick with “Battle Forged List”
>Fluffily Players will end up going with “Unbound” most of the time.
>WAAC will Play “Unbound”.
>TFG will play what ever you don’t like.
Missing competitive players who will likely opt for battle-forged as it is likely what the comeptitive environment will use. And no, WAAC =/= competitive
I'm trying to decide if I love or hate this...I love Monster Mash with Demons, and that sounds awesome, being able to take all princes and greater demons. But having no rules feels a bit odd. I guess I'll give it a try. I'll try any game once.
My answer for almost everyones broken list is this:
500 conscripts
Characters/upgrades to taste.
Probably yarrick as one for the leadership tests/CC ability and then commissars to make sure they dont run. Maybe raven guard characters to give you outflank.
Good times
I am going to remain causciously optimistic until we see more rumors and it starts to fill out. I am really intrigued to see how the psychic phase is going to fill out. If there is a dispel pool that is going to be pretty significant
At this point it feels like the unbound vs. battle forged argument wont be settled until we see more and everyone seems to have their side.
I'm really curious to see how/if the ally matrix is overhauled. Also to see these "battle-forged buffs" that are supposedly tailored to each army.
In my heart-of-hearts I'm hoping for something more significant than a warlord trait or scout move. I'd love to see meaningful things that add to the fluff and experience. Off the top of my head I'm thinking discounts to tanks for AM, assault squads for BA etc. Maybe giving DE better poison when their adhere to the force org, or demons getting a free gift or two.
Leth wrote: My answer for almost everyones broken list is this:
500 conscripts
Characters/upgrades to taste.
Probably yarrick as one for the leadership tests/CC ability and then commissars to make sure they dont run. Maybe raven guard characters to give you outflank.
Good times
I am going to remain causciously optimistic until we see more rumors and it starts to fill out. I am really intrigued to see how the psychic phase is going to fill out. If there is a dispel pool that is going to be pretty significant
It makes me wonder if they are removing psyker hoods and deny the witch or editing them into the new rules.
I love the uninformed who think the competitive players will be the ones who want to play unbound 40k.
Reality check: competitive players want a balanced game, as it will benefit both those of us who want to have fun at events and those who play pickup games exclusively. You won't see unbound in reputable events.
Also, I can't help but laugh at those who feat an army of unbuffed Riptides. It is a nice way to identify those who have no idea of what they are talking about.
Leth wrote: My answer for almost everyones broken list is this:
500 conscripts
Characters/upgrades to taste.
Probably yarrick as one for the leadership tests/CC ability and then commissars to make sure they dont run. Maybe raven guard characters to give you outflank.
Good times
I am going to remain causciously optimistic until we see more rumors and it starts to fill out. I am really intrigued to see how the psychic phase is going to fill out. If there is a dispel pool that is going to be pretty significant
And how are you taking 500 Conscripts when they're a part of the Infantry Platoon? You still have to follow unit rules from what we can tell and Conscripts are a part of the Infantry Platoon, not accessible by other means.
Dropping the FOC doesn't change how a legal unit is built. I mean you can't just run 500 conscripts by themselves in Apoc without the rest of the party, so why claim it in Unbound?
Leth wrote: My answer for almost everyones broken list is this:
500 conscripts
Characters/upgrades to taste.
Probably yarrick as one for the leadership tests/CC ability and then commissars to make sure they dont run. Maybe raven guard characters to give you outflank.
Good times
I am going to remain causciously optimistic until we see more rumors and it starts to fill out. I am really intrigued to see how the psychic phase is going to fill out. If there is a dispel pool that is going to be pretty significant
It makes me wonder if they are removing psyker hoods and deny the witch or editing them into the new rules.
Psychic Hoods, Adamantium will, talisman of moloch etc will probably add additional dice to your pool/additional dice to an attempt targeting the bearer.
@TTW watch out with that last sentence, or it may be your last! (Russian roulette )
I'll let you guys try this out and I'll digest the findings to see if my marines get unboxed or if their box gets a nice little shipping label instead.
I see two problems with the new "dynamic gameflow":
1st Lot's of strategic options do not speed up things for people who like to think a little longer and strategic cards throwing in new objectives make the struggle to make a decision even worse.
2nd with the option of additional objectives I see players already dominating a game just stalling the game until they draw the right card to gain even more victory points.
Usually I am the optimist, but the "unbound" stuff sounds like complete bollocks.
No matter what benefits the restricted force would get, playing against unbound internet lists will be a miserable experience. I think people were mostly hoping for reigning in Deathstars. They are only getting worse it seems. Now we can also enjoy all wraith knight armies vs all conscript armies and everything in between...
Symbio Joe wrote: I see two problems with the new "dynamic gameflow":
1st Lot's of strategic options do not speed up things for people who like to think a little longer and strategic cards throwing in new objectives make the struggle to make a decision even worse.
2nd with the option of additional objectives I see players already dominating a game just stalling the game until they draw the right card to gain even more victory points.
I could see this, though the risk in stalling is that if your opponent is drawing and completing their turn-based objectives quickly, which might dig you into too greater a hole to work out of. The devil is in the details, but it could be a really neat wrinkle added to the game that forces people out of their play style by necessity -- or it could be a complete mess.
I mean it is entirely possible that they will be meant to fight each other, but the overreaction to these 2 pages is staggering.
We have no idea how these two army types will interact if at all.
I do not see them allowing you to take 8 Riptides against a normal list. There is no way to balance that short of some horrendous negatives to running a single model army.
As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.
We all heard that Escalation and such was being rolled into regular 40k. I don't really know how that ruleset works, or Apocalypse, but I believe they are very open to taking almost anything?
Could Unbound be the Apocalypse version that we've been hearing about?
I dotn see why everyone ia freaking out. I dont believe that the whole unbound and battlw forged lists are rhe real rules for normal 40k games. 40k codexs are designed around a FoC, it makes no sense and would destroy the game. Think about it, no one would bring unita everything would be singles or min. Example, you could take 10 individual Obliterators, or a ton of aingle tanks, artillery and that is so stupid. Think about the number of units of min termagants you could bring.... it becomes obviously too ridiculous to believe they will destroy the entire sixth edition, which is a few tweaks from being the best weve had for a take whatever you want and break the game edition. Nope not believing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Stop crying a.d worrying, unbound will not be in the same category as realy 40k.
6th edition is too close to being a great balanced edition for them to allow soemone to bring 10 single obliterators.
They had to something big to tbe book to sell it, so this is it. Calm down peope, GW isnt that dumb.
.
Cryx 4 lyfe 
)
