299
Post by: Kilkrazy
valace2 wrote:Where exactly does it say in that article does it say that Unbound armies will be fighting Battle Forge armies?
The wording is that, There's another way to use your miniatures
Can someone please explain to me where is says that this is going to happen?
I think that is an assumption people have made because of the amount of claims that you have to play with Forge World/Escalation/Whatever units because it is official rules.
In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.
Of course we have always been able to play Unbound games before GW gave us permission -- you don't need rules that in effect aren't rules -- so the key thing about the official rules is how well GW manage to make Unbound balance against Bound.
There is always a chance that GW will pull something awesome out of the bag in that respect, although based on prior experience I am dubious. However there is no point in prejudging a new rulebook.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
valace2 wrote:As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.
What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.
38617
Post by: valace2
 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: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 am thinking that is Apocalypse Lite.
GW is greedy, they are self serving and have lost their way from the days of Rogue Trader, but I would be willing to bet money that they are not intending these two army types to fight each other.
GW does not care much about balance, but this is simply impractical.
Why would they even bother releasing troops boxes anymore? That's why I think tabling isn't an autowin. If I can just table you with my 12 flyers why would I need scoring units.
If the two army types are separate, it could actually be a great thing, because psychic powers and allies are being addressed.
People need to chill the heck out.
37426
Post by: Idolator
Trasvi wrote: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.
Am I reading too much in to that?
This was covered extensively earlier in this thread.
No, you are not reading too much into this. It's a panic/fire sale. They have had two half years of decreasing revenues, this would have been the third. Had to do something. More and faster codex releases topped off by a complete rules change. Not everyone will buy every codex, but everyone that want's to play will have to buy the RULES!!!!!!!!!
38617
Post by: valace2
 Eldarain wrote:valace2 wrote:As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.
What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.
They would have to. Why bother awarding victory points if you are just going to be tabled.
If their sole goal is to get you to but Riptides and the like, why even continue releasing tiny troop squads.
Why bother designing new Storm Troopers.
If they want you to buy Riptides, and the general consensus is that people are going to abuse the heck out of this, but not just remove infantry from the game.
What is cooler a leman Russ tank or a bunch of Cadians? Automatically Appended Next Post:  Idolator wrote:Trasvi wrote: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.
Am I reading too much in to that?
This was covered extensively earlier in this thread.
No, you are not reading too much into this. It's a panic/fire sale. They have had two half years of decreasing revenues, this would have been the third. Had to do something. More and faster codex releases topped off by a complete rules change. Not everyone will buy every codex, but everyone that want's to play will have to buy the RULES!!!!!!!!!
See that's the funny part of this conversation. Go to Adepticon and check out the sheer number of players. GW is irking their customers, and maybe their profit is down a little, (just like every ther business out there) but they are still capturing the bulk of the mini gaming $£¥
81431
Post by: tag8833
 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.)
This is one of the reasons that I think the White Dwarf pages are a hoax.
1) There was no one out there complaining the FOC is too restrictive in 6th edition. Likewise there were no complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were rare.
2) There were countless complaints that the FOC wasn't restrictive enough. Likewise there were 100s of complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were too common.
3) The Unbound FOC was the #1 "most exciting" thing cited in the WD about 7th edition, when it was clearly going to be hugely unpopular, and the examples cited were likewise lists that would be hugely unpopular to play against.
4) The people who read White Dwarf are going to be serious 40k fans. That means they are going to immediately understand the ramifications.
5) There was nothing stopping you from ignoring the FOC for a Campaign or Narrative game. I guess the only thing stopping you was the willingness of your opponent, which is not fixed.
In short, I think GW is not stupid. The are greedy and short-sighted, but not stupid or evil. There might be a way in which short-sighted greed makes Unbound FOC options seem like a good idea (doubt it), but there is no way where writing the WD article in that fashion would be anything but stupid. The WD article isn't incompetent, it isn't oblivious it is stupid, and that doesn't seem like GW.
On the other side of the argument, a phoney WD article written in that way is sure to garner tons of attention (20 pages in this thread in 1 day). It is the perfect way to troll the community. We have a history of fakes being released to troll the 40k online community in the past. Decent quality on the fake, but logic clearly argues it is a fake.
One last thing, the new psychic powers available to everyone except tyranids echoes the Facebook post from the Knights release where "They can ally with anyone except tyranids" which became something of a punch line. It is the sort of inside joke that someone looking to troll the online community would include.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
valace2 wrote:
See that's the funny part of this conversation. Go to Adepticon and check out the sheer number of players. GW is irking their customers, and maybe their profit is down a little, (just like every ther business out there) but they are still capturing the bulk of the mini gaming $£¥
This isn't the thread for this, but there was another that discussed this. And actual market analysts are saying otherwise; that the market is seeing double digit growth while GW is seeing double digit decline.
I am hoping that we see clarity in issues such as Flying Monstrous Creatures (grant cover to vector strikes for infantry, no bouncing, no more area terrain cover saves while swooping, etc.) or some of the assault rules. We could handle these different ways to play if the fundamental mechanics are clear. The 24th of May could be a chance for things to change. The unprecedented 2 year turn around could also lead to an unprecedented swing back to Games Workshop welcoming the community with open arms?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.
67735
Post by: streetsamurai
Damn, this unbound thing seems like a terrible idea.
Still, I think that the 2 others new rules sounds good. Psycker were boring, adding a psychic phase will probably make them more interestning, and this daemonology school is very intriguing. Also, I think the secondary objective cards will bring a lot to the game. I always tought it was one of the best idea in Malifaux, so I'm happy to see a varaint of it enter 40k.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
I'm willing to hear 7th ed out.
But if it doesn't impress me it's not coming home with me.
I have literally stupid numbers of GW models already. I've been playing since the Lazerburn/Rogue trader days. I'm pretty invested in the hobby.
That said, 40k has really started to pall for me, and has been getting worse since late 5th.
If it gets too bad i'll either sell the bulk of my armies to fund some other project (battle robots are expensive, as is rocketry) or just hang onto them to finally get them all painted, and just play 5th or 6th ed as the mood takes me and i can find opponents.
I'm also beginning to get drawn back towards Warmachine after a hiatus, and there are several other games well worth a look...
I'll check the new book out, and maybe even swallow the bile of paying 50.00 for another codex to update my Orks (since they will be in their THIRD fething edition since an update until the new codex hits....
131
Post by: malfred
valace2 wrote:
See that's the funny part of this conversation. Go to Adepticon and check out the sheer number of players. GW is irking their customers, and maybe their profit is down a little, (just like every ther business out there) but they are still capturing the bulk of the mini gaming $£¥
Yup. But everyone wanted to play in the TO vetted 40k. The everything goes Exterminatus
tournament had less than half its tickets sold (13 out of 32 or something like that).
Maybe this is a chicken/egg problem? No one who wants to play with all the expansions
all the time is necessarily wants to go to a tournament. Or maybe people want some
kind of balance at play and will go to the vetted events.
Or maybe having an Unbound only tournament at Adepticon will the biggest thing ever.
It would certainly LOOK cool.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Eldarain wrote:valace2 wrote:As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.
What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.
Infinity does it with their official tournament rules. The games are based entirely on objective points. If you table your opponent before either side actually completing any objectives, the game is an automatic draw. This encourages people to actually try for objectives rather than going straight for a wipe, since if they fail at the wipe and their opponents can get some objectives they can still lose.
60
Post by: yakface
 Kilkrazy wrote:
In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.
While that is certainly true (that people can ignore the unbound rules and refuse to play against them), that concept just creates a more fractured game base than it already is.
When new player Timmy goes into his local GW store and the super-friendly customer service representative tells him that he is able to put nearly any models he likes on the store shelves into his army and play with it, then he's going to go ahead and buy his army...only to find out later that tournaments/players won't allow unbound armies, that just creates another division and blockage towards having a happy gaming experience.
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
so this is comment 1 as i read through the trash people are talking... and im only up to page 57...
HAHAHAHA... all this cry about heldrakes (this is my beef) who in the name of hell is going to field 11 of them at1850-2000 points? you cant do a damn thing with them, wont even slow green tide... and riptides as we know, are only as good as the support they get, remove markerlights and ignore is the current practice for triptide..
and to the ohhh how many StrD can we fit in... well the warhound gets 4 blasts at over 700 pts, so you can only fit 2 in sub 2k.. all its going to mean is that IF someone wants to do that, let them, itll cost them about a 1000 in the 2 models. and you can bet strD has been nerfed so again whooooo cares.
people are far too far up in arms over minor information atm.. breathe people
8546
Post by: krazynadechukr
Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...
38617
Post by: valace2
 ausYenLoWang wrote:so this is comment 1 as i read through the trash people are talking... and im only up to page 57...
HAHAHAHA... all this cry about heldrakes (this is my beef) who in the name of hell is going to field 11 of them at1850-2000 points? you cant do a damn thing with them, wont even slow green tide... and riptides as we know, are only as good as the support they get, remove markerlights and ignore is the current practice for triptide..
and to the ohhh how many StrD can we fit in... well the warhound gets 4 blasts at over 700 pts, so you can only fit 2 in sub 2k.. all its going to mean is that IF someone wants to do that, let them, itll cost them about a 1000 in the 2 models. and you can bet strD has been nerfed so again whooooo cares.
people are far too far up in arms over minor information atm.. breathe people
Nooooooo....!
The world is coming to an end.
Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
 krazynadechukr wrote:Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...
I don't see this happening. People will still say no to a powerhouse army outside of a tournament setting, regardless of the owners intent: training, net listing, pub stomping, WAAC, playing the models they like, etc.
It just introduces another "not in my cornbread!" issue to the game. One where players must now discuss the intent of their lists even more so prior to playing that previously. As was stated earlier, not all unbounded lists are created equal. The disparity of bonus' given to battle-forged lists may make anyone seeking to go "Unbound" to pull less punches.
My personal spin is that GW wants an arms race. Arms races make money for the weapons dealers.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Kilkrazy wrote:Of course we have always been able to play Unbound games before GW gave us permission -- you don't need rules that in effect aren't rules.
This has long been my feeling. I've been wargaming for 18 years and I've never needed a company to tell me I can break their rules, I'm fully capable of breaking the rules to create a narrative game or just to give stuff a try. That's why what I want in a wargame is for it to actually be a functioning game, a system of clear and concise rules where my ability to win or lose is primarily determined by my ability and not what rules I've tried to exploit more than my opponent. Then if I want to go rule bending to try out other things, I'll still do that, I don't need to be told I'm allowed to break the rules in a game I'm playing for fun. Now maybe if they could actually balance all the weird and wonderful things they put in to the game it wouldn't bother me... but GW don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to balance. At the end of the day, the reason many people are facepalming at the idea of Unbound is that coming from the GW we know, it's hard to imagine any positive motivation other than "Hey, if we remove limits, people will buy more stuff! Game balance? What? We actually make a game? I don't remember any game..."
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
 TheKbob wrote:
This isn't the thread for this, but there was another that discussed this. And actual market analysts are saying otherwise; that the market is seeing double digit growth while GW is seeing double digit decline.
...
The 24th of May could be a chance for things to change. The unprecedented 2 year turn around could also lead to an unprecedented swing back to Games Workshop welcoming the community with open arms?
Markets regress to mean, and short term swings don't account for fundamentals.
It's entirely possible (if not likely) that their revenues were inflated by 6th edition and increased release cycles. Consumer appetite for small plastic models and books with no rules probably does have a ceiling. While I am certain there is some segment that will go out and buy these new books immediately, I am not sure asking people to go out and buy a $100 book every couple years is going to sit well with everyone. GW could very well open their arms to welcome people, they might not find that many people wanting to embrace.
The point of this is, I get why GW is releasing this new edition. They are making the rules more attractive for people looking to field larger armies, with the expectation this is going to increase sales overall. That bump might last a quarter, but I don't think it's a good bet that this is going to lead to increased revenues overall for the year. There's a good chance their market is saturated, and just introducing new rules might not be enough to sort that.
Looking in my closet, I have enough models to run just about any combination of CSM, Daemon, IG, Space Marine, and Ork armies. Even if there's a major rules change that makes these combinations more attractive, I don't see myself wanting to spend more on miniatures right now. It feels like I just spent a lot on all the 6th edition stuff and I don't know if I would want to spend more. Like, with the 2014 Adepticon winning list - unbound armies would allow someone to bring a similar 2000 point list with Fateweaver + 4 FMCs and 2 Heldrakes. I have that sitting on the shelf already, what is a new rulebook going to make me want to spend on?
56277
Post by: Eldarain
 -Loki- wrote: Eldarain wrote:valace2 wrote:As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.
What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.
Infinity does it with their official tournament rules. The games are based entirely on objective points. If you table your opponent before either side actually completing any objectives, the game is an automatic draw. This encourages people to actually try for objectives rather than going straight for a wipe, since if they fail at the wipe and their opponents can get some objectives they can still lose.
True. But I would argue that the mechanics and scale of that game along with he terrain density make that a viable and interesting concept for it.
If added to the kind of firepower available in the IGOUGO 40k system you'll end up with bizarre situations where one side tries to just about table someone and then score some points before killing the last couple Scouts.
Though watching someone lose because the dice got hot and finished off that last squad would be something else.
8546
Post by: krazynadechukr
TheKbob wrote: krazynadechukr wrote:Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...
I don't see this happening. People will still say no to a powerhouse army outside of a tournament setting, regardless of the owners intent: training, net listing, pub stomping, WAAC, playing the models they like, etc.
It just introduces another "not in my cornbread!" issue to the game. One where players must now discuss the intent of their lists even more so prior to playing that previously. As was stated earlier, not all unbounded lists are created equal. The disparity of bonus' given to battle-forged lists may make anyone seeking to go "Unbound" to pull less punches.
My personal spin is that GW wants an arms race. Arms races make money for the weapons dealers.
Well, from the small bit we read in the white dwarf, you can run your army two ways in the next rulebook, so I don't see how one gamer will be able to tell another "you can't do that." I have a legal unbound list, you have a legal battle forged army, their both correct points, let's game. If it is in the rule book, it is legal. Like it said
"The only limit to your games now, are the models you have."
3330
Post by: Kirasu
krazynadechukr wrote: TheKbob wrote: krazynadechukr wrote:Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...
I don't see this happening. People will still say no to a powerhouse army outside of a tournament setting, regardless of the owners intent: training, net listing, pub stomping, WAAC, playing the models they like, etc.
It just introduces another "not in my cornbread!" issue to the game. One where players must now discuss the intent of their lists even more so prior to playing that previously. As was stated earlier, not all unbounded lists are created equal. The disparity of bonus' given to battle-forged lists may make anyone seeking to go "Unbound" to pull less punches.
My personal spin is that GW wants an arms race. Arms races make money for the weapons dealers.
Well, from the small bit we read in the white dwarf, you can run your army two ways in the next rulebook, so I don't see how one gamer will be able to tell another "you can't do that." I have a legal unbound list, you have a legal battle forged army, their both correct points, let's game. If it is in the rule book, it is legal. Like it said
"The only limit to your games now, are the models you have."
Except that's never how 40k has worked? If your opponent doesn't want to play against an unfun or totally unbalanced army then they won't. If you bring beaststar lists to casual games you probably won't find opponents either.
15717
Post by: Backfire
 yakface wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.
While that is certainly true (that people can ignore the unbound rules and refuse to play against them), that concept just creates a more fractured game base than it already is.
When new player Timmy goes into his local GW store and the super-friendly customer service representative tells him that he is able to put nearly any models he likes on the store shelves into his army and play with it, then he's going to go ahead and buy his army...only to find out later that tournaments/players won't allow unbound armies, that just creates another division and blockage towards having a happy gaming experience.
Yes, this is something I don't understand. Why there was ever need to codify "Unbound" concept? People have always had the option to play the game whatever way they want and throw the FOC out if they so wish. Seems completely pointless to add new rules so you can play the game without restrictive rules! Another potentially negative development is "Battle Forged" concept, where apparently abiding to the FOC gives you some bonuses. Presumably this is something akin to Warlord trait or such.
However, all of this kind of "invisible" bonuses and abilities are annoying and should be done away with! When I look upon the gaming table, I want to see what's the situation is based on what reads on the Army lists, and not trying to remember whether unit X has Feel no pain 6+ and Unit Y has ability to hit fliers with 5+ or whatever - unless I already used up that ability, or whatever.
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
yakface wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.
While that is certainly true (that people can ignore the unbound rules and refuse to play against them), that concept just creates a more fractured game base than it already is. When new player Timmy goes into his local GW store and the super-friendly customer service representative tells him that he is able to put nearly any models he likes on the store shelves into his army and play with it, then he's going to go ahead and buy his army...only to find out later that tournaments/players won't allow unbound armies, that just creates another division and blockage towards having a happy gaming experience.
Not to mention the fact that fluffy players may very well end up getting screwed over by WAAC gamers. If the continued resistance to Forge World units (on account of a few instances of OP shenanigans) is any indication, the abuse of Unbound armies may sour communities to the point that casual/fluff players that want to run thematic unbound lists may find themselves constantly confronted by opponents accusing them of being TFG. Unless there's something else to this whole "Unbound" deal that we don't know of yet, I would be very concerned about this change reducing the overall player base without demonstrating much in the way of potential growth.
52617
Post by: Lockark
tag8833 wrote: 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.)
This is one of the reasons that I think the White Dwarf pages are a hoax.
1) There was no one out there complaining the FOC is too restrictive in 6th edition. Likewise there were no complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were rare.
2) There were countless complaints that the FOC wasn't restrictive enough. Likewise there were 100s of complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were too common.
3) The Unbound FOC was the #1 "most exciting" thing cited in the WD about 7th edition, when it was clearly going to be hugely unpopular, and the examples cited were likewise lists that would be hugely unpopular to play against.
4) The people who read White Dwarf are going to be serious 40k fans. That means they are going to immediately understand the ramifications.
5) There was nothing stopping you from ignoring the FOC for a Campaign or Narrative game. I guess the only thing stopping you was the willingness of your opponent, which is not fixed.
In short, I think GW is not stupid. The are greedy and short-sighted, but not stupid or evil. There might be a way in which short-sighted greed makes Unbound FOC options seem like a good idea (doubt it), but there is no way where writing the WD article in that fashion would be anything but stupid. The WD article isn't incompetent, it isn't oblivious it is stupid, and that doesn't seem like GW.
On the other side of the argument, a phoney WD article written in that way is sure to garner tons of attention (20 pages in this thread in 1 day). It is the perfect way to troll the community. We have a history of fakes being released to troll the 40k online community in the past. Decent quality on the fake, but logic clearly argues it is a fake.
One last thing, the new psychic powers available to everyone except tyranids echoes the Facebook post from the Knights release where "They can ally with anyone except tyranids" which became something of a punch line. It is the sort of inside joke that someone looking to troll the online community would include.
In one of the white dwarfs, they stright up said didn't care about balence when wrighting the rules for the knight. Just as long as it was stompy. I'm trying to find the issue right now so I can quote it proper. But it bassicly sounded like they were giveing a middle finger to competive players when you read it.
It's the reason I legit feel the designers right now get some sort of joy out of trolling us at this point.
60
Post by: yakface
valace2 wrote:
Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.
Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?
The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.
I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.
8546
Post by: krazynadechukr
Kirasu,
I agree with you. Let me start there. Yes, with 6th, some pushed the boundries of (good taste/fair play) in their lists. It was legal, and I passed on playing those folks. I'm just saying, it seems GW has expanded the ridiculousness of the list possibilities, and uber armies will go on the rise. I'd game in your circle, because I play for fun, and have a sense of fairness...
81652
Post by: Johnnytorrance
I just started playing 40k in Nov. kinda pissed about the rulebook but oh well.
I read that the new starter set is Blood Angels vs Orks. Cool. I play Orks.
What I was wondering. And maybe some of you cats remember. When the DA and Chaos starter set came out, did their respective codexes come out as well? Did they come out several months after?
Just wondering if this means that Orks and BA's are coming out back to back
56277
Post by: Eldarain
They were the first two released. Though there were several month gaps between starter set and each book.
99
Post by: insaniak
Johnnytorrance wrote:What I was wondering. And maybe some of you cats remember. When the DA and Chaos starter set came out, did their respective codexes come out as well? Did they come out several months after?
DA and Chaos were the first two codexes out, but there was a bit of a gap.
Orks have been rumoured to be coming next for some time now, with BA supposedly being in there for soonish as well, so that would certainly tie in with the starter set rumours... although that might well be where the starter set rumours came from in the first place.
44341
Post by: tyrannosaurus
yakface wrote:valace2 wrote:
Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.
Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?
The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.
I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.
This. Based upon the article, unbound is not a game type, but a list choice. So yeah, you could refuse to play against an unbound list, just as you could refuse to play against Riptides, or Ultramarines because they suck. I would have to ask why anyone would still want to play 40k at all if they have to refuse to follow a large part of the core rules to make it fit into their idea of how it should be played.
73675
Post by: TiamatRoar
Unbound was created so GW could sell more models, obviously. That said, we don't know what bonuses having a battle-forged army gives. For all we know, unless there are some really really broken unit combinations outside of the FoC (which IMHO is kinda doubtful considering the crazy gak you can do inside the FoC right now if detachments like Inquisition are staying in, along with allies), going with Unbound might not be worth it if the bonuses from going Battle-Forged are really really high.
73007
Post by: Grimskul
Given the way GW seems to think are "buffs" in supplements I wouldn't be surprised if the bonuses you get from Battle-forged are rolled randomly on a D6 with a variety of useless army-wide affecting buffs like causing Fear, re-rolling failed characteristic tests or getting Move Through Cover.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
There was a set of rumors of special rules getting nerf batted.
Ignores Cover would reduce cover by -2 as an example.
I am not citing anything, but I remember there was a discussion somewhere about special rules tweaking. This would more than likely be in this edition? Also, since we have a magic phase, perhaps cover begins to operate like fantasy, as well?
75078
Post by: TerraFirst!
I just had a thought about this battle-forged vs. unbound concept. What if instead of a VP modification if your battle-forged force comes up against an unbound force, you were to get the ability to restructure your list within the bound of your codex.
So it looks like this: you go to a tournament with your list. If you play against another, balanced battle-forged list you both play the list you brought. If instead you face an unbound opponent, for each unit it off-bounds taken, you can make a unit swap, staying within the limitations of your codex/FOC and points.
Maybe there would even be options for FOCs that would include reasonable, selections for allies, but at the cost of flexibility when re-tailoring your list.
I think this would be a great play by GW as it would encourage purchasing a full range of models.
For example, as an eldar player, I bring my list and come up against a full riptide force, which gives me a number of unit swaps equal to say, 3. So, I know that the dark reapers I brought with their AP3 can't get through a riptides armor, so I swap them out for a similar points cost of war walkers with starcannons. I brought a full size scorpion squad, but not a scorpion claw - well that claw would help out a lot if I could get the exarch into CC, so, drop a couple scorpions and add in the claw. Similarly, I splurged and bought a 5 man squad of D-scythe WG in a WS...well, there aren't any hordes to worry about, and I'm more concerned about wounding on a 2+ and getting a little extra range than I am about ignoring cover, so, I drop the D-scythes on my guard and use the spare points to fill them out to a 6 man squad. Suddenly, that unbound list is much more manageable, and GW just made sure that I'm going to buy a lot more models...
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
 Grimskul wrote:Given the way GW seems to think are "buffs" in supplements I wouldn't be surprised if the bonuses you get from Battle-forged are rolled randomly on a D6 with a variety of useless army-wide affecting buffs like causing Fear, re-rolling failed characteristic tests or getting Move Through Cover.
Well, that would be warlord traits. Cautiously optimistic the bonuses would be more substantial.
More hoping that using a Battle-forged army entitles you to select up to another 25% of your points in additional units (the sidebar thing everyone has been talking about). That's about the only thing that would make this worth it.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
TerraFirst! wrote:
For example, as an eldar player, I bring my list and come up against a full riptide force, which gives me a number of unit swaps equal to say, 3. So, I know that the dark reapers I brought with their AP3 can't get through a riptides armor, so I swap them out for a similar points cost of war walkers with starcannons. I brought a full size scorpion squad, but not a scorpion claw - well that claw would help out a lot if I could get the exarch into CC, so, drop a couple scorpions and add in the claw. Similarly, I splurged and bought a 5 man squad of D-scythe WG in a WS...well, there aren't any hordes to worry about, and I'm more concerned about wounding on a 2+ and getting a little extra range than I am about ignoring cover, so, I drop the D-scythes on my guard and use the spare points to fill them out to a 6 man squad. Suddenly, that unbound list is much more manageable, and GW just made sure that I'm going to buy a lot more models...
The sideboard notion had been rumored and further debunked. Not saying it isn't possible, though. The issue with that is that 40k just costs too much to do this effectively. A sideboard or list change may be a handful of models in another game. I cannot imagine 500pt style sideboards for the game with hard swings between 3 Russes or a pile of dudesmen.
8911
Post by: Powerguy
To me it seems like Unbound (or rather the concept of armies getting buffs if they are Bound) is a concept ripped straight from Warmachine tier lists. In Warmachine you can take anything in your faction with very few restrictions but then can get benefits if you deliberately limit yourself within a certain themed force. This is a great system and rewards people for taking themed lists to the point that they are still very competitive. The problem is that this is very tricky to implement in 40k, the existing FOC system had no concept of army buffs for restricting yourself (it was just a framework for the army to be built in). It seems like we are moving from the existing system that sat roughly in the middle of the 'use whatever you want vs theme/balance' scale, to a dual system with one on each extreme of the scale and nothing left in the middle as a reference point.
I think people are getting way too worked up over this though. If they implement 'Bound' armies properly to the point that the buffs balance things out nicely then we get the best of both worlds - its pretty much the definition of balance (take anything against anything and its a fair fight). If the Unbound system ends up being stupidly powerful in comparison (which tbh based on GWs track record is more likely) then again its no issue because a) competitive tournaments won't allow it and b) casual gamers will still be able to refuse to play pick up games if they don't want to face Unbound armies. The ONLY people that it effects are the people who literally don't care about the rules anyway, people who play at home with their mates and want to use Orks and Sisters of Battle and Nids have always been able to use their models like this and have never needed GW to produce official rules stating this.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Long time supporter of 40k, been around since RT.
I actually think 6th had a lot going for it. There was codex imbalances that came close to ruining it for me, but as long as I was with friends I had a ton of fun.
But if what that WD article said is true and anyone can just bring anything they want, then I'm out. I'll be done. Sure, I could work around the gaky rules and stupid people with their stupid lists, but its more about how the GW game designers have no clue what they're doing and don't really care. They're like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, oblivious of everything around them. They don't listen to their customers and don't care to.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
Every time I see these "This is Great News" pronouncements from GW I feel the desire to put my head in an oven.
1478
Post by: warboss
krazynadechukr wrote:Well, from the small bit we read in the white dwarf, you can run your army two ways in the next rulebook, so I don't see how one gamer will be able to tell another "you can't do that." I have a legal unbound list, you have a legal battle forged army, their both correct points, let's game. If it is in the rule book, it is legal. Like it said
"The only limit to your games now, are the models you have."
3rd edition had a similar example in the Catachan jungle fighters subcodex and IG armored company lists. I played against each exactly once and they were some of the least fun games I played exceeded only by the easily abusable 3.5 chaos codex. The entire premise of both was to basically take most of your army and make them almost useless which doesn't lead to a fun interactive game. I simply told the guy "no thanks" when he offered them on future game days (as did pretty much everyone else in the group after playing against them or spectating a game versus them). I suspect the same thing will happen with unbound lists outside of planned events like apoc days at FLGS. If you don't think that players self select opponents currently then you must have an incredibly forgiving local meta or are not very perceptive. Hell, I can't even get most people to play my deathwing army created back in mid 5th edition when they sucked!
53744
Post by: rollawaythestone
Excited for the new revision. As a Warhammer Fantasy player the changes to psychic powers and the Psychic Phase worry my slightly. The Magic Phase is a huge time sink in Fantasy games, as players think about which spells they are going to cast, and with how many dice, and whether they will dispell or not, etc. This could really bloat the time it takes to play a game of 40k. For my Tyranids, it is particularly troubling, as my movement phase is already longer than most armies - and now my heavily Psychic army is going to require lots of time in the Psychic Phase. I really hope that dispelling (denying) is quite modest in scope, as most powers (aside from Eldar and Divination) aren't powerful enough to really warrant the need to be dispelled. Particularly, I feel this way with my Tyranid powers.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
ausYenLoWang wrote: StarTrotter wrote:At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.
HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...
No one thing is killing WoW, just as no one thing will kill 40k. But make no mistake WoW is on a firm decline, just as 40k may be on the cusp of doing itself. Just as WoW has seen a very notable decline in its playerbase (from over 12 million at its peak to 7 million or so now and dropping every year, closing in on half it's peak subscription base) as the market moves towards different types of games (as opposed to yet another Class based Fantasy MMO), so to is 40k facing a similar situation with more competition providing a larger array of game types than ever before, and doing it far more competently than ever before. Eight years ago your options in most game stores were 40k, Fantasy, and maybe Warhahordes. Now Fantasy is almost nonexistent many places and Warhamhordes far outselling it, and other games have gained real traction, such as XWing, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Malifaux, Infinity, Dropzone Commander, etc.
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
ausYenLoWang wrote: StarTrotter wrote:At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.
HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...
I will believe GW is going to go away when I see it. Right now, the financials show a ~10% drop off in revenue occurred, and the company burned some cash.
If they are coming out with a new edition, there are going to be some new sales. Is it going to be enough to restore them to where they were? That's a long shot. Is it going to be enough to rectify some of the issues? Of course.
More likely, this is going to be a learning experience for the company. Releasing a new edition so close to the release of the last one is going to erode some consumer confidence. It's going to teach them how frequently they can make major rules changes, for good or for ill.
When I put down $100+ for a book, I want to have the confidence that the book will be useful for a while. No matter what I read about the new ruleset, I am going to hang off and get a mini edition when it becomes available on eBay. And I have no plans on buying more models, at least from GW. I believe I have at least one of every CSM model that's currently available, and most of my other armies are complete enough as is.
There's a lot of people who are going to do the same simply because they have already plunked down enough on 6th edition + supplements + dataslates + whatever. I don't see this being a great thing for GW, if the idea is that people are going to spend more money on models they may have hit a wall.
38961
Post by: Dr. Temujin
Powerguy wrote:If the Unbound system ends up being stupidly powerful in comparison (which tbh based on GWs track record is more likely) then again its no issue because a) competitive tournaments won't allow it and b) casual gamers will still be able to refuse to play pick up games if they don't want to face Unbound armies. The ONLY people that it effects are the people who literally don't care about the rules anyway, people who play at home with their mates and want to use Orks and Sisters of Battle and Nids have always been able to use their models like this and have never needed GW to produce official rules stating this.
Except that will be a problem for players who want to play with an Unbound List. Say someone who wants to play an all-tank IG (sorry, AM) list just for the fun/fluff of it. No one will want to play with him, citing "it's too OP". Now, every player who made an Unbound army gets alienated by everyone else except for each other. This might create a schism between those who play unbound and others who play battle-forged, and thus divide the fandom into two hostile camps.
53744
Post by: rollawaythestone
Could it also be that Unbound armies utilize a percentage based system rather than the FOC? That would resolve some of the conflicting rumors floating around prior to today.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
rollawaythestone wrote:Could it also be that Unbound armies utilize a percentage based system rather than the FOC? That would resolve some of the conflicting rumors floating around prior to today.
I can't imagine what those percentages would be after reading the example of an army of all Leman Russes or All ForgeFiends Defilers etc.
53744
Post by: rollawaythestone
Eldarain wrote:rollawaythestone wrote:Could it also be that Unbound armies utilize a percentage based system rather than the FOC? That would resolve some of the conflicting rumors floating around prior to today.
I can't imagine what those percentages would be after reading the example of an army of all Leman Russes or All ForgeFiends Defilers etc.
Well, taking a hint from Fantasy, up to 50% of an army could be drawn from Heavy, Elite, FA, etc. 1000 points of Leman Russes? 1000 points of Daemonforge units? I'm not an AM player, but the statements made in the White Dwarf don't seem to disconfirm that this could be possible. Maybe the Tau claim does. Four Riptides and some Broadsides adds up to more than 1000, right?
33136
Post by: SpaceMonk
Buckle your seatbelt Dorothy because Kansas is going bye bye...
76525
Post by: Xerics
Unbound sounds like a cool idea. I only hope that battle-forge army bonuses can match up to unbound rules, or I might have to run me an army of 6 wraithknights.
37426
Post by: Idolator
ausYenLoWang wrote: StarTrotter wrote:At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.
HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...
This is a bit off topic, but....
There is a big difference between this and a MMO. With an online game, anyone can go online at any time and find someone to play. Not so with a tabletop game. Your time frame for play is limited, the location is limited and you have to actually find someone to play with.
The online games don't require the players to agree what the rules mean, how many points to play or what is legal to bring to a game.
If you cannot find people that you get along with in your geographic area..... that also play the game.... that also have the time to play.....and your schedules line up..... and agree with you on the rules....and agree on what to play, then you have no reason to buy anything. Even if you had those things, the group would be pretty small.
If the rules changes that have been rumored or alluded to continue to follow the trend there will be fewer and fewer people to play with. It doesn't have to drive everyone off to cause a corporate disaster, just enough to cause a serious disruption in people being able to find games.
I know, personally, many Warhammer 40k players that haven't played or bought anything in the last six months to a year. (I'm one of them) These weren't fair weather fans either, I'm talking about guys with 40k tattoos, decades of playing, thousands of dollars worth of books and models and what had been a true passion for the game and the background.
These rumored rules combined with the known rules from the latest releases have turned the game into something that is a completely different type of game. This is the problem that GW is facing. Not some flash-in-the-pan, new/shiny that is distracting everyone. It's their own bloat and rot that is causing the problems. People aren't rushing to some new thing, they are drifting off and finding new things.
8520
Post by: Leth
Honestly, I dont have a problem with unbound, as long as I dont feel like I am bringing a knife to a gun fight.
IF someone is like "Hey dude I want to play an unbound game, you ready for some hi-jinks." "Sure thing"
If little timmy wants to use his riptide, with dante and jump troopers with terminators I will happily play against that list with no problems. If old john wants to play his night lords army with all raptors I am cool with that too. Sure we could always do that before but now it is nice that there is a structure in place that we can reference when we want to do such things. I like that they are giving us rules for OPTIONS that we can decide to use or not.
I just assume that for most adults they can pull on their big boy pants and assume some measure of responsibility for who they are playing and planning ahead.
Also most of those BS lists that people list are laughable in how threatening they actually are. 8 riptides is nothing. What makes the riptides threatening is the buff commander, guess what you are still limited by the rules of the army and you are limited to one. A white scars biker army will rip 8 riptides to shreds. So on and so forth. A balanced FOC army can deal with a lot of the spam reasonably well and then win on missions.
76525
Post by: Xerics
I can't wait for this book to come out. So many new and interesting rules are rumored for it that there might be some fun in games again. I can't imagine tournaments letting unbound armies in because they like their rose tinted glasses.
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
 techsoldaten wrote: ausYenLoWang wrote: StarTrotter wrote:At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.
HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...
I will believe GW is going to go away when I see it. Right now, the financials show a ~10% drop off in revenue occurred, and the company burned some cash.
If they are coming out with a new edition, there are going to be some new sales. Is it going to be enough to restore them to where they were? That's a long shot. Is it going to be enough to rectify some of the issues? Of course.
More likely, this is going to be a learning experience for the company. Releasing a new edition so close to the release of the last one is going to erode some consumer confidence. It's going to teach them how frequently they can make major rules changes, for good or for ill.
When I put down $100+ for a book, I want to have the confidence that the book will be useful for a while. No matter what I read about the new ruleset, I am going to hang off and get a mini edition when it becomes available on eBay. And I have no plans on buying more models, at least from GW. I believe I have at least one of every CSM model that's currently available, and most of my other armies are complete enough as is.
There's a lot of people who are going to do the same simply because they have already plunked down enough on 6th edition + supplements + dataslates + whatever. I don't see this being a great thing for GW, if the idea is that people are going to spend more money on models they may have hit a wall.
thing for me though is this, cars is my other passion, now my car will get me 300km on a tank for fuel 65-70L... and at $1.60 a L or more... a rule book for 2 years not a bad deal compared to going for a nights driving.
as to armies. i am glad my csm is fully magnetized up now, because its all going to change again. and im ok with that. i have i think every model in the codex. except for possesed and defiler... so really when you have this and other things cost way more... 50 a year for a rulebook... not so bad.
and even losing some revenue GW is far in the green here, its not like they are losing money, just making less... and as every man and his dog pops up kickstarters for models etc that WIL pull money away from GW. so when GW financials shows them Losing money rather than a solid profit, thats when i will be worried about them.
now with 7th around the corner and on limited info i can say im not worried about things like this unbound shenanagins because if people are struggling to pay for the rulebook they sure as hell arent buying 6 more riptides. its just not a major concern. 40k has always been an arms race, now its getting bigger and more expensive, but as i have said before with the points structure in place there is still only so much you can jam in. and those BS deathstars... well lets be real honest here, NOTHING in the FOC was even slowing them down, now you have the option to if someone plays that kind of stuff take a nice nasty list of your own and thrash them, then when they decide its not funyou can go back to normal games where the douchebaggery is left at home
54575
Post by: Capamaru
MWHistorian wrote:Long time supporter of 40k, been around since RT.
I actually think 6th had a lot going for it. There was codex imbalances that came close to ruining it for me, but as long as I was with friends I had a ton of fun.
But if what that WD article said is true and anyone can just bring anything they want, then I'm out. I'll be done. Sure, I could work around the gaky rules and stupid people with their stupid lists, but its more about how the GW game designers have no clue what they're doing and don't really care. They're like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, oblivious of everything around them. They don't listen to their customers and don't care to.
+100 I feel exactly the same mate. If all this crap is true I am out of the playing side of the hobby. For sure GW people don't listen and don't care.
Harriticus wrote:Every time I see these "This is Great News" pronouncements from GW I feel the desire to put my head in an oven.
Please also notice that there was usage of the following expressions, " The possibilities are endless ", " the only limit to your games now are the models you have in your collection", " Thrilling staff" .... That last one got me on my toes...
7637
Post by: Sasori
With this Exciting news, I can now run the All-Pyrovore army I have always wanted!
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
ausYenLoWang wrote:
thing for me though is this, cars is my other passion, now my car will get me 300km on a tank for fuel 65-70L... and at $1.60 a L or more... a rule book for 2 years not a bad deal compared to going for a nights driving.
as to armies. i am glad my csm is fully magnetized up now, because its all going to change again. and im ok with that. i have i think every model in the codex. except for possesed and defiler... so really when you have this and other things cost way more... 50 a year for a rulebook... not so bad.
and even losing some revenue GW is far in the green here, its not like they are losing money, just making less... and as every man and his dog pops up kickstarters for models etc that WIL pull money away from GW. so when GW financials shows them Losing money rather than a solid profit, thats when i will be worried about them.
now with 7th around the corner and on limited info i can say im not worried about things like this unbound shenanagins because if people are struggling to pay for the rulebook they sure as hell arent buying 6 more riptides. its just not a major concern. 40k has always been an arms race, now its getting bigger and more expensive, but as i have said before with the points structure in place there is still only so much you can jam in. and those BS deathstars... well lets be real honest here, NOTHING in the FOC was even slowing them down, now you have the option to if someone plays that kind of stuff take a nice nasty list of your own and thrash them, then when they decide its not funyou can go back to normal games where the douchebaggery is left at home
I get what you're saying about the cost of new books. Yeah, I spent more than that at dinner last night.
I am not that worried about Unbound, we only have a small piece of the puzzle so far and it might actually work out to be something enjoyable. I am reserving judgement.
How many other people feel the same way we do? Sure, I can afford to get a new book, but that doesn't mean I want to. I am used to the rules lasting a long time, and I would only want a new set if they address the problems I see in 6th edition (assault, hull points, finding ways to nerf Tau and Eldar). I bet there are a lot of people who think the same way, and I bet the new rules don't do much to address those concerns.
TBH, I think GW just sees this as a way to sell more models, and are betting on a new edition leading to a lot of sales for things besides books. We're going to see how much this affects their sales, there's a good write up of their current financials over here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540/578355.page#6799517
My guess is that they will break even with where they were, or lose a little on account of this.
24911
Post by: snowman40k
Long time supporter of 40k, been around since RT.
I actually think 6th had a lot going for it. There was codex imbalances that came close to ruining it for me, but as long as I was with friends I had a ton of fun.
But if what that WD article said is true and anyone can just bring anything they want, then I'm out. I'll be done. Sure, I could work around the gaky rules and stupid people with their stupid lists, but its more about how the GW game designers have no clue what they're doing and don't really care. They're like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, oblivious of everything around them. They don't listen to their customers and don't care to.
*sigh. Just breathe a little? So new ed makes you want to leave the game, not because of the game per se but because of the designers?? I was around for 2nd, then broke until 5th and now started 6th. Tried a few other systems but the quality and lore of 40k keeps drawing me back (my subjective experience).
Why not just stick with 6th? Stick to the rules that as you say 'had a lot going for it'. Hell, I bought the digital rulebook 1 week before it was pulled from iTunes (thanks for the heads up GW, great use of the release blackout!!  ) so they sure as hell are not getting any more money from me for a compiled ruleset with a few changes to FOC (if that's all they are doing).
Channel some Jack Sparrow and peruse the new rules then decide to toss it or use it.
Don't forget that Dakka is a hotbed of resentment that happens 99% of the time GW farts. Don't buy into it. We don't have the full rules and the possibility exists these new rumors are fake.
53251
Post by: xole
 snowman40k wrote:We don't have the full rules and the possibility exists these new rumors are fake.
At this point the odds of it being fake are pretty low, wouldn't you say?
My army of GUOs will finally be realized. Very, very, very slow death shall come to all.
24911
Post by: snowman40k
At this point the odds of it being fake are pretty low, wouldn't you say?
My army of GUOs will finally be realized. Very, very, very slow death shall come to all.
Perhaps. Like someone mentioned earlier though we've got 2-3 pages from a supposed WD article.
We just don't know how it's all going to fit in.
One question I have, is will core concepts change? ie, will shooting/assault work differently? if it's just psychic phase, i couldn't care and will stick with 6th. GW will most-likely try and milk more cash from us by releasing psychic and mission cards, and as long as the core concepts don't really change, then i'll keep 6th, buy the cards, and be sitting pretty with the updated rules.
79639
Post by: TheNightWillEnd
leth said: If little timmy wants to use his riptide, with dante and jump troopers with terminators I will happily play against that list with no problems. If old john wants to play his night lords army with all raptors I am cool with that too. Sure we could always do that before but now it is nice that there is a structure in place that we can reference when we want to do such things. I like that they are giving us rules for OPTIONS that we can decide to use or not.
That's fine if you're playing in a club of guys who all know each other well. But, in places where gaming is a bit more sparse and you have to rely on pickup games or conventions to get some matches in, this stuff really hurts. You pretty much gotta take whatever games you can get, but you never know what you're going to face. Maybe it will be 7 Heldrakes and a transcendent C'tan. Because that will be fun. I understand that GW seems to think that the entire gaming community exists within their corner store and adults can pick up the baton and negotiate or fix their rules in an improvised way. For those of us who don't live in that world, it'd really be nice to just simply be able to show up and play a game with someone according to existing rules and know that you won't have to potentially face the decision of taking your gear and going back home or engage in a very unfun, one-sided match.
11766
Post by: Grunt_For_Christ
How many years has it been since 6th came out? If it's nearing 5, it would fit into the trend they've been on for the last 15 years.
I'm just so tired of having to relearn my army over and over again. And usually not in a fun way. I just today got the tyranid book (only because I got it used at a great price).
That was at 10am.
So a 1:30am I find out I might have to spend $20 on another book that screws with the poorly oiled, neglected, expensive Hive-car that I was just about to start driving again?
I agree with NightWill. I don't live in a place where there are many gamers or many games. My current gaming club consists of:
1. My wife
2. Me
3. My cat who likes to fap models off the table when she can reach them.
We don't want to learn rules AGAIN. I used to support this hobby often and happily. My time spent on this hobby should be in painting, gaming, and having a good time. Not having to forget everything I've learned every 5 years and suffering with a sub-par codex for 2 of those years because they can't release more than one book at a time.
Also, is this why I can't find any errata/FAQ sections on GW's new horribly designed website? Are they taking down those services to enhance the 'mutual frustration experience' at the game table?
18410
Post by: filbert
 Grunt_For_Christ wrote:How many years has it been since 6th came out? If it's nearing 5, it would fit into the trend they've been on for the last 15 years.
According to Lexicanum, which I have no reason to doubt, 6th Edition has been out less than 2 years:
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warhammer_40,000#Sixth_Edition_.282012.29
The Sixth Edition was released in June 2012 and is the current edition of Warhammer 40,000. New editions include a larger emphasis on flying units and hardcover all-color Codices.
79300
Post by: f2k
Grunt_For_Christ wrote:How many years has it been since 6th came out? If it's nearing 5, it would fit into the trend they've been on for the last 15 years.
I'm just so tired of having to relearn my army over and over again. And usually not in a fun way. I just today got the tyranid book (only because I got it used at a great price).
That was at 10am.
So a 1:30am I find out I might have to spend $20 on another book that screws with the poorly oiled, neglected, expensive Hive-car that I was just about to start driving again?
I agree with NightWill. I don't live in a place where there are many gamers or many games. My current gaming club consists of:
1. My wife
2. Me
3. My cat who likes to fap models off the table when she can reach them.
We don't want to learn rules AGAIN. I used to support this hobby often and happily. My time spent on this hobby should be in painting, gaming, and having a good time. Not having to forget everything I've learned every 5 years and suffering with a sub-par codex for 2 of those years because they can't release more than one book at a time.
Also, is this why I can't find any errata/ FAQ sections on GW's new horribly designed website? Are they taking down those services to enhance the 'mutual frustration experience' at the game table?
Actually, sixth edition is just around two years old by now. Seventh edition will be, as far as I know, the fastest update we've ever seen.
As for relearning... Well... If it's just the three of you, then what's the problem? Just play the edition you want to play. The real issue is those who mainly play pick-up games or go to tournaments.
Finally, as for FAQ's... I've heard rumours that they've resurfaced somewhere on the Black Library page. But I'll be damned if I can find them...
EDIT: Well, it appears that I am truly damned 'cause I finally managed to find them tucked away under "digital editions"...
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Powerguy wrote:To me it seems like Unbound (or rather the concept of armies getting buffs if they are Bound) is a concept ripped straight from Warmachine tier lists. In Warmachine you can take anything in your faction with very few restrictions but then can get benefits if you deliberately limit yourself within a certain themed force. This is a great system and rewards people for taking themed lists to the point that they are still very competitive. The problem is that this is very tricky to implement in 40k, the existing FOC system had no concept of army buffs for restricting yourself (it was just a framework for the army to be built in). It seems like we are moving from the existing system that sat roughly in the middle of the 'use whatever you want vs theme/balance' scale, to a dual system with one on each extreme of the scale and nothing left in the middle as a reference point.
GW did do theme lists for a while in 3rd, and do still do bonuses for restricting yourself (via dataslates).
The Warmahordes Tier list is a significantly more restrictive system than unbound would be: as far as I can tell from that WD paragraph, you would get the 'bound' bonus for simply sticking to the current FOC. FOC is more like the FA restrictions present on most units. The reason you don't generally see ridiculously spammy lists in Warmahordes is because it is so much better internally balanced.
It would be more like, if PP started letting you take Cygnar casters in a Cyris army and then decided, 'oh well, I guess you can have +1MAT if you stay with a Cyris caster and obey the FA allowance. But then when you start running a Cygnar caster in a Cyris army and discover how ridiculous it is to give RAT9 to all of your 'Jacks.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I'll wait and see but I really don't want WFB magic in 40k....
68776
Post by: Left Hand of the Pheonix
I do like the sound of unbound, could be fun to do a all paladin list with no draigo or do a full pheonix lord army backed up y an army of crimson hunters.
But my main point is this, if you do play an army full of fliers there is a HUGE problem. I believe there is a rule which states if you don't have any models on the board at the end of any FULL game turn, you lose. That is ANY game turn. So if you go 2nd with all your heldrakes, you lose. Go first you still lose. You need ground troops still, to ensure you don't auto lose the game.
I also do like the psychic phase could be fun to use, but hope it means that blessings could be stopped, because that would be a game-changer.
81193
Post by: GuardStrider
tag8833 wrote: 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.)
This is one of the reasons that I think the White Dwarf pages are a hoax.
1) There was no one out there complaining the FOC is too restrictive in 6th edition. Likewise there were no complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were rare.
2) There were countless complaints that the FOC wasn't restrictive enough. Likewise there were 100s of complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were too common.
3) The Unbound FOC was the #1 "most exciting" thing cited in the WD about 7th edition, when it was clearly going to be hugely unpopular, and the examples cited were likewise lists that would be hugely unpopular to play against.
4) The people who read White Dwarf are going to be serious 40k fans. That means they are going to immediately understand the ramifications.
5) There was nothing stopping you from ignoring the FOC for a Campaign or Narrative game. I guess the only thing stopping you was the willingness of your opponent, which is not fixed.
In short, I think GW is not stupid. The are greedy and short-sighted, but not stupid or evil. There might be a way in which short-sighted greed makes Unbound FOC options seem like a good idea (doubt it), but there is no way where writing the WD article in that fashion would be anything but stupid. The WD article isn't incompetent, it isn't oblivious it is stupid, and that doesn't seem like GW.
On the other side of the argument, a phoney WD article written in that way is sure to garner tons of attention (20 pages in this thread in 1 day). It is the perfect way to troll the community. We have a history of fakes being released to troll the 40k online community in the past. Decent quality on the fake, but logic clearly argues it is a fake.
One last thing, the new psychic powers available to everyone except tyranids echoes the Facebook post from the Knights release where "They can ally with anyone except tyranids" which became something of a punch line. It is the sort of inside joke that someone looking to troll the online community would include.
I pray you are correct.
I never played 40k though I am about to really invest on buidling a IG army. And even with the WHFB experience of only 2 months I can see how terrible is this idea.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Anyone able to confirm the rumors that they'll be a pdf update for the existing rulebook? and updated FAQs?
Sadly, such a reasonable thing seems to be unlikely when dealing with GW
64657
Post by: Thorgrim Bloodcrow
Not sure if it was mentioned because I can't be fethed reading through seventy some pages of posts to read about it but I'm quite interested in the Daemon summoning.
It's here in the last paragraph under the Psychic phase: http://imgur.com/a/Kbyu1#1
I'll admit I'm a bit torn because fluff wise there's no way in heck that my Rune Priests would ever summon a Daemon to fight for them but I'm really interested in what the possibilities could be and what conversions people might create. I myself am going to start looking at converting a Daemon into a beast from Fenrisian folklore (aka my own made up fluff).
Anyone else have any similar plans?
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
 Lobukia wrote:Anyone able to confirm the rumors that they'll be a pdf update for the existing rulebook? and updated FAQs?
Sadly, such a reasonable thing seems to be unlikely when dealing with GW
pdf update? they are changing the edition. it snot a 6.5 this is a full 7th ed.. you get nothing free
ill go so far as to say you will be paying more as there is bits and bobs on the side that you will be needing mission cards etc.
99
Post by: insaniak
snowman40k wrote:Don't forget that Dakka is a hotbed of resentment that happens 99% of the time GW farts. Don't buy into it.
There is nothing to 'buy into'. If people are saying they don't like something, it's generally because they don't like that thing, not because it's cool to be in the cranky crowd. There is plenty of positivity around here when people think it is warranted. Just see the discussion on the Imperial Knights (at least up until the rules were spoilered) for a prime example of this in action.
Dakka isn't some hive-mind conspiracy that is out to drag poor, innocent little GW down into the mud. It's a community of people from a wide range of backgrounds with an incredibly varied range of different ideas on what makes up a good wargaming experience. So if there seems to be one overwhelming theme to the commentary where one particular company is concerned, sure, you can dismiss that as the mindless mob in action... Or you could consider that just maybe there's a reason for it.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:Not sure if it was mentioned because I can't be fethed reading through seventy some pages of posts to read about it but I'm quite interested in the Daemon summoning.
It's here in the last paragraph under the Psychic phase: http://imgur.com/a/Kbyu1#1
I'll admit I'm a bit torn because fluff wise there's no way in heck that my Rune Priests would ever summon a Daemon to fight for them but I'm really interested in what the possibilities could be and what conversions people might create. I myself am going to start looking at converting a Daemon into a beast from Fenrisian folklore (aka my own made up fluff).
Anyone else have any similar plans?
Well you should have at least searched the thread OR read the page you posted too. Two new powers, only the "bad" one allows summoning.... your Rune Priest can't do it anyway, won't have access to the daemonic powers. But, if somehow he could/can, summoning a kraken from Fenris would be very cool.
99
Post by: insaniak
 Leth wrote:If little timmy wants to use his riptide, with dante and jump troopers with terminators I will happily play against that list with no problems. If old john wants to play his night lords army with all raptors I am cool with that too. Sure we could always do that before but now it is nice that there is a structure in place that we can reference when we want to do such things. I like that they are giving us rules for OPTIONS that we can decide to use or not.
I'm a little confused by this comment... There is no 'structure' in place for this. Just a rule that removes the existing structure. Which, as you say, you could have done before. Automatically Appended Next Post: Lobukia wrote: Two new powers, only the "bad" one allows summoning.... your Rune Priest can't do it anyway, won't have access to the daemonic powers. ...
And again, it's only a guess that the two types of Daemonology will be divided between 'good' and 'bad' armies... Automatically Appended Next Post: Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:But my main point is this, if you do play an army full of fliers there is a HUGE problem. I believe there is a rule which states if you don't have any models on the board at the end of any FULL game turn, you lose. That is ANY game turn. So if you go 2nd with all your heldrakes, you lose. Go first you still lose. You need ground troops still, to ensure you don't auto lose the game.
That rule exists in 6th edition, sure. We're talking about 7th edition... so right now, there is no way of knowing if an all-flier list is viable.
28481
Post by: StraightSilver
I for one don't really have any major problems with the changes being implemented.
If you look at the majority of the WD battle Reports they haven't been sticking to the FOC for ages, and always have quirky missions with odd victory conditions so maybe this was a teaser that we weren't aware of?
And unbound armies are exactly what we had in Rogue Trader, there were no FOC charts then and you could field whatever you liked, however games were a lot smaller then.
And I like the idea of making the psychic phase more dynamic, but it does seem to hark back to the 2nd Edition psychic rules, with dispels and cards, that just took absolutely aaaaages!!
My biggest issue:
6th Edition has been out for roughly 2 years. In that time I have played approximately 6 games. I used to play 5th once a week.
The reason I have played so few games? I only play with painted armies and this takes time, time that i could spend playing ( I work full time so at weekends if I'm painting I'm not playing).
6th introduced a huge amount of new Codexes, fliers, fortifications, allies etc all of which needed painting.
I don't have a problem with that but 2 years later I am just about ready to start gaming and it's all change again!!
I have no problem with a new edition, or sweeping changes, just please GW let's have 7th last at least 5 years please.
83762
Post by: Nid Bits
snowman40k wrote:Long time supporter of 40k, been around since RT.
I actually think 6th had a lot going for it. There was codex imbalances that came close to ruining it for me, but as long as I was with friends I had a ton of fun.
But if what that WD article said is true and anyone can just bring anything they want, then I'm out. I'll be done. Sure, I could work around the gaky rules and stupid people with their stupid lists, but its more about how the GW game designers have no clue what they're doing and don't really care. They're like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, oblivious of everything around them. They don't listen to their customers and don't care to.
*sigh. Just breathe a little? So new ed makes you want to leave the game, not because of the game per se but because of the designers?? I was around for 2nd, then broke until 5th and now started 6th. Tried a few other systems but the quality and lore of 40k keeps drawing me back (my subjective experience).
Why not just stick with 6th? Stick to the rules that as you say 'had a lot going for it'. Hell, I bought the digital rulebook 1 week before it was pulled from iTunes (thanks for the heads up GW, great use of the release blackout!! ) so they sure as hell are not getting any more money from me for a compiled ruleset with a few changes to FOC (if that's all they are doing).
Channel some Jack Sparrow and peruse the new rules then decide to toss it or use it.
Don't forget that Dakka is a hotbed of resentment that happens 99% of the time GW farts. Don't buy into it. We don't have the full rules and the possibility exists these new rumors are fake.
If anyone just bought the digital rule book then ask apple for a refund saying you are unhappy with the product in a broad sense and only tell them of the new upcoming rule book if they ask you more specifically, they will refund your purchase, and let you delete your already downloaded version on your ipad on the honour system. It happened to me and now I am waiting for the new rule to be released.
71426
Post by: bodazoka
I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.
I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..
79777
Post by: Rostere
LOL. If there really is no FoC you can now truly make an army with the Inquisition Codex: 33 lvl 1 psyker Inquisitors with force swords and some servo skulls, all independent units :S
24911
Post by: snowman40k
If anyone just bought the digital rule book then ask apple for a refund saying you are unhappy with the product in a broad sense and only tell them of the new upcoming rule book if they ask you more specifically, they will refund your purchase, and let you delete your already downloaded version on your ipad on the honour system. It happened to me and now I am waiting for the new rule to be released.
I've just PM'd you about this. Talk soon.
65916
Post by: mitch_rifle
bodazoka wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..
The ludicrous cost, slap in the face to those who bought limited edition as well
38157
Post by: RoninXiC
A quick release which actually FIXES things, enables the use of more choices, better balance etc.
Those things WOULD make it ok to release a new edition rather quickly.
But
That's not what GW does. They only stirr things up. Add stuff, leave the old annoying things in.
They don't want to make the game better, they want to make it different.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
A new Rulebook costs £50+ why the feck would I want to pay that every 2 years.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
 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.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment; you can't say "nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent" as if that's an impediment so minor as to be unworthy of even a moment's consideration. Lots of people who play 40K are pedants who refuse to think outside the box GW puts them in; remember the " 40K Approved" stamp appearing in FW books? I remember exactly the argument you're using here being used by people then as well - there's no need for FW to explicitly say this or that unit is allowed, because all you need is opponent's permission anyway, and technically anyone could still refuse to play FW units even with the stamp. It sounds logical, but it doesn't account for the reasons why people refuse to play FW(or non- FoC games), and a major one is "s'not in da rulez, is it guv". Put it in the rules, and the majority of those people will accept it, and that's generally a large enough number to shift the direction of social pressure from "no" by-default, to "yes" by-default - for anyone who already games with people capable of thinking outside the rules, it makes no difference, but for anyone else, it's not giving them permission, it's making it more likely their opponent will.
69547
Post by: ruprecht
I too have decided, based on speculation, hivemind melodrama and a leaked high-level preview of a couple of ruleset changes, to write off the new edition of rules and stick with the old rules that I have been complaining about as being broken for almost two years.
Kids today and their internet forums, sheesh.
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
ausYenLoWang wrote:
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
£50 is less than one night in a pub? Are the drinks £5 a pint?
The pub is a choice, if I want to play warhammer I have to buy the rulebook. I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
bodazoka wrote:I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.
I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..
I can't speak for others, but my view is I don't need or want frequent changes of the game. I play other games if I want variety. I would greatly prefer GW to "finish" 40K, stop messing around with the rules and codexes, and make campaign books and optional rules for people who want even more variety.
69547
Post by: ruprecht
 unmercifulconker wrote:
I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.
It's not every two years. It's two years this time - which happens to coincide with a previous release that was widely regarded as broken.
99
Post by: insaniak
That's an argument for staying away from the pub, not for buying a new rulebook...
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
ausYenLoWang wrote:
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
The problem comes when you compare it to other rulebooks though that give you more for less. Automatically Appended Next Post:  ruprecht wrote: unmercifulconker wrote:
I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.
It's not every two years. It's two years this time - which happens to coincide with a previous release that was widely regarded as broken.
You mean like every other edition?
77115
Post by: NoggintheNog
Kilkrazy wrote:bodazoka wrote:I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.
I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..
I can't speak for others, but my view is I don't need or want frequent changes of the game. I play other games if I want variety. I would greatly prefer GW to "finish" 40K, stop messing around with the rules and codexes, and make campaign books and optional rules for people who want even more variety.
I'd prefer them to finish 40K and make some other new interesting games to go alongside it for variety, rather than trying to sell me the same product over and over again with a reducing time period between each version.
661
Post by: Leggy
ausYenLoWang wrote:
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
Don't make me chose between 40K and a night in the pub. At it's current standard, 40k won't do well.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
tyrannosaurus wrote: yakface wrote:valace2 wrote:
Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.
Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?
The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.
I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.
This. Based upon the article, unbound is not a game type, but a list choice. So yeah, you could refuse to play against an unbound list, just as you could refuse to play against Riptides, or Ultramarines because they suck. I would have to ask why anyone would still want to play 40k at all if they have to refuse to follow a large part of the core rules to make it fit into their idea of how it should be played.
Because that's how themed lists in Warmachine work? GW's isn't above a bit of plagiarism, and we have no confirmation that the only thing you need to do to get a bonus is use the Battle Forged structure. It could be something that discourages spamming if implemented correctly.
It won't be. But it could be.
Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
But my main point is this, if you do play an army full of fliers there is a HUGE problem. I believe there is a rule which states if you don't have any models on the board at the end of any FULL game turn, you lose. That is ANY game turn. So if you go 2nd with all your heldrakes, you lose. Go first you still lose. You need ground troops still, to ensure you don't auto lose the game.
You mean there's currently a rule?
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
unmercifulconker wrote: ausYenLoWang wrote:
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
£50 is less than one night in a pub? Are the drinks £5 a pint?
The pub is a choice, if I want to play warhammer I have to buy the rulebook. I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.
playing the game is a choice as well. and its never been considered a cheap hobby.
and yeah i mean i was in paddington in london and paying the rough 5 pound a pint, cheapest i found beer in europe etc was 1.5 euro a pint at a club in Prague. thats still 2.5 aus$ so yeah. but a pint here in perth 10$ a pint min so for 10 pints i get a rulebook for 2 years (and i can well drink more than 10 pints).. not too bad. sure it would be great if it was cheaper, i wouldnt complain thats for sure. but here we are at.
so for 2 years its not too bad if this was a year then i would say totally valid. 2 is ok, 4-5 would be great... but i think we are now past that kind of release scedule
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
NoggintheNog wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:bodazoka wrote:I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.
I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..
I can't speak for others, but my view is I don't need or want frequent changes of the game. I play other games if I want variety. I would greatly prefer GW to "finish" 40K, stop messing around with the rules and codexes, and make campaign books and optional rules for people who want even more variety.
I'd prefer them to finish 40K and make some other new interesting games to go alongside it for variety, rather than trying to sell me the same product over and over again with a reducing time period between each version.
Heck I'd even enjoy to see a return of Necromunda, Gorkenmorka, or BFG. Automatically Appended Next Post: ausYenLoWang wrote: unmercifulconker wrote: ausYenLoWang wrote:
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
£50 is less than one night in a pub? Are the drinks £5 a pint?
The pub is a choice, if I want to play warhammer I have to buy the rulebook. I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.
playing the game is a choice as well. and its never been considered a cheap hobby.
and yeah i mean i was in paddington in london and paying the rough 5 pound a pint, cheapest i found beer in europe etc was 1.5 euro a pint at a club in Prague. thats still 2.5 aus$ so yeah. but a pint here in perth 10$ a pint min so for 10 pints i get a rulebook for 2 years (and i can well drink more than 10 pints).. not too bad. sure it would be great if it was cheaper, i wouldnt complain thats for sure. but here we are at.
so for 2 years its not too bad if this was a year then i would say totally valid. 2 is ok, 4-5 would be great... but i think we are now past that kind of release scedule
Still, it seems like a bad idea how GW is already falling and losing money to increase prices yet again along with increase the rate of codices.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
GW aren't losing money. They have made a profit for several years, although it decreased in the last half-year report.
However I do think prices are a problem now.
79300
Post by: f2k
RoninXiC wrote:A quick release which actually FIXES things, enables the use of more choices, better balance etc.
Those things WOULD make it ok to release a new edition rather quickly.
But
That's not what GW does. They only stirr things up. Add stuff, leave the old annoying things in.
They don't want to make the game better, they want to make it different.
This. So very much this...
We're now at the beginning of the seventh edition. We ought to have a damn near airtight rule-set. Instead, we have a shambling unbalanced mess built on various leftover bitz'n'pieces from the various editions.
ausYenLoWang wrote:
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
Man, you must have lots of money. £50 is a weeks worth of food for me. That's in no way cheap. Particularly not when compared with what I can get for a similar amount from other companies...
24911
Post by: snowman40k
There is nothing to 'buy into'. If people are saying they don't like something, it's generally because they don't like that thing, not because it's cool to be in the cranky crowd.
What's 'being in the cranky crowd' got to do with the price of eggs? I'm not saying people on here are generally cranky, I'm saying that whenever GW does anything, everyone here jumps on it (which is fine, it's a hobby discussion forum after all), and overwhelmingly slams GW on price, design, ideas, history, business ethics... whatever. Before you disagree, people do also see whatever good GW does on each of these points as well, but MY point is that it's overwhelmingly negative. I play with a number of different groups and people, and generally they comment about GW shenanigans but never to the extent of the piranha froth that occurs on Dakka. The comment also needs to be looked at in context with regards to who I was talking to. They seemed quite down about the new edition, and I was trying to give a positive spin on it amongst all the froth of the last 70 pages.
There is plenty of positivity around here when people think it is warranted. Just see the discussion on the Imperial Knights (at least up until the rules were spoilered) for a prime example of this in action.
Sure, agreed.
Dakka isn't some hive-mind conspiracy that is out to drag poor, innocent little GW down into the mud. It's a community of people from a wide range of backgrounds with an incredibly varied range of different ideas on what makes up a good wargaming experience. So if there seems to be one overwhelming theme to the commentary where one particular company is concerned, sure, you can dismiss that as the mindless mob in action... Or you could consider that just maybe there's a reason for it.
Yeah... annnnnd? When did i say dakka was a conspiracy against GW? I said whenever anything GW related gets leaked or discussed everyone is quick to slam them (myself included), but taking a step back and looking at it from another angle, I'll still play 40k, and there are other options to deal with the new release.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
The more I read, the angrier I get.
These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.
I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.
This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.
It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.
I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Kilkrazy wrote:GW aren't losing money. They have made a profit for several years, although it decreased in the last half-year report.
However I do think prices are a problem now.
Huh. I could have sworn they were. What did they mid-year reports state again?
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
Saw this at BoLS, couldnt resist a chuckle.
Also regarding the cranky crowd thing, I will admit as my opinion, when I read Dakka, generally there is negativity. Sometimes and I stress sometimes, not most of the time but sometimes the negativity can be a little un-warranted. Most of the time however is genuine concern for the hobby which I see no problem with, people are unhappy their hobby is being turned into something different. This circumstance though for me feels different from the past times I felt negativity towards a decision GW has made.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
People talking about Unbound with things like all fliers making you auto-lose.. don't you think that if you're going to use Unbound in the first place you're going to ignore a rule like that if it fits the narrative?
The whole point of Unbound seems to be the pinnacle of "forge the narrative" in that you hash out precisely what you want with your opponent and do it. It's pure insanity for pickup games or competitive games, but it reads like exactly what is needed for actual campaign/scenario/narrative games.
I highly doubt that Unbound is going to see much use outside of campaign games and the like, because it's so crazy that it'd have to be regulated in some fashion (via talking to your opponent about the scenario/narrative) to prevent abuse.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
WayneTheGame wrote:People talking about Unbound with things like all fliers making you auto-lose.. don't you think that if you're going to use Unbound in the first place you're going to ignore a rule like that if it fits the narrative?
The whole point of Unbound seems to be the pinnacle of "forge the narrative" in that you hash out precisely what you want with your opponent and do it. It's pure insanity for pickup games or competitive games, but it reads like exactly what is needed for actual campaign/scenario/narrative games.
I highly doubt that Unbound is going to see much use outside of campaign games and the like, because it's so crazy that it'd have to be regulated in some fashion (via talking to your opponent about the scenario/narrative) to prevent abuse.
I have to ask, how is this exactly what campaign/scenario/narrative games need? The ignore FOC was already there by just ignoring the rules.
12260
Post by: Davylove21
Unbound sounds fun, and there are too many things we don't know with regards to it being something broken. How does an unbound list score objectives? What are the benefits of being 'forged in battle'? Are warlords still a thing and if so, how does that work with unbound?
What I do know is that I can most likely take an all DC list without Astorath now. That makes me happy. Although that requirement is in-codex, will that be important or not?
71461
Post by: MRPYM
So whats everyone thoughts on the new psyker rules?
83460
Post by: ashcroft
 insaniak wrote: Lobukia wrote: Two new powers, only the "bad" one allows summoning.... your Rune Priest can't do it anyway, won't have access to the daemonic powers. ...
And again, it's only a guess that the two types of Daemonology will be divided between 'good' and 'bad' armies...
I really hope that guess is wrong. 40K should never be about good vs evil (plus Tyranids), it should be about bad vs worse (plus Tyranids).
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:The more I read, the angrier I get.
These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.
I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.
This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.
It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.
I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.
And I'm sure any suggestions of that nature have nothing whatsoever to do with the way people expressing your particular view on the future of the game keep characterising anyone who doesn't share that view as just wanting to "put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises", no siree bob, nothing at all. No link whatsoever between dismissively implying people who do prefer a narrative and/or cooperative experience over a competitive one are little children playing with army men. None. 
69547
Post by: ruprecht
Unbound is just for selling more models.
Timmy isn't constrained by a HQ and 2 Troops any more. He can get that awesome MegaSpikyNaut and the GW store owner has a framework to let him play it on Sunday. Oh, your army of 1 MegaSpikyNaut isn't very effective? Well Timmy, why not add this reasonably priced set of UberLords? FOC is an artificial purchasing friction. Unbound will see lots of play in GW stores.
Any benefits for narrative/fluffy play are coincidental. The community will adapt and even make great things out of it though.
The same theory applies to the proliferation of detachments and allies. GW do not want anything in the way of you expanding your collection. As a corporation with a legal obligation to maximise profit for their shareholders, it's entirely unsuprising.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Ignoring Unbound and Battle Forged for a minute (I think we all knew something about the FOC was changing, given how meaningless it's become)...
Psychic Phase: 1d6 + Mastery Level of psykers.
Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?
Also, I have to wonder what Adamantium Will is going to do now (if anything). Black Templars are supposed to be all about the psychic defense, but they don't actually use Psykers and so won't be getting the +ML dice to dispel enemy psychic powers. Maybe each unit with the Adamantium Will rule adds X dice to your psychic defense pool?
I'm not super excited, I admit, to buy up a new rule book. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of 6th edition, so maybe a few rules tweaks will save a few of my armies/models from being dust collectors and paper weights.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 streamdragon wrote:Ignoring Unbound and Battle Forged for a minute (I think we all knew something about the FOC was changing, given how meaningless it's become)...
Psychic Phase: 1d6 + Mastery Level of psykers.
Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?
Also, I have to wonder what Adamantium Will is going to do now (if anything). Black Templars are supposed to be all about the psychic defense, but they don't actually use Psykers and so won't be getting the + ML dice to dispel enemy psychic powers. Maybe each unit with the Adamantium Will rule adds X dice to your psychic defense pool?
I'm not super excited, I admit, to buy up a new rule book. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of 6th edition, so maybe a few rules tweaks will save a few of my armies/models from being dust collectors and paper weights.
Or Adamantium Will might be something like Magic Resistance for 40k?
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 Kanluwen wrote: streamdragon wrote:Ignoring Unbound and Battle Forged for a minute (I think we all knew something about the FOC was changing, given how meaningless it's become)...
Psychic Phase: 1d6 + Mastery Level of psykers.
Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?
Also, I have to wonder what Adamantium Will is going to do now (if anything). Black Templars are supposed to be all about the psychic defense, but they don't actually use Psykers and so won't be getting the + ML dice to dispel enemy psychic powers. Maybe each unit with the Adamantium Will rule adds X dice to your psychic defense pool?
I'm not super excited, I admit, to buy up a new rule book. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of 6th edition, so maybe a few rules tweaks will save a few of my armies/models from being dust collectors and paper weights.
Or Adamantium Will might be something like Magic Resistance for 40k?
Ooof, I really hope not. MR is almost pointless in Fantasy.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
I would have no problem if a community really made some sweet narrative stuff and tailored some cool games and not just use unbound lists to do those cheesy op gak fests. My problem is not that much with unbound lists itself as such but how it would be utilised; I doubt you would see many cool narrative games.
What I would like unbound lists to show:
Army of Bloodcrushers vs Thunderwolf cavalry, yes that would be badass
Special Character mayhem, everyone uses heroes, ultimate showdown, who would be the last standing.
Assault squads vs raptors vs stormboys, who would rule the jump pack
99
Post by: insaniak
WayneTheGame wrote:The whole point of Unbound seems to be the pinnacle of "forge the narrative" in that you hash out precisely what you want with your opponent and do it. It's pure insanity for pickup games or competitive games, but it reads like exactly what is needed for actual campaign/scenario/narrative games.
The problem being that it's not presented as an option for campaign or scenario games, but as one of two standard ways to build your army.
For all GW's talk of 'narrative' gaming, 6th edition has been remarkably light on campaign material outside of for Apocalypse. That's part of what has people so confused... they keep saying that they want to encourage narrative gaming, but they don't actually do anything to do so.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The more I read, the angrier I get.
These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.
I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.
This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.
It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.
I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.
This is how I feel. I'm not hyperventilating. I'm not a hater. I love 40k, I've been playing it most of my life. The idea that "wanting to win is immature" is ridiculous. It's a competitive strategy game where two people with (close to) equally strength armies, fight it out and the better player wins.
Apparently that's not what 40k is anymore, so if 7th proves to be what it's looking like, then I am out because I want a different kind of game than one where spending the most money is the winning strategy.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 azreal13 wrote:tyrannosaurus wrote: yakface wrote:valace2 wrote:
Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.
Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?
The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.
I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.
This. Based upon the article, unbound is not a game type, but a list choice. So yeah, you could refuse to play against an unbound list, just as you could refuse to play against Riptides, or Ultramarines because they suck. I would have to ask why anyone would still want to play 40k at all if they have to refuse to follow a large part of the core rules to make it fit into their idea of how it should be played.
Because that's how themed lists in Warmachine work? GW's isn't above a bit of plagiarism, and we have no confirmation that the only thing you need to do to get a bonus is use the Battle Forged structure. It could be something that discourages spamming if implemented correctly.
It won't be. But it could be.
I actually likened it to Themed Teams vs non-themed teams in HeroClix. The bonuses will be small, and sometimes not worth it, but it's a way to play. Though notalways the best.
Tier lists in Warmahordes at least can hold their own. I don't see Battle-forged being able to do the same.against an unbound list.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
MWHistorian wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:The more I read, the angrier I get.
These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.
I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.
This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.
It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.
I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.
This is how I feel. I'm not hyperventilating. I'm not a hater. I love 40k, I've been playing it most of my life. The idea that "wanting to win is immature" is ridiculous. It's a competitive strategy game where two people with (close to) equally strength armies, fight it out and the better player wins.
Apparently that's not what 40k is anymore, so if 7th proves to be what it's looking like, then I am out because I want a different kind of game than one where spending the most money is the winning strategy.
And so Games Workshop finally figured out how to make a tabletop game "pay to win".
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
 MRPYM wrote:So whats everyone thoughts on the new psyker rules?
Not enough to really decide. It could go a lot of ways from finally limiting divination (blessings really) being so effective to making the 25 point upgrade to get the ability basically worthless (a psyker level is 25 so even twin-linking your guns isn't all that cheap), it might remove the general deny the witch so offensive spells will be slightly worth it but might counter them. Adds some extra randomness and the multiple dice rolls sounds odd. New spells sound intriguing but were badly worded and can be potentially bad or broken.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.
Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.
Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.
37147
Post by: Auswin
My hope is that when we see the rules play out in the book there will really be three ways to form a list.
1. Unbound: This involves both players agreeing to an unbound game. It's the fluffy/weird/forge the narrative stuff GW pushed in their shift towards the "beer and pretzel" crowd.
2. Battle-forged: The standard FoC for all armies. A strict guideline needs to be followed inside of a single codex and if those requirements are met the player gets army-specific buffs.
3. Battle-forged, with allies: Essentially what we have now. Follow the ally matrix, use two or more codices. The tradeoff is that you don't get the army-specific bonuses someone gets for using a single codex army.
The more I think about it the more I believe this is the route. I refuse (yes, perhaps I'm being naive) that GW would cannibalize its own game by intending for one side to follow rules and one do whatever the heck it wants.
Right now in 6th the rage is allied power lists that take advantage of the strongest units from multiple books. Many people don't like that purely from a fluff perspective and/or only want to play their one army. The battle-forged buff helps mitigate this gap.
I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
It does not say that Battle Forged can't have Allies etc does it?
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
Auswin wrote:My hope is that when we see the rules play out in the book there will really be three ways to form a list.
1. Unbound: This involves both players agreeing to an unbound game. It's the fluffy/weird/forge the narrative stuff GW pushed in their shift towards the "beer and pretzel" crowd.
2. Battle-forged: The standard FoC for all armies. A strict guideline needs to be followed inside of a single codex and if those requirements are met the player gets army-specific buffs.
3. Battle-forged, with allies: Essentially what we have now. Follow the ally matrix, use two or more codices. The tradeoff is that you don't get the army-specific bonuses someone gets for using a single codex army.
The more I think about it the more I believe this is the route. I refuse (yes, perhaps I'm being naive) that GW would cannibalize its own game by intending for one side to follow rules and one do whatever the heck it wants.
Right now in 6th the rage is allied power lists that take advantage of the strongest units from multiple books. Many people don't like that purely from a fluff perspective and/or only want to play their one army. The battle-forged buff helps mitigate this gap.
I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.
Now this, I agree with, a genuine agreement and co-operation to make fun unbound lists I would love.
My greatest fear though is that how often will unbound games be these fun narrative campaigns and will it end up being FOC vs unbound?
80111
Post by: Kosake
So they made a typo on this promotional poster. In the grim dark news&rumours section of dakka, there can be no peace, only war... not on 24th, but since at least 5.5.2014
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
unmercifulconker wrote:I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.
Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.
Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.
Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.
83354
Post by: brochtree
please god let this psychic phase be a joke if not i think i might give up on 40k. i don't want to play fantasy in space i want to play 40K!
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
 brochtree wrote: please god let this psychic phase be a joke if not i think i might give up on 40k. i don't want to play fantasy in space i want to play 40K!
Implying 40k wasn't fantasy in space to begin with  . Heck, in older editions there was a psyker phase! So it's more like we are coming full circle but then just jumping the deck as well. I'm really curious to see these faction specific abilities.
60211
Post by: HairySticks
ausYenLoWang wrote: unmercifulconker wrote: ausYenLoWang wrote:
because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment
and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night
£50 is less than one night in a pub? Are the drinks £5 a pint?
The pub is a choice, if I want to play warhammer I have to buy the rulebook. I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.
playing the game is a choice as well. and its never been considered a cheap hobby.
and yeah i mean i was in paddington in london and paying the rough 5 pound a pint, cheapest i found beer in europe etc was 1.5 euro a pint at a club in Prague. thats still 2.5 aus$ so yeah. but a pint here in perth 10$ a pint min so for 10 pints i get a rulebook for 2 years (and i can well drink more than 10 pints).. not too bad. sure it would be great if it was cheaper, i wouldnt complain thats for sure. but here we are at.
so for 2 years its not too bad if this was a year then i would say totally valid. 2 is ok, 4-5 would be great... but i think we are now past that kind of release scedule
Id argue that even with GW extortion this is still a 'cheap hobby' ... I could want to take up motor cross, or maybe snow boarding, rock climbing, or playing the drums, or maybe pc gaming, or countless other hobby & interest type things that cost an absolute fortune to start up and keep going in. GW prices are high for the physical goods on offer, but arguably relatively low for a hobby experience.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
StarTrotter wrote: unmercifulconker wrote:I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.
Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.
Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.
Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.
Oh yeah, no idea why I forgot about them.  Hmmm, ability for only chaos to bind them? Even then it would be unstable?
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
StarTrotter wrote: unmercifulconker wrote:I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.
Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.
Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.
Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.
in the WD extract on the first page it mentions something about "Daemonspawn" being fine with the Summoned Daemons (although again truthfully Khorne Daemons are not going to be happy with Daemonettes popping up etc) - whether that extends to Traitor Marines and the like ???
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
HairySticks wrote:
Id argue that even with GW extortion this is still a 'cheap hobby' ... I could want to take up motor cross, or maybe snow boarding, rock climbing, or playing the drums, or maybe pc gaming, or countless other hobby & interest type things that cost an absolute fortune to start up and keep going in. GW prices are high for the physical goods on offer, but arguably relatively low for a hobby experience.
Where this argument falls apart though is that GW is not the hobby.
Comparing GW to other hobbies is all well and good but it's entirely irrelevant when you compare GW to any other company in the same hobby as GW and find that for the cost of the 2 rulebooks absolutely necessary to play a GW game you can buy the rules and a full average sized army for pretty much every other game on the market.
99
Post by: insaniak
Auswin wrote:
I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.
Except, as Yakface pointed out a few pages back, if this is the case there would be no point in Battle Forged armies receiving bonuses.
The intention is very clearly for Forged armies to fight against Unbound armies, with the Forged armies receiving some sort of bonus for following the rules.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
 Mr Morden wrote: StarTrotter wrote: unmercifulconker wrote:I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.
Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.
Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.
Not even my Chaos forces? I always thought they were rather good at intentionally summoning such forces.
in the WD extract on the first page it mentions something about "Daemonspawn" being fine with the Summoned Daemons (although again truthfully Khorne Daemons are not going to be happy with Daemonettes popping up etc) - whether that extends to Traitor Marines and the like ???
Hmm re-read the daemonspawn bit, interesting, perhaps that will include all chaos then?
4179
Post by: bubber
I'm seriously pissed - I got both escalation & stronghold for Christmas, not long after they were released (IIRC). GW must have known that they would be releasing v7 just 5 months later. Feel very ripped of & will be contact GW to demand a refund.
26519
Post by: xttz
MRPYM wrote:So whats everyone thoughts on the new psyker rules?
This is the one change I'm cautiously optimistic about. Aside from the single dice roll to generate warp charge it doesn't sound like you're doing anything extra than you are now; it's just all consolidated together instead of being split between movement and shooting phases. It should help to resolve those " oh bollocks it's the shooting phase and I forgot to do a crucial Malediction or Blessing" situations, and make it easier to keep track of warp charges, etc.
It also sounds like they're moving Deny away from a silly random save that all units get, and instead it'll be a tactical trade-off where you can forgo your own psychic powers to block opponent's ones. If armies with lots of cheap psykers can use them to shut down massed Prescience / Fortune, I think that's a good thing.
streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?
Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 xttz wrote:
streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?
Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.
You're missing the math though. Currently each unit gets ML warp charge to use on powers. So a Zoanthrope gets 2WC and has a 1WC and 2WC power. It can use one or the other, owing to power costs.
In the new system, your entire army gets 1d6 + total ML Warp Charge. So if my army contains just the Zoey, I'm still getting d6+2 WC. So now I'd have enough WC to use both powers.
Naturally this all depends on how the rules actually shake down, and how psychic defense dice work. Still, it might actually make it worthwhile to take Zoanthropes in actual broods now!
37147
Post by: Auswin
insaniak wrote:Auswin wrote:
I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.
Except, as Yakface pointed out a few pages back, if this is the case there would be no point in Battle Forged armies receiving bonuses.
The intention is very clearly for Forged armies to fight against Unbound armies, with the Forged armies receiving some sort of bonus for following the rules.
Not if (as I mentioned in my OP) the intention is for them to be a bonus granted to an army using units from entirely within the same codex. In short: No bonuses for taking allies.
I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.
1197
Post by: Dullspork
MWHistorian wrote:
This is how I feel. I'm not hyperventilating. I'm not a hater. I love 40k, I've been playing it most of my life. The idea that "wanting to win is immature" is ridiculous. It's a competitive strategy game where two people with (close to) equally strength armies, fight it out and the better player wins.
Apparently that's not what 40k is anymore, so if 7th proves to be what it's looking like, then I am out because I want a different kind of game than one where spending the most money is the winning strategy.
I would say that you're technically correct, but I think that the game started out (with Rogue Trader) as more of a narrative game. Obviously somebody would win and somebody would lose, but that wasn't necessarily the primary focus of playing the game. I get the feeling that that style of play is more popular in the UK than it has been in the US and since we're the bigger consumer market the game adjusted to suit us 'merikans.
While I'm not surprised that people seem disappointed by the change to include "unbound" play, I don't see how it changes anything for anybody who isn't interested in that play style. It's not forcing anybody to play that way. It's really just like the Apocalypse rules. You're either playing that way or you aren't. Frankly, a lot of new players play that way anyway until they can build up enough of a collection to even be able to field a proper army. All this does is make the game feel more inclusive in that they no longer have to feel like they're doing something wrong by playing this way.
If Magic: The Gathering can survive with the myriad of different play formats it has (Legacy, Standard, Modern, Vintage, EDH...) I think 40K can survive this.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Auswin wrote: I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this. The hysteria is quite amusing.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Bahaha, I just had a thought:
Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!
26519
Post by: xttz
streamdragon wrote: xttz wrote:
streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?
Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.
You're missing the math though. Currently each unit gets ML warp charge to use on powers. So a Zoanthrope gets 2WC and has a 1WC and 2WC power. It can use one or the other, owing to power costs.
In the new system, your entire army gets 1d6 + total ML Warp Charge. So if my army contains just the Zoey, I'm still getting d6+2 WC. So now I'd have enough WC to use both powers.
Naturally this all depends on how the rules actually shake down, and how psychic defense dice work. Still, it might actually make it worthwhile to take Zoanthropes in actual broods now!
I'm assuming that psykers still can't spend more charge than their mastery level. If that restriction is lifted it would be a nice little buff for Nids that get Warp Blast on Hive Tyrants too.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
xttz wrote: streamdragon wrote: xttz wrote:
streamdragon wrote:Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?
Really it depends if the Brotherhood of Psykers rule changes. Assuming it stays the same, it would be useful for Zoanthropes. Currently they're mastery 2, but have to take a warp charge 1 power alongside the charge 2 Warp Blast. This means that currently the extra warp charge point is wasted if they use their alternative power. If they can now use that extra charge to nullify, I can see them being a stronger supporting unit.
You're missing the math though. Currently each unit gets ML warp charge to use on powers. So a Zoanthrope gets 2WC and has a 1WC and 2WC power. It can use one or the other, owing to power costs.
In the new system, your entire army gets 1d6 + total ML Warp Charge. So if my army contains just the Zoey, I'm still getting d6+2 WC. So now I'd have enough WC to use both powers.
Naturally this all depends on how the rules actually shake down, and how psychic defense dice work. Still, it might actually make it worthwhile to take Zoanthropes in actual broods now!
I'm assuming that psykers still can't spend more charge than their mastery level. If that restriction is lifted it would be a nice little buff for Nids that get Warp Blast on Hive Tyrants too.
The page mentions being able to spend as many dice as you want, but with higher liklihood of Perils with more dice. I'm assuming this is similar to Fantasy's Winds of Magic system. Even a level 1 caster (or a level 0 caster with a magic bound item) can throw 6 dice at a spell.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Auswin wrote: insaniak wrote:Auswin wrote:
I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.
Except, as Yakface pointed out a few pages back, if this is the case there would be no point in Battle Forged armies receiving bonuses.
The intention is very clearly for Forged armies to fight against Unbound armies, with the Forged armies receiving some sort of bonus for following the rules.
Not if (as I mentioned in my OP) the intention is for them to be a bonus granted to an army using units from entirely within the same codex. In short: No bonuses for taking allies.
I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.
Wouldn't this then put a simple ally list (which can be fluffy) at a disadvantage against the entire armies shoved together as well though? Automatically Appended Next Post: streamdragon wrote:Bahaha, I just had a thought:
Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!
Along with Tau and DE you mean
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
2nd edition was a long time ago. The majority of people playing today have been brought up on 3rd, 4th and 5th editions.
When you look at the amount of whinging and moaning™ that has arisen through 6th edition, it is clear that on DakkaDakka at least, there is a strong resentment of the changes in the rules from the 3/4/5 paradigm, and that is hardly going to be assuaged by changing even further in the "wrong" direction.
85057
Post by: vadersson
Hey gang,
So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here, it looks like 40K will not be any fun for the casual player anymore. I don't even have a Riptide or Broadside. 
It would be a real shame if 40K killed off new players after less than a month. I hope someone writes a good review of the new rulebook so I can determine if I really want to keep getting into this game. Otherwise, looks like my models go back on ebay where I found them...
Thanks,
Duncan
31941
Post by: avedominusnox
I am scared as hell with these news.
25220
Post by: WarOne
The fear right now is the unknown. Will 7th edition "break" WH40k for too many players as they find out there are too many unreasonable hurdles to overcome?
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:Bahaha, I just had a thought:
Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!
Along with Tau and DE you mean
And any self-respecting BT player.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
 vadersson wrote:Hey gang,
So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here, it looks like 40K will not be any fun for the casual player anymore. I don't even have a Riptide or Broadside.
It would be a real shame if 40K killed off new players after less than a month. I hope someone writes a good review of the new rulebook so I can determine if I really want to keep getting into this game. Otherwise, looks like my models go back on ebay where I found them...
Thanks,
Duncan
I wouldn't make any decisions yet, Duncan. Internet forums tend to be quite.... what's the word... unbalanced (Go ahead, people, take that joke). Wait until; the new edition has been out a while, and people have settled down, and had a read/play of the new stuff.
This could be a storm in a teacup. Or it could be awful. It's really too early to say, despite all the negativity being thrown around here.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
unmercifulconker wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:Bahaha, I just had a thought:
Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!
Along with Tau and DE you mean
And any self-respecting BT player.
And SOB.
25220
Post by: WarOne
unmercifulconker wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:Bahaha, I just had a thought:
Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!
Along with Tau and DE you mean
And any self-respecting BT player.
And Khorne 'zerker armies....
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
 WarOne wrote:The fear right now is the unknown. Will 7th edition "break" WH40k for too many players as they find out there are too many unreasonable hurdles to overcome?
you know whats gonna do it for me? If the next codexes they release start looking different than the current line.
68182
Post by: Wayshuba
I guess I, and my little group of 40k players left after 6th decimated 7/8s of them to leave 40k, don't worry so much about the 7th edition. Why? Because we decided to work with 6th, house rule what we need to balance things and be done with the GW rules-wreck train.
Regarding 7th, so far the only information to leak out is what is being done to make sure we sell more of the big expensive model kits. The game has turned into a complete train wreck and, by the sounds of it, it is going to get worse with the upcoming edition.
As for the Unbound thing. Was never needed for campaign/narrative play. For that you could always choose to ignore the FOC and build your narrative scenario (much like a LOTR-SBG one). This is ONLY being added to allow people to spam large model, LOW styled armies. Simply put, it is not for the gamers, it is solely for the GW revenue train.
Finally, it is bad enough the rules were $75.... nobody sees a problem that the new rules are expected to be $100?!? Just for rules?!? The GW insanity just doesn't stop now a days. But who is the more insane.... the insane, or the people following the insane?
Glad my group and I are done with it, otherwise we probably would be upset at what has leaked so far. GW has officially become a one trick pony (40k) and they are going to milk it for all it is worth before the train crashes hard.
25220
Post by: WarOne
 Squidbot wrote: vadersson wrote:Hey gang,
So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here, it looks like 40K will not be any fun for the casual player anymore. I don't even have a Riptide or Broadside.
It would be a real shame if 40K killed off new players after less than a month. I hope someone writes a good review of the new rulebook so I can determine if I really want to keep getting into this game. Otherwise, looks like my models go back on ebay where I found them...
Thanks,
Duncan
I wouldn't make any decisions yet, Duncan. Internet forums tend to be quite.... what's the word... unbalanced (Go ahead, people, take that joke). Wait until; the new edition has been out a while, and people have settled down, and had a read/play of the new stuff.
This could be a storm in a teacup. Or it could be awful. It's really too early to say, despite all the negativity being thrown around here.
The rumor from 5/5 says you can mash forged detachments together (within allied chart allowances) or play whatever you want.
Frankly, that is not good news at all. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Sir Arun wrote: WarOne wrote:The fear right now is the unknown. Will 7th edition "break" WH40k for too many players as they find out there are too many unreasonable hurdles to overcome?
you know whats gonna do it for me? If the next codexes they release start looking different than the current line.
Depends on what they intend to achieve. If they decide to toss out random charts for more random charts and say bye bye to FOC as a whole, it will look very strange indeed.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Sigh. No it doesn't.
25220
Post by: WarOne
 Kroothawk wrote:
via another anonymous source on Faeit 212
Additional information that a Battle Forged list can take as many detachments as they wish, and still get bonus's.. The Unbound lists, is very much whatever you want to throw in to do a battle, and you get to choose which you want to play, and your opponent can do the same.
37147
Post by: Auswin
StarTrotter wrote:
Wouldn't this then put a simple ally list (which can be fluffy) at a disadvantage against the entire armies shoved together as well though?
Possibly. Though I can't say I've ever personally played against an allied army that was constructed and intended to be as balanced as a single codex. It doesn't need to be power gamer stuff, but naturally people ally in units that fill the gaps in their own. It allows an allied force to have far fewer weaknesses than a mono force, at least that's my experience.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
StarTrotter wrote: streamdragon wrote:Bahaha, I just had a thought:
Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!
Along with Tau and DE you mean
unmercifulconker wrote:And any self-respecting BT player.
MWHistorian wrote:And SOB.
WarOne wrote:And Khorne 'zerker armies....
Hah, I did in fact forget about those! BT at least should get some bonus on the defensive end hopefully!
Although, depending on changes to the Allies chart, many of those can still ally in a psyker (Farseers for DE/Tau, Inquisitors for BT/ SoB).
Do Necrons get any decent allies that are psykers?
Either way, yeah, looks like there are a decent number of armies that basically ignore the psychic phase. I wonder if SoB Acts/Priest Hymns will get moved to the psychic phase via FAQ.
68182
Post by: Wayshuba
NoggintheNog wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:bodazoka wrote:I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.
I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..
I can't speak for others, but my view is I don't need or want frequent changes of the game. I play other games if I want variety. I would greatly prefer GW to "finish" 40K, stop messing around with the rules and codexes, and make campaign books and optional rules for people who want even more variety.
I'd prefer them to finish 40K and make some other new interesting games to go alongside it for variety, rather than trying to sell me the same product over and over again with a reducing time period between each version.
Beautifully said and exalted! This is what GW HAS to do now that they made the decision they are a one trick pony. Should work well for them, not so good for the customers.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Oh, that rumour, I thought you were referring to the WD leaks. Well, good job that Faeit rumour is totaly reliable, written in stone, and totally negates my reply to the new guy.
Oh wait....
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
What I meant is that if the new codexes look different - either different size (length, breadth) compared to the current ones, or book jackets instead of hardcover, no longer the traditional interior layout etc.
I'm an OCD kid and them not managing to update all armies via 1 format before moving on to the next would really make me pull my hair out. At least the previous formatting prior to the 6th edition codexes was more or less the same layout from Eldar (November 2006) all the way to the last 5th ed dex (late 2011 Necrons I think).
65463
Post by: Herzlos
That sounds awful. It's essentially just Unbounded but with a troops tax each time you need more slots than the FOC allows.
I guess it can be easily house ruled though to only allow 1 detachment per 2000 points.
12260
Post by: Davylove21
vadersson wrote:Hey gang,
So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here...
Please stop there. Don't judge the future, present or past of 40K on Dakka's news&rumours section, just please don't! You'll be believing that the sky's falling any second now and that things were amazing yesterday. The jadedness is infectious
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
No psyker armies are the cool kids anyways.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Yodhrin wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment; you can't say "nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent" as if that's an impediment so minor as to be unworthy of even a moment's consideration. Lots of people who play 40K are pedants who refuse to think outside the box GW puts them in; remember the " 40K Approved" stamp appearing in FW books? I remember exactly the argument you're using here being used by people then as well - there's no need for FW to explicitly say this or that unit is allowed, because all you need is opponent's permission anyway, and technically anyone could still refuse to play FW units even with the stamp. It sounds logical, but it doesn't account for the reasons why people refuse to play FW(or non- FoC games), and a major one is "s'not in da rulez, is it guv". Put it in the rules, and the majority of those people will accept it, and that's generally a large enough number to shift the direction of social pressure from "no" by-default, to "yes" by-default - for anyone who already games with people capable of thinking outside the rules, it makes no difference, but for anyone else, it's not giving them permission, it's making it more likely their opponent will.
I don't deny that there are some very pedantic people out there who refuse to vary from the rules even slightly (represented most clearly by the type of person who was fine with facing a Griffon the day before the new Guard 'Dex hit, but not ok with it the next day despite the FW rules being exactly the same), but at the same time I don't like people acting as if GW's new "Unbound" mode is like they've removed some sort of highly restrictive shackle from their legs. This can only lead to bigger problems.
I personally don't have a problem with no FOC. I do have a problem with it though when it's done because fixing the problems with 6th got thrown into the "too hard basket" because it was taking too much dev time away from forging more narratives.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Constrained rules are great for tournaments that need a defined structure. Heck, if people want to play that way too it is totally up to them.
Causally though, it has to be by consent what you do but I agree with HBMC that you can do whatever you want, but make sure if your going to have fun with doing whatever you want at least try to have the other people have fun too. You cannot please everyone so make sure what you play is okay with your friends and fellow hobbyists.
181
Post by: gorgon
Squidbot wrote:Auswin wrote:
I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this.
The hysteria is quite amusing.
It's not one of Dakka's finest moments, that's for sure. And I've been around a long time. Things will calm down after the community figures out that "Battle-Forged" and "Unbound" won't actually change much. Hell, "Battle-Forged" games might be an improvement over 6th, depending on the new allies chart, etc. Until then, you might need to strap yourself in. Or just avoid certain Dakka boards/threads for the next 2 weeks. That might be my plan.
IMO, some of this reaction has less to do with 7th and more to do with built-up angst over various aspects of 6th.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/10-crazy-legal-40k-armylists-soon-enough.html
Some lists made, some seem really fun which would be a site to see on the table, particularly 187 pink horrors or 30 thunderwolves.
Others, like the 10 riptides, as previously said, both players should be having fun, not just the guy who spent the most to get 10 riptides.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Honestly I'm starting to think the pendulum is swinging both ways a bit too far in terms of reactions.
The idea that a person could, even if it was legal, force anyone to play something they don't want too, is ridiculious.
On the other hand the idea that this update will completely break the game and make it unplayable is (a lot) less ridiculious, but I am holding out hope that we're not looking at the full rules here and that the overall interactions are more complex than what they gloss over in the article.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
I think the largest issue with Battle-Forged vs Unbound is that Unbound was squarely the province of Apocalypse armies. Apocalypse was literally designed with a "Throw every model you have on the table" mentality. Certain other things were also squarely the province of Apocalypse: D strength weapons and super heavy vehicles to name two examples. Escalation and SHA were both met with grumblings because they basically began the bleed of Apocalypse into "regular" 40k games by introducing the afore mentioned rules. BUT, regular 40k was at least still limited by FOC to a certain degree.
Now that is gone. In an almost literal sense, the game of 40k is gone. Dead and buried. Now there is only Apocalypse.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
My initial reaction is now calming down a bit since you are not forced to play with some nasty unbound lists and you would be unlikely unable to find a game if you showed up with 10 riptides.
However is this what the hobby is getting pushed towards then, segregating certain players and forcing you to pick your battles more?
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Kilkrazy wrote:2nd edition was a long time ago. The majority of people playing today have been brought up on 3rd, 4th and 5th editions.
When you look at the amount of whinging and moaning™ that has arisen through 6th edition, it is clear that on DakkaDakka at least, there is a strong resentment of the changes in the rules from the 3/4/5 paradigm, and that is hardly going to be assuaged by changing even further in the "wrong" direction.
From what I have seen there was just the same complaining during 5th. There are also allot of people who like 6th, and people who are still optimistic about 7th. Unfortunately they are shouted down as white knights™ or insults about being new players.
It seems to me most of the complaining is coming from people who are worried about tournaments (who will ban unbound army's if they don't work) and people who play with strangers. Many people who play with groups seem to be enthusiastic about these new rules. I know I am. I also know there is one person who won't be, he is also the one person in the group who list tailors, plays WAAC lists and math hammers the hell out of everything. Personally I think this is an edition for people who want a narrative war game rather than a competitive game. A game that gives you structure to do what you want, rather than a strict rules set that may ban you from doing many things.
I have much less problems with playing against an unbound list that I did against a perfectly legal Drago Star in 5th that just stomped anything I put down on the table.
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
Well as long as they don't make Psykers complete crap I'm fine with a new phase. It'll be just my luck to recently start collecting Daemons and have them neutered before I ever get to play a game though.
34120
Post by: ruminator
It is literally just playing with toy soldiers now. No need for the rulebook, just start practicing making pew-pew shooting noises ready for the end of the month ...
27727
Post by: Bonde
 TheNightWillEnd wrote:leth said: If little timmy wants to use his riptide, with dante and jump troopers with terminators I will happily play against that list with no problems. If old john wants to play his night lords army with all raptors I am cool with that too. Sure we could always do that before but now it is nice that there is a structure in place that we can reference when we want to do such things. I like that they are giving us rules for OPTIONS that we can decide to use or not.
That's fine if you're playing in a club of guys who all know each other well. But, in places where gaming is a bit more sparse and you have to rely on pickup games or conventions to get some matches in, this stuff really hurts. You pretty much gotta take whatever games you can get, but you never know what you're going to face. Maybe it will be 7 Heldrakes and a transcendent C'tan. Because that will be fun. I understand that GW seems to think that the entire gaming community exists within their corner store and adults can pick up the baton and negotiate or fix their rules in an improvised way. For those of us who don't live in that world, it'd really be nice to just simply be able to show up and play a game with someone according to existing rules and know that you won't have to potentially face the decision of taking your gear and going back home or engage in a very unfun, one-sided match.
This is exactly right. If you don't have a regular club or gaming group where you can make plenty of house rules, somewhat clearly written rules are very important if you just want to pick up and play. I was in a club for years, now people(like myself) have changed to different games than 40K and mostly play at home. Picking up and playing a game of 40K is going to get even harder if this update is going to be like it sounds.
I have only been away from 40K for some months because other games ( FoW and WM) took my time. When I got back, I found out that my army had its name changed ( IG to AM), that some of my units wasn't usable in the regular codex anymore (two Medusa tanks, several special characters that I used to field), that super heavies were now allowed in regular games, and we are getting a new edition in a month, effectively invalidating the large Apocalypse expanision book that I purchased only year ago.
When I took a break from 40K, I was longing for tighter and better written rules and especially somewhat balanced codexes. It only looks like GW has been taking the game in the opposite direction.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
I have sat on the sidelines for about 6-8 years at least, playing a different system with a good ruleset (FOW). Every now and then I would look at GWs website and see what was going on and always the same...rehash, rehash, rehash. This is not something new, it's been going on for years, not sure why there is disappointment or surprise involved for anyone.
I don't really care about the changes to the FOC, it won't affect our group and as gamers, you have the power to dictate how a game is played. If you like tournies, then you follow those rules or run your own. Still not forced to play, I'm sure tournies will develop that have certain restrictions to spice it up (at least they should).
I just want a decent ruleset that creates a fun game for approx 2-3 hours that I can enjoy with friends. If GW cannot provide that, then it loses my business, no big deal, i have other stuff (need to finish my Israelis and Jordanians anyway). I am actually looking forward to seeing what 7th entails, and I may just be getting back in to 40K at the right time...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Unbounded armies are a fine idea for when you want to have an unstructured throw down. It won't break the game because from a strict viewpoint it isn't a rule, it is an absence of a rule. Just ignore Unbounded and the problem goes away.
The problem will only occur if some people want to play Unbounded lists against Bounded lists, relying on the as yet unknown advantages that accrue to the Bounded side in that situation to create a balance that GW have not only signally failed to achieve with any of their other material but in fact made worse in 6th edition by Allies and Flyers, etc.
31941
Post by: avedominusnox
I saw on other news and rumors posts throughout the internet that there will be a new rulebook but the changes and errata and faqs will be printable, so people with present rulebook won't need to buy the new one. Is that so?
I guess it may be logic due to so many people buying stronghold and escalation..
79398
Post by: jamesk1973
My thoughts on the rumor concerning the "free" .pdf upgrade of your 6th edition rulebook to 6.5/7 is NOT an upgrade to the rulebook (BRB) per se.
Rather, a whole set of "new" FAQs bringing all of the existing codexes/dataslates/supplements into line with 7th edition rules.
I believe we saw something similar when 6th edition dropped.
To the folks that think they are going to be screwed over by the psychic phase because there army does not have psykers...
I believe you will still get to participate in the psychic phase. Obviously you are not going to get to CAST powers but you will get a pool of points to resist psychic powers with.
Whether you will get the chance to prevent your opponent from casting "blessing" type powers is obviously up in the air.
However, even psychically "null" races have a chance to prevent offensive powers or maledictions from affecting them.
74230
Post by: BeeCee
I am anxious to see if there are any other rules changes. Any tweaking of USRs, what about tweaks to CC to make it a little bit better.
2.5-3.5 weeks or so...
53985
Post by: TheKbob
 Steve steveson wrote:
It seems to me most of the complaining is coming from people who are worried about tournaments (who will ban unbound army's if they don't work) and people who play with strangers. Many people who play with groups seem to be enthusiastic about these new rules. I know I am. I also know there is one person who won't be, he is also the one person in the group who list tailors, plays WAAC lists and math hammers the hell out of everything. Personally I think this is an edition for people who want a narrative war game rather than a competitive game. A game that gives you structure to do what you want, rather than a strict rules set that may ban you from doing many things.
Except this can be done better with tighter rules, not lax rules. More so, $75 - $100 for a "narrative" rule set? Asinine.
Here's a spoiler: Any edition of Warhammer 40k can be run as a narrative game. You don't need special rules to do it. And by making them, you are polluting your game further. Kilkrazy has long ago identified actual historical narrative games and how they build games around the idea a pre-set winner and loser of the "game" but still allowing for the loser to win based on narrative events. These new rulecards may be just that, but the thing already reeks of a cash grab.
Warmachine allows you to play whatever you want and considered to be far more balanced and tighter that Warhammer 40k. Instead of asinine restrictions on force organization, they provide bonuses to folks who want to play a narrative game. Meaning they have themed tier lists that provide proper bonuses. Games Workshop, from what we can tell so far, is trying to do this concept, but I doubt it will happen. Force Organization lists aren't the "fluffy" ones are they? Or is the Unbound lists?
The funny this is... Warmachine's rules for large games of anything goes are called "Unbound." I hope they trademarked that so they can sue Games Workshop. Would be hilarious:
http://privateerpress.com/files/NQ/36/teaser04.pdf
Edit: This new edition is why we haven't received any new FAQs for a year, it would seem. Now here's the test. Are we going to see a grand design strategy that clicks with all the 6E releases into 7E? How long does it take for pre-planning a revision like this?
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
 avedominusnox wrote:I saw on other news and rumors posts throughout the internet that there will be a new rulebook but the changes and errata and faqs will be printable, so people with present rulebook won't need to buy the new one. Is that so?
I guess it may be logic due to so many people buying stronghold and escalation..
after 6th edition released, all armies got extensively faq'd / errata'd (e.g. to determine HPs for vehicles). But that doesnt mean you didnt need the 6th ed rulebook to make the transition. I'm guessing it will be the same in 7th. And, given the absence of a full fledged mini rulebook in the upcoming starter kit...
...have fun placing a $100 note in the grubby hands of a beaming redshirt at your local GW to get your copy of 7th edition exactly 23 months after 6th edition's release..
34385
Post by: doktor_g
I think what gorgon said is true. Not a great moment for the community. Too, I must admit, I'm one of the "sky is falling" guys.
I'm trying to hold my judgment on the new book until I have it in my hands, but I must say that I am very skeptical. GW may have just hit on the fan-boy free-base business plan though with the ongoing rules changes and additions.
I also must admit that I am one of the "can't think out of the box" guys too. It's a game. Games have rules... "this isn't 'nam Dude."
I think that most of us sincerely wanted a fix to the unbalanced allies buffs and nigh on invincible units dominating the meta for the last 3-6 months. The first taste was "battle forged" and "unbound." This seemed to come out of left field and hence the nerd-rage / geek-dispair. They're profit driven not product driven. Have they changed since I bought my first GW stuff back in the early 1990s? I doubt it. Will we see a decline in their profits? I doubt it. Will we see a decline in player base? I suspect, yes.
*sigh* THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
This wait is going to be killer, need more 'leaks.'
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
I'll stick with 6th. I actually like it, but understand the misgivings. Then again, I only play with my wife and we're pretty casual about things.
7th just seems unnecessary and, if these rumors are true, it's taking things in a direction I can only see as bad for the game.
Some sort of army structure is necessary and has been in place since 2nd edition (when I started). Making it "official" to just bring whatever you like is a blatant way to encourage sales of their biggest, most expensive kits at the expense of a sensible ruleset (and at $100 it is quite an expense!).
Like I say, it won't affect me, but I feel sad that this is the route that GW is deciding to take.
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
jamesk1973 wrote:My thoughts on the rumor concerning the "free" .pdf upgrade of your 6th edition rulebook to 6.5/7 is NOT an upgrade to the rulebook ( BRB) per se.
Rather, a whole set of "new" FAQs bringing all of the existing codexes/dataslates/supplements into line with 7th edition rules.
I believe we saw something similar when 6th edition dropped.
To the folks that think they are going to be screwed over by the psychic phase because there army does not have psykers...
I believe you will still get to participate in the psychic phase. Obviously you are not going to get to CAST powers but you will get a pool of points to resist psychic powers with.
Whether you will get the chance to prevent your opponent from casting "blessing" type powers is obviously up in the air.
However, even psychically "null" races have a chance to prevent offensive powers or maledictions from affecting them.
Being able to stop blessing would remove the reliability of many deathstars that are currently out there right now, and something I wouldn't mind seeing. Screamerstar casting forewarning? Seercouncil casting fortune? Deny dat shizz! From what it sounds like, this will be an interesting game of "which psychic powers do I cast first" in an attempt to get your opponent to waste his dice denying or activating something that ends up working to your benefit. A perils of the warp table is also something I am interested in, simply taking a wound never fit with the fluff and if there are effects that can hurt the rest of a squad I will have a legitimate fluffy reason to bring commissars with primaris psykers. I'm still terrified that it will be a poorly written piece of crap but I think the new system, from the tiny blurb we've (supposedly) confirmed, this could work to balance out some of the more ridiculous things in the game right now.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Steve steveson wrote:
It seems to me most of the complaining is coming from people who are worried about tournaments (who will ban unbound army's if they don't work) and people who play with strangers. Many people who play with groups seem to be enthusiastic about these new rules. I know I am. I also know there is one person who won't be, he is also the one person in the group who list tailors, plays WAAC lists and math hammers the hell out of everything. Personally I think this is an edition for people who want a narrative war game rather than a competitive game. A game that gives you structure to do what you want, rather than a strict rules set that may ban you from doing many things.
I have much less problems with playing against an unbound list that I did against a perfectly legal Drago Star in 5th that just stomped anything I put down on the table.
But I'm not a tournement player and never really had a desire to do one. It's the pick up game that's going to hurt me and people like me. I go to the store for a game and the only one there is a guy with eight heldrakes and his four landraiders, its either get cubstomped in two turns or don't play. Neither sounds any fun.
As for the legal cheese of 6th, that was the problem. We wanted that stuff curtailed, not embraced with open arms by "Unbound."
181
Post by: gorgon
jamesk1973 wrote:My thoughts on the rumor concerning the "free" .pdf upgrade of your 6th edition rulebook to 6.5/7 is NOT an upgrade to the rulebook ( BRB) per se.
Rather, a whole set of "new" FAQs bringing all of the existing codexes/dataslates/supplements into line with 7th edition rules.
I believe we saw something similar when 6th edition dropped.
To the folks that think they are going to be screwed over by the psychic phase because there army does not have psykers...
I believe you will still get to participate in the psychic phase. Obviously you are not going to get to CAST powers but you will get a pool of points to resist psychic powers with.
Whether you will get the chance to prevent your opponent from casting "blessing" type powers is obviously up in the air.
However, even psychically "null" races have a chance to prevent offensive powers or maledictions from affecting them.
It obviously depends on the exact mechanics, but the existence of a dispel pool POTENTIALLY gives you a better chance to stop that ONE power that frightens you.
41490
Post by: optometris
I would quite appreciate some Close combat tweeks.
Wishlisting would be deepstrike/drop pod assaulting for assault vets/elites.
you could drop pod in and then roll 3 dice picking the lowest for charge range for instance, that to me seems more fluffy, these guys are well rehearsed in assault warfare so would likely be trained in charging out of drop pods/jump packs in etc the three dice represent that its a hard thing to do.
68667
Post by: Squidbot
Right, I'm off to scratch build 60 buggies and a warboss in a hockey mask.
7375
Post by: BrookM
I wonder if my current set of psychic cards will still be valid with the next edition.
3486
Post by: Shotgun
 optometris wrote:I would quite appreciate some Close combat tweeks.
Wishlisting would be deepstrike/drop pod assaulting for assault vets/elites.
you could drop pod in and then roll 3 dice picking the lowest for charge range for instance, that to me seems more fluffy, these guys are well rehearsed in assault warfare so would likely be trained in charging out of drop pods/jump packs in etc the three dice represent that its a hard thing to do.
Who cares if the rules don't allow it? Build your own narative and do what you want. GW is telling us that there are no "rules" to army creation, so why bother with limiting yourself to anything that is in an over priced $100 book?
27151
Post by: streamdragon
jamesk1973 wrote:
To the folks that think they are going to be screwed over by the psychic phase because there army does not have psykers...
I believe you will still get to participate in the psychic phase. Obviously you are not going to get to CAST powers but you will get a pool of points to resist psychic powers with.
Whether you will get the chance to prevent your opponent from casting "blessing" type powers is obviously up in the air.
However, even psychically "null" races have a chance to prevent offensive powers or maledictions from affecting them.
I just want to be clear my comments before were not meant in a "sky is falling" manner, nor do I think my SoB will be "screwed over" by the psychic phase. I was comparing it to Dwarves in WHFB regarding the Magic Phase.
Basically, for 99% of Dwarf Armies, that phase might as well not exist during their turn. Sure, you get to defend during your OPPONENT'S phase, but that's not really the same as playing the phase yourself. I simply find the whole thing slightly humerous, as well as wondering what exactly abilities like Adamantium Will will do in 7th E. (Assuming that they survive into 7th, of course). I was also pointing out the somewhat ironic nature that armies that hate Psykers the most (Necrons, BT, SoB, Khornate) suddenly have FAR less defense against it. Because dice pools are built by d6 + total ML of your psykers, they are stuck with just d6; again, depending on any changes to Adamantium Will wrt: BT and SoB. Necrons and Khornate armies, who don't currently get that rule universally on their units, will literally have the weakest psychic defense in the game. (Again, pending any other possible changes.)
Funny to me, that's all.
79398
Post by: jamesk1973
Could they be moving the story forward...?
The Emperor is dead.
The Imperium is falling.
The Adeptus Astartes are fracturing into groups focused on either saving the Imperium as a whole or safeguarding their own backyard.
Could lend some credence to why there is a "new" allies matrix and the option to play "unbound".
Ad hoc forces joining together across multiple factions with whatever forces they have at their disposal. Because the astral beacon has fallen silent...
As well as the option to replay "historic" battles. Battles that consisted of units that were unable to comply with the FOC for some reason. Tailored strike forces or the surviving units of a failed offensive fighting a desperate retreat?
As well as getting the be TFG and bring a list of entirely FMC deathstar 2++ rerollable spam virus...
Forge Your Narrative!
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Squidbot wrote:Right, I'm off to scratch build 60 buggies and a warboss in a hockey mask.
Honestly, when it comes to the idea of making an Unbound army, it's hard to tell if I'm more intrigued by Orks or Tyranids.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Squidbot wrote:Right, I'm off to scratch build 60 buggies and a warboss in a hockey mask.
OUTLANDER!
With that out of the way, I'm tentatively intrigued by the "Unbound" rules. This could be the excuse I've needed to get my painting shifted into gear for some projects I've had just sitting around unbuilt in boxes for some time. Stealth Teams and Pathfinders with no Fire Warriors or XV8s? Oh yes...
61800
Post by: Cryptek of Awesome
Steve steveson wrote: It seems to me most of the complaining is coming from people who are worried about tournaments (who will ban unbound army's if they don't work) and people who play with strangers. Many people who play with groups seem to be enthusiastic about these new rules. I know I am. I also know there is one person who won't be, he is also the one person in the group who list tailors, plays WAAC lists and math hammers the hell out of everything. Personally I think this is an edition for people who want a narrative war game rather than a competitive game. A game that gives you structure to do what you want, rather than a strict rules set that may ban you from doing many things. I have much less problems with playing against an unbound list that I did against a perfectly legal Drago Star in 5th that just stomped anything I put down on the table.
How can you possibly say that and then think... "This problem is going to get better if we remove *all* restrictions!" It's like... "Oh man, banking rules and regulations aren't doing enough to stop corrupt banks from taking people's money and houses - we should give them the option to operate with NO rules and regulations - that should balance things out." There's like this weird idea that Unbound is only for people who just want to play fun fluffy armies and it was made just for them so that they can finally compete against that one WAAC guy at their club. You don't think a player who wants to literally Win At Any Cost isn't going to embrace Moneyhammer Pay to Win edition? If it becomes clear that Unbound is the way everyone at the club wants to play, they'll break it in half so fast it'll make your head spin. Don't get me wrong - I fully believe most people will simply ignore unbound and continue playing 40k - the bigger and much scarier problem is, as others have mentioned, we're dealing with a company who either don't understand their own rules, or just don't care.
9892
Post by: Flashman
The inherent problem is that as 40K has evolved over the last few years GW have become more obsessed with making (and selling) big kits and less interested in foot soldiers. They've basically recreated Epic at 28mm scale.
Some people are into this, others want 40K to go back to what it was designed to be i.e. a skirmish game.
Consequently GW are coming up with increasingly dumb ways to try and mesh the two together, so that they can keep both sets of customers happy.
It isn't working 
76525
Post by: Xerics
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
All of these rumors point to GW being too dumb to fix their own ruleset and balance the game. I'd love every game developer for GW to have to participate in at least 1 GT every year.
If the rules gets too stupid, it'll be TOs and club managers writing the rules now.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
 Xerics wrote:
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job..
Warhammer 40k isn't reality.
Games have rules, unlike reality.
Hence why Unbound is getting a lot of (rightful) flak.
3486
Post by: Shotgun
I can't get past the idea that GW is telling us "there are no rules, forge your own narrative....except for the rules in this $100 book. These are how you forge it."
Feth that.
I have 200 metal tallarns that now are carrying D weapons. I know , I know, they look like lasguns, but really....my narrative...its the D.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
There's also another reason I'm moving away from GW. I'm simply not willing to cope with a new rule book every 2 years. I liked the supplements and new smaller codices (not the prices though) But all that coupled with a new edition is too much. I simply don't want to learn a new rule set every two years. Maybe if it fixed the problems and actually was a better game for it, maybe. I know this is only one time, but its a symptom of a much larger problem.
And that problem is: GW has no clue what they're doing.
76525
Post by: Xerics
 Blacksails wrote: Xerics wrote:
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job..
Warhammer 40k isn't reality.
Games have rules, unlike reality.
Hence why Unbound is getting a lot of (rightful) flak.
Real life does have rules. Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions?
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Xerics wrote:
Real life does have rules. Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions?
There's a very distinct difference between laws and game rules.
I hope you can see the difference.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Xerics wrote: Blacksails wrote: Xerics wrote:
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job..
Warhammer 40k isn't reality.
Games have rules, unlike reality.
Hence why Unbound is getting a lot of (rightful) flak.
Real life does have rules. Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions?
Because forces that don't operate by the Geneva Convention automatically lose the war, right? That's why Central African warlords don't get games, and why Syria is such a peaceful place. I mean, Chemical Weapons are cheating right, so war over?
79398
Post by: jamesk1973
 rabidguineapig wrote:
Being able to stop blessing would remove the reliability of many deathstars that are currently out there right now, and something I wouldn't mind seeing. Screamerstar casting forewarning? Seercouncil casting fortune? Deny dat shizz! From what it sounds like, this will be an interesting game of "which psychic powers do I cast first" in an attempt to get your opponent to waste his dice denying or activating something that ends up working to your benefit. A perils of the warp table is also something I am interested in, simply taking a wound never fit with the fluff and if there are effects that can hurt the rest of a squad I will have a legitimate fluffy reason to bring commissars with primaris psykers. I'm still terrified that it will be a poorly written piece of crap but I think the new system, from the tiny blurb we've (supposedly) confirmed, this could work to balance out some of the more ridiculous things in the game right now.
Too true.
Unbound or battle-forged, I will not put my army on the table if my opponent pulls out a screamerstar. I'll just tell him, "You win! Who is next?". I have been the abused spouse against that list for too long!
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Wait....reality doesn't have rules? Then where the heck are my superpowers!? 
I'm kidding of course, I just thought the statement was kind of funny.
76525
Post by: Xerics
Blacksails wrote: Xerics wrote:
Real life does have rules. Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions?
There's a very distinct difference between laws and game rules.
I hope you can see the difference.
I know the difference very well. Laws are very akin to rules. When your parents tell you that you have to be home by a certain time thats the rules and they are treated as law as long as you are living under him. Murder someone? Break the rules of life/laws then you go to jail (or in some states we will kill you back). Life is a game played on hardcore. There is no redo's, No extra lives. No GM to save you. Every choice has a consequence. Life has rules. They may be called laws but they are rules all the same.
82688
Post by: RobZie
Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
This can be said about so many aspects of this game, trying to compare 40k to real life military tactics will send you into cardiac arrest. Also, who do you think will actually use this rule to make the game more realistic from a strategic standpoint?
76525
Post by: Xerics
 RobZie wrote: Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
This can be said about so many aspects of this game, trying to compare 40k to real life military tactics will send you into cardiac arrest. Also, who do you think will actually use this rule to make the game more realistic from a strategic standpoint?
I would. No point in taking guardians against a drop pod marine army. I would only bring the best tools for the job. Because thats how it is supposed to work. Not limiting you to have to spend points on units that are just going to get slaughtered. Warhammer 40k players would make terrible generals (for the most part).
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
I'm sure it has been said before but i'll bring it up again, as this ad-infinitum wailing over a perceived 'broken' rules system (unbound armies) is quite prevalent here.
Competitive events will establish the types of lists that are allowed to participate, much as they do right now. When 6th came out, many tournaments went to a 1999+1 system to avoid double FOC. As more and more allies have come out, tournaments have been implementing a "2 book" rule for army lists. With the advent of 7th and Unbound, we will see many tournaments advertise they are "Battle Forged only " events.
As far as having the rules in the book - perhaps the battle forged bonus vs unbound is quite substantial. Extra VP's, free shooting attacks, extra psychic dice -- we just don't know right now. That's the crux of the argument - nobody knows yet (or the ones that do aren't talking -40Kradio-).
No matter what game system GW gives us, or what time frame they release it in, players WILL break the game. Look at the current meta of deathstars with 2++ rerollable saves.
I'm eager to see the changes, with the hope that assault has been buffed back to some of it's former glory. The mission cards intrigue me - i like having different ways to win missions, because that's extra chances to out-think my opponents.
I will echo the statement that this tiny leak isn't enough, however - we need more pages from that white dwarf, maybe there's more discussion regarding 7th in there somewhere. Whoever's got a copy - enlighten us!
80999
Post by: jasper76
Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.
76525
Post by: Xerics
 jasper76 wrote: Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.
Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?
80999
Post by: jasper76
Xerics wrote: jasper76 wrote: Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.
Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?
Nope, they are no so much fun, so in my personal view, they just took one of the worst parts of the game and made it even worster.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Xerics wrote: jasper76 wrote: Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.
Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?
So the solution to fix it is to just spam OP units?
People like me wanted to end that kind of cheese, not welcome it with open arms. If you thought that the deathstars were abused cheese, wait until you see the unbound netlists.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
... and how much fun is it for the Taliban player to sit there and take a bombing run with no effective countermeasures?
I suppose they have to count on "winning the scenario" by hiding in caves...
The point is, it's a game. There's supposed to be an element of rules structure that encourages a heated competition between two players who both have an opportunity to win and have fun doing so. If that, to you, means one player trying not to die while his opponent gets to roll all the dice then I'm sure you'll love Unbound. I think most of us disagree with that concept though.
80999
Post by: jasper76
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Several posts deleted.
Please stay on topic.
Oddly enough pointless arguments over the semantics of what a law is/isn't and the like isn't on topic.
Thank you.
1460
Post by: shade1313
jasper76 wrote:If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
shade1313 wrote: jasper76 wrote:If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.
"The only winning move is to not play" indeed.
3486
Post by: Shotgun
jasper76 wrote:If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
Cept you have to pay $75 per queen to put them there and $100 for the rules pamphlet giving you permission to use queens.
GW is attempting to charge us for playing Cowboys and Indians.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
shade1313 wrote: jasper76 wrote:If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.
Was it Battle Chess? Loved that game. Two pawns against each other, one stamps the foot of the other with his lance and then stabs him in the face.
Good times. Good times.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
If Warhammer 40,000 was actually balanced - with every unit worth its points and not one iota more - then Unbound would not be the abomination that it is. If Wave Serpents weren't a flat-out better unit for their price than the equivalent value of Eldar Guardians, it would not matter so much if someone took all of one and none of the other.
There'd still be problems - an army dominated by a single unit type will exaggerate its strengths and weaknesses (against an all AV14 Land Raider army for example, anything with Strength 7 or less might as well sit the game out), but this would at least be balanced out by their own hard counters.
1460
Post by: shade1313
 ClockworkZion wrote:shade1313 wrote: jasper76 wrote:If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.
"The only winning move is to not play" indeed.
Yeah, that's really the kind of game setup that boils down (for the vast majority of players, I'm sure there are some chess geniuses who could try to work out a viable strategy) to "smash armies together for mutual annihilation, see who's left standing at the end, probably a stalemate".
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Xerics wrote:Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?
You seem to have this idea that people love deathstars. I'm sure there are some that do, but for the most part, no, they suck, we want them to go away, not become worse.
19636
Post by: Alkasyn
The Unbound stuff sounds like rubbish, but the missions are similar to what YAMS does for Infinity - i.e might be a fun change. That alone won't bring me back to the game, however.
1478
Post by: warboss
Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard? In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
We're talking about a GAME which should be FAIR and FUN. War is not nor should it be any of those words. While some measure of realism is good in a game (even one in the distant future where nukes are common but people choose to run at each other with chainsaws), the primary purpose of Warhammer 40,000 isn't to simulate Desert Storm but to provide two or more players some shared enjoyment where they ostensibly have the same chance to win excluding their own tactics/skill level. That is fundamentally different from the type of war you'd want to wage.
1460
Post by: shade1313
streamdragon wrote:shade1313 wrote: jasper76 wrote:If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.
Was it Battle Chess? Loved that game. Two pawns against each other, one stamps the foot of the other with his lance and then stabs him in the face.
Good times. Good times.
Noooo, this was WAAAAAY before Battle Chess. Like, late 70s/early 80s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Chess released in '79.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
I am wondering how much of this hate/fear is just because it’s 7th Edition.
I had this back when 3rd Edition D&D was announcing it in a tiny little paragraph in a Dragon Magazine Letters to the Readers. We had three players just decided to hate it D&D 3rd Edition right then and there. The funny thing they become one of the biggest proponents once it had been out for a few months.
The one of ours that had the biggest issue was one of player who had the most issues with 2nd Edition. His problem was that they addressed all of his problem, but not the way thought they should have.
They all still played 3rd Edition D&D and still had fun
Then D&D 4th Edition was announced and the same thing happened. They killed off a bunch of Sacred Cows (Many of them sent off to Krusty Burger kitchens) and tried to address the issues once more, but not the way half of my group thought they should have fixed the problems.
Now with D&D Next (We still call it D&D 5th), it looks like they tried to please everyone, and that never works, but there was some of it we liked (My group was one of the Play-Testers) and a lot we did not like.
WH40k is giving me the same vibe as D&D Next. A failed Attempt to address ALL of the issues. This does not mean it is a Failure.
We don’t have all of the facts
On Battle-Forged vs. Unbound:
1] They now are giving us multiple ways for both the “Fully-Non-Competitive-Player” to the “Hyper-Competitive-TFG-WAAC-Player”.
2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.
I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.
On the Physic Phase:
1] As an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player I don’t remember how it worked back then, I remember my Level 4 Librarian armed with a Thunder Hammer and Force Axe getting 12-24 S8-10 Attacks each turn.
2] I do remember the 2nd Edition Physic Phase, I had no issue with it, if fact I liked better than the 3rd-6th set because sometimes we were not sure when some power were happen. You will also be more likely to remember to use all of them.
Overall I think those who walk into 7th with an open mind “Wanting” to enjoy it will enjoy it. Those who walk in “Wanting” to hate it will Hate it.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
shade1313 wrote: streamdragon wrote:shade1313 wrote: jasper76 wrote:If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.
My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.
Was it Battle Chess? Loved that game. Two pawns against each other, one stamps the foot of the other with his lance and then stabs him in the face.
Good times. Good times.
Noooo, this was WAAAAAY before Battle Chess. Like, late 70s/early 80s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Chess released in '79.
Wow. Suddenly I feel younger again!
Also I feel the need to find a copy of Battle Chess...
On topic, I'm actually somewhat looking forward to the new rules. That might be because I've been somewhat disillusioned with 6th E and what I see as 'meh' updates to the armies I play. (Or lack of update, in the case of Orks.) We'll see though. I rarely play 40k lately, so if it's somehow massively worse than 6th (which I'm inclined to doubt) then I guess I can continue to play WHFB instead.
57289
Post by: MetalOxide
The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I love this shift from stale competitive play full of cookie-cutter lists, to more of a free for all style of play, where anything (up to a certain extent) can go. I think that this is the golden age for 40k.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 MetalOxide wrote:The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I think that this is the golden age for 40k.
Or the All Vangaurd Lighting Claw Armies lead by Shrike.
I now want to see a Night-Lord vs. Raven Guard Battle.
30766
Post by: Da Butcha
I'm still amazed that some people don't see the problems inherent in an Unbound army
(Yes, I do see all the cool stuff. Starting players being able to play immediately with what models they have. Amazing themed forces. Cool narrative games.)
Which of these sounds more reasonable:
You have 10 Heldrakes. It is your responsibility, before showing up at the gaming store to play, to negotiate with an opponent for bringing a non-standard list. You were aware, before buying and painting 10 Heldrakes, that this formation was a non-standard list.
Your opponent has brought his entirely legal 10 Heldrake army to the gaming store. Now that both of you are at the store, with your armies in tow, you can back out of a game or try to get him to alter his list if he has other models with him, or maybe try to alter your list with any extra models you have, to make a game that might be more fun for you and less trying for your Battle-Forged Space Marine army.
I know that 'narrative games' sound awesome. They are awesome. However, narrative games require communication and planning before the game (unless you make up a narrative as you go along, which you can do with any game, at any time, so if you are using narrative in that sense, you are always good, so shut it). Let me illustrate.
You have a cool narrative idea for an Orky Air Force (which, I will admit, sounds good to me!). You bring your models (all those cool ork airplanes, and maybe some deffkoptas) to the game store/club. Your opponent has a cool narrative idea for a dense, urban warfare game, and brings a massive fortification network, tons of IG ground-pounders with flamers and det charges, and grabs all of the game venue's Cityfight ruins to set up on the board.
If you let your opponent have 'his' narrative game, you will have a board with rubble all over it and almost nowhere you can even PLACE a dakkajet base, and your narrative plan is foiled. If you set out a table that supports being able to place many, many large-based fliers (without them toppling over), your opponent's narrative plan of dense, urban warfare is spoiled.
You need to talk about those types of expectations before the game. If the game overtly sets up almost ANY army selections as valid for a pick-up game, then you have problems.
Also, for all of those who are arguing that 'let people play with what they have' is a good choice for Games Workshop:
Why not let them play with their Warhammer Fantasy models? What about their Epic or Warmaster models? What if they want to glue Riptide arms on a Stonehorn? Why shouldn't the rules support letting them make up their own models? Why should the rules limit them to valid unit choices? What if I have 7 IG troopers, a Star Dragon, 3 Terminators, and a Wraithknight?
Unless you are okay with 'plonk down any plastic from GW and write your own rules', you are already accepting the value and utility of some limits and regulation on 'play what you own'. We are then just discussing the best parameters for restrictions that we all agree should exist.*
*Related anecdote:
A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her a billion dollars. She replies affirmatively. He then offers five dollars and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
I think that we've already established that some limitations on your army composition are necessary (otherwise, meet my Epic Landraider army!). We're now discussing whether the ones that GW has seemed to establish with the 'new rules' leak are adequate.
76525
Post by: Xerics
 warboss wrote: Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
We're talking about a GAME which should be FAIR and FUN. War is not nor should it be any of those words. While some measure of realism is good in a game (even one in the distant future where nukes are common but people choose to run at each other with chainsaws), the primary purpose of Warhammer 40,000 isn't to simulate Desert Storm but to provide two or more players some shared enjoyment where they ostensibly have the same chance to win excluding their own tactics/skill level. That is fundamentally different from the type of war you'd want to wage.
But the game isn't fair and fun. the game has become "I win because (insert deathstar here)".
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 Anpu42 wrote:
2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.
I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.
If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?
57289
Post by: MetalOxide
Anpu42 wrote: MetalOxide wrote:The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I think that this is the golden age for 40k.
Or the All Vangaurd Lighting Claw Armies lead by Shrike.
I now want to see a Night-Lord vs. Raven Guard Battle.
That would be awesome to see… somebody must make it happen!
1478
Post by: warboss
Xerics wrote: warboss wrote: Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
We're talking about a GAME which should be FAIR and FUN. War is not nor should it be any of those words. While some measure of realism is good in a game (even one in the distant future where nukes are common but people choose to run at each other with chainsaws), the primary purpose of Warhammer 40,000 isn't to simulate Desert Storm but to provide two or more players some shared enjoyment where they ostensibly have the same chance to win excluding their own tactics/skill level. That is fundamentally different from the type of war you'd want to wage.
But the game isn't fair and fun. the game has become "I win because (insert deathstar here)".
Yes, and alot of that (but admittedly not all) is because of the loosey goosey army construction allowed in 6e with allies, dataslates, and such. Unbound accentuates that problem instead of "fixing" it. You seem to recognize the issue but are wondering why people are complaining "so hard" about something that makes it worse. Obviously the details in this situation will make or break it as a simple single line about getting permission to use unbound armies would solve everything... but so would a single line in the 40k 4th, 5th, or 6th edition rulebook about FW and they've chosen not to do so. The line about warforged units getting a bonus makes me think their won't be an official "permission only" line but it's still possible.
8546
Post by: krazynadechukr
MetalOxide wrote:The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I love this shift from stale competitive play full of cookie-cutter lists, to more of a free for all style of play, where anything (up to a certain extent) can go. I think that this is the golden age for 40k.
OMG, I can have my citadel journal edition Cult of Khorne berserker termie army in landraiders back where everyone can burst into a khorne bloodthirster!
79228
Post by: tomball0706
I'm kinda liking the sound of the unbound army lists, sure some are going to be broken as hell such as those that are twenty riptides only, but it can also provide some brilliantly themed lists!
I'm looking at pure CSM raptor armies, or a horde of nothing by IG troopers fighting dozens of trygons. Some things we've always wanted to try out but had to stick to apocalypse and apocalypse MK2. Now there isn't the 3k point minimum buy in which I like and the games wont be 20 hour long marathons. They could be short and sweet battles that were being replicated from a novel we read?
And those complaining how 40K is no longer a skirmish game? Hey with Unbound army lists you can easily break that 10 man squad of marines down to 10 1 man squads and have them all act individualy, ergo 40K has just became Killteam!
Yeah the book shall be a rip off, but some of the ideas we've only heard brief tid bits about aren't worth slating the entire thing and classing it as a failure already? We don't know whats coming, we've had a paragraph from a WD and that's it (come on 40k radio, tell us more damn it!). I know it's hard, especially with GW, but come on, for once, lets have some hope and faith!
Preach over, man I should apply to the Ecclesiarchy
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
I'll be honest, on my first pass through that White Dwarf article I was sort of terrified when I reached the psychic phase section. My initial reaction was dislike, but the more I think about it the more I realize that if it is done even remotely well it could mitigate some of the deathstar builds and add a layer of thinking and tactics to the game.
I am hoping that more rumors are leaked that confirm my hopes, but for now I am inclined to be cautiously optimistic about the direction it is going. Battle forged vs. unbound I don't see being a problem in my meta so I'm going to hold judgment on that until I see how it really works.
My only fear is that one of my armies will be completely nerfed by the new rules edition, but between IG, GK, and Daemons I don't see it happening unless FMCs receive a major change and the psyker perils table just completely blows. I could see GKs getting a solid boost in warp charge points due to the amount of MSU brotherhood of psyker units you can cram into a game.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Would anyone on here complain if I went "unbound" and actually just set a monster mash of greater demons and demon princes on the board? If people want fluff, the first waves of leaders had come in and were wiped out, and the ruinous powers sent in their heavy hitters. Boom. Rationale has been reached, and I don't really care about OP units, I just played as close to monster mash with the 4th/5th demon book, and this would be a working continuation. If I lose, I lose. If I win, sweet. I do fear the upcoming OP options, but I guess we'll see. Can't be as bad as 5 titans, right?
27151
Post by: streamdragon
There are still some (minor) limitations on Unbound armies though. They have to comply with unit sizes and the ally chart, for instance.
Not saying that those are huge limitations, mind you. Removing the FoC definitely makes some units stronger since they can be units of 1 instead of having to group up to fit into the FoC, as an example. For instance, now there really is EVERY reason for a Nid player to take multiple units of 1 Zoanthrope, instead of units of 3. You get more ML, more Psyhic dice, more powers, and enemy units will waste more shots into Overkill, since they can only target 1 model.
I get the feeling a lot of Tyranid armies will switch to Unbound, if only to no longer worry about overcrowded slots.
Also, Nidzilla is now even easier to do! And without a 30 gaunt tax!
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
So if the psychic phase is anything like the magic phase in fantasy, psykers will have "psychic dice" of their own, plus a generated pool that all psykers share.
I'm assuming that to cast a psychic power, you probably roll 1 or more dice, add the leadership of your psyker, and try to roll above or equal to a target number (probably 13 or 14). Warp charge 2 or 3 powers probably require a higher number to cast successfully. I would imagine that in this process, rolling a double 1 or 6 would cause a further roll on the "perils of the warp" chart.
To further speculate, i would imagine that enemy psykers would be able to potentially block your psychic powers by rolling dice from their own pool(s) of psychic dice. they would likely need to beat the number your psyker generated upon casting their own powers. I would also assume that double 1's or 6's could cause damage on their part, as well.
That's all speculation and guessing, but i bet it's pretty close to what we get at the end. What i can't figure right now is how witchfire powers work - possibly they get manifested during the psychic phase, and then they count as a weapon your psyker can use during the shooting phase or possibly be held-over to use as overwatch.
I hate waiting.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
 Flashman wrote:The inherent problem is that as 40K has evolved over the last few years GW have become more obsessed with making (and selling) big kits and less interested in foot soldiers. They've basically recreated Epic at 28mm scale.
Some people are into this, others want 40K to go back to what it was designed to be i.e. a skirmish game.
Consequently GW are coming up with increasingly dumb ways to try and mesh the two together, so that they can keep both sets of customers happy.
It isn't working
It would work if they put all the non-skirmish stuff into add-on modules. Then skirmish gamers could happily play with the stuff they liked and big game players could play with the add-ons, without having to tread on each others' toes. This was the situation in 3rd, 4th and 5th edition, with add-on modules like Planetfall, CoD and Apocalypse.
The basic problem is that GW are trying to stuff the big game elements into the core rules in the idea this will convince everyone to play big games.
8546
Post by: krazynadechukr
GW execs one day - "They want nerfed? They want broken? They want unbalanced? We'll show them they had it good..."
77029
Post by: Bull0
 tomball0706 wrote:I'm kinda liking the sound of the unbound army lists, sure some are going to be broken as hell such as those that are twenty riptides only, but it can also provide some brilliantly themed lists!
I'm looking at pure CSM raptor armies, or a horde of nothing by IG troopers fighting dozens of trygons. Some things we've always wanted to try out but had to stick to apocalypse and apocalypse MK2. Now there isn't the 3k point minimum buy in which I like and the games wont be 20 hour long marathons. They could be short and sweet battles that were being replicated from a novel we read?
And those complaining how 40K is no longer a skirmish game? Hey with Unbound army lists you can easily break that 10 man squad of marines down to 10 1 man squads and have them all act individualy, ergo 40K has just became Killteam!
Yeah the book shall be a rip off, but some of the ideas we've only heard brief tid bits about aren't worth slating the entire thing and classing it as a failure already? We don't know whats coming, we've had a paragraph from a WD and that's it (come on 40k radio, tell us more damn it!). I know it's hard, especially with GW, but come on, for once, lets have some hope and faith!
Preach over, man I should apply to the Ecclesiarchy
You were already free to break the rules and play your bizarre footguard versus trygons game, you didn't need it to be enshrined in the rulebook. And you've misread the unbound rules, it doesn't let you take 10 1-man tactical squads.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I may start nids now too, actually. An entire army of Carnifexes and Hive Tryants makes me happy. I have to see the rules, but I think I'll be okay with these FoC parts so far.
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
I don't know if fantasy is like this now, but the psychic rules leak seems very much like the older editions of fantasy's magic phase. This is a good thing imo. Makes psychic powers seem more like a finished product, rather than something just tagged onto the shooting phase.
Not sure about the unbound list. I hope the bonuses for a 'pure' army are significant, as they will need to be to deal with that all greaterdaemon/ wraithknight/ riptide/ etc that some people are likely to bring.
It seems like this will make the gap between competitive play and casual play much wider. I will be watching with interest, and won't pass judgement until I've seen what methods they have to balance this.
9370
Post by: Accolade
krazynadechukr wrote:GW execs one day - "They want nerfed? They want broken? They want unbalanced? We'll show them they had it good..."
Reading a couple of the articles from the WDW, it honestly gives me the impression that they are feeling vindictive against competitive players asking for balance. But what good is it going to do them when they firmly establish the belief that " 40k is for narrative battles" and see those customers who are interested in a well-built game walk out the door? Obviously that isn't everyone by any means, but how will alienating the portion of the base help in any way?  Bull0 wrote:You were already free to break the rules and play your bizarre footguard versus trygons game, you didn't need it to be enshrined in the rulebook. And you've misread the unbound rules, it doesn't let you take 10 1-man tactical squads.
And this, as it has been said by many others. This stuff was always playable before it was codified, but now it will probably be much more expected (I haven't seen much of a mass-disregard of any 40k rule except for maybe mysterious objectives).
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 tetrisphreak wrote:So if the psychic phase is anything like the magic phase in fantasy, psykers will have "psychic dice" of their own, plus a generated pool that all psykers share.
I'm assuming that to cast a psychic power, you probably roll 1 or more dice, add the leadership of your psyker, and try to roll above or equal to a target number (probably 13 or 14). Warp charge 2 or 3 powers probably require a higher number to cast successfully. I would imagine that in this process, rolling a double 1 or 6 would cause a further roll on the "perils of the warp" chart.
To further speculate, i would imagine that enemy psykers would be able to potentially block your psychic powers by rolling dice from their own pool(s) of psychic dice. they would likely need to beat the number your psyker generated upon casting their own powers. I would also assume that double 1's or 6's could cause damage on their part, as well.
That's all speculation and guessing, but i bet it's pretty close to what we get at the end. What i can't figure right now is how witchfire powers work - possibly they get manifested during the psychic phase, and then they count as a weapon your psyker can use during the shooting phase or possibly be held-over to use as overwatch.
I hate waiting.
My reading is that models no longer have their own dice/warp charge. Models now generate dice for a pooled resource. So if I have 2 Hive Tyrants, 1 Tervigon and 4 Zoanthropes, I would get d6 +1 (Terv) +2(Hive Tyrants) +8 (2x4 Zoans) for a total of d6+11 dice. I could then divide those dice however I wanted. Maybe I REALLY need that Catalyst off that the Hive Tyrant has to go off. I throw 4 dice at it. I have my d6 roll + 7 left to use for other powers. Despite generating dice, some psykers might not even actually use any powers.
Which I guess raises an issue ala the old Magic system for WHFB. You get armies that generate a TON of dice vs armies that can't/don't generate a lot, and you end up with a very one sided phase. Nids can get Psykers in 3 different slots ( HQ/Troop/Elite), generating dice out the carapaced wazoo, where Necrons only ever generate d6 psychic defense dice. I guess that's not really all that different from games now where Necrons have very little psychic defense though.
It does make me wonder how Shadow in the Warp and other psychic things will function though. What good is the -3 LD on psykers doing to stop actual psychic powers, if those powers no longer require a LD test?
We'll see. I think my let down at the Nid codex is what has me thinking about them most when it comes to the new rules changes. Maybe, just maybe I'll finally see a reason to play them against, say, Tau...
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
streamdragon wrote:There are still some (minor) limitations on Unbound armies though. They have to comply with unit sizes and the ally chart, for instance.
Not saying that those are huge limitations, mind you. Removing the FoC definitely makes some units stronger since they can be units of 1 instead of having to group up to fit into the FoC, as an example. For instance, now there really is EVERY reason for a Nid player to take multiple units of 1 Zoanthrope, instead of units of 3. You get more ML, more Psyhic dice, more powers, and enemy units will waste more shots into Overkill, since they can only target 1 model.
I get the feeling a lot of Tyranid armies will switch to Unbound, if only to no longer worry about overcrowded slots.
Also, Nidzilla is now even easier to do! And without a 30 gaunt tax!
I'm honestly finding it too entertaining not to just think of making an army of Inquisitors or, if I want to roll chaos, either an army of Khornate juggerlords or the Lord of Change band
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Da Butcha wrote:I'm still amazed that some people don't see the problems inherent in an Unbound army
That will always be an issue, Unbound, Battle-Forged, 1999+1, No-Allies List will all have issues. The only way this will never be an issue is if both Players work it out or Pre-Generated Armies.
(Yes, I do see all the cool stuff. Starting players being able to play immediately with what models they have. Amazing themed forces. Cool narrative games.)
This is why I like the concept of Unbound Armies
Which of these sounds more reasonable:
You have 10 Heldrakes. It is your responsibility, before showing up at the gaming store to play, to negotiate with an opponent for bringing a non-standard list. You were aware, before buying and painting 10 Heldrakes, that this formation was a non-standard list.
Your opponent has brought his entirely legal 10 Heldrake army to the gaming store. Now that both of you are at the store, with your armies in tow, you can back out of a game or try to get him to alter his list if he has other models with him, or maybe try to alter your list with any extra models you have, to make a game that might be more fun for you and less trying for your Battle-Forged Space Marine army.
Actually it is the Responsibility of BOTH Players. Personally, myself, I would love to try it once just to see how it would happen. If had the Heldrake army and knowing the “Hate for them I would also have brought a second “Battle Forged List” just incase no one wanted to play against that Macy’s Day Horror Show.
I know that 'narrative games' sound awesome. They are awesome. However, narrative games require communication and planning before the game (unless you make up a narrative as you go along, which you can do with any game, at any time, so if you are using narrative in that sense, you are always good, so shut it). Let me illustrate.
You have a cool narrative idea for an Orky Air Force (which, I will admit, sounds good to me!). You bring your models (all those cool ork airplanes, and maybe some deffkoptas) to the game store/club. Your opponent has a cool narrative idea for a dense, urban warfare game, and brings a massive fortification network, tons of IG ground-pounders with flamers and det charges, and grabs all of the game venue's Cityfight ruins to set up on the board.
If you let your opponent have 'his' narrative game, you will have a board with rubble all over it and almost nowhere you can even PLACE a dakkajet base, and your narrative plan is foiled. If you set out a table that supports being able to place many, many large-based fliers (without them toppling over), your opponent's narrative plan of dense, urban warfare is spoiled.
You need to talk about those types of expectations before the game. If the game overtly sets up almost ANY army selections as valid for a pick-up game, then you have problems.
The it was not a “True Forge the Narrative Collaboration.” Somewhere there was a breakdown in the communication making it impossible for one army to play. Oddly this has nothing to do with “Unbound List Building”, it is a failure for both players to work together.
Also, for all of those who are arguing that 'let people play with what they have' is a good choice for Games Workshop:
Why not let them play with their Warhammer Fantasy models? What about their Epic or Warmaster models? What if they want to glue Riptide arms on a Stonehorn? Why shouldn't the rules support letting them make up their own models? Why should the rules limit them to valid unit choices? What if I have 7 IG troopers, a Star Dragon, 3 Terminators, and a Wraithknight?
Unless you are okay with 'plonk down any plastic from GW and write your own rules', you are already accepting the value and utility of some limits and regulation on 'play what you own'. We are then just discussing the best parameters for restrictions that we all agree should exist.*
Yes.
*Related anecdote:
A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her a billion dollars. She replies affirmatively. He then offers five dollars and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
I think that we've already established that some limitations on your army composition are necessary (otherwise, meet my Epic Landraider army!). We're now discussing whether the ones that GW has seemed to establish with the 'new rules' leak are adequate.
Thank, now all I can think of is a Robot Chicken episode.
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
You don't think it makes sense that you are sending your infantry up against flamers? Well look at it from the other guys perspective. Why wouldn't they take flamers if they know you have infantry. Best tools for the job, like you said.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
StarTrotter wrote: streamdragon wrote:There are still some (minor) limitations on Unbound armies though. They have to comply with unit sizes and the ally chart, for instance.
Not saying that those are huge limitations, mind you. Removing the FoC definitely makes some units stronger since they can be units of 1 instead of having to group up to fit into the FoC, as an example. For instance, now there really is EVERY reason for a Nid player to take multiple units of 1 Zoanthrope, instead of units of 3. You get more ML, more Psyhic dice, more powers, and enemy units will waste more shots into Overkill, since they can only target 1 model.
I get the feeling a lot of Tyranid armies will switch to Unbound, if only to no longer worry about overcrowded slots.
Also, Nidzilla is now even easier to do! And without a 30 gaunt tax!
I'm honestly finding it too entertaining not to just think of making an army of Inquisitors or, if I want to roll chaos, either an army of Khornate juggerlords or the Lord of Change band
For me? GENESTEALER CULT + PDF
SUCK IT HATERS
18080
Post by: Anpu42
PhantomViper wrote: Anpu42 wrote:
2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.
I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.
If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?
We have.
As for the book, we will do what we always do, put out a donation Jar and we as a group buy the new book.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
GorillaWarfare wrote: Xerics wrote:Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?
In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.
The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.
Spoken like someone who has never been to war.
You think this unbound makes it more realistic? Hardly. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." It's not ideal, but it's true. You can't just send in a bunch of tanks because unsupported tanks will get eaten by infantry. You can't just send in infantry because they'll get eaten my snipers, machine gun nests and bombs. You can't send in you ground forces without air support because whoever has air superiority will have a HUGE advantage. You'll also want artillery to soften up those hard to crack places.
What I'm saying is that in a real war you'll want some of everything in order to be an adaptable and effective force.
Also, most of the time we're fighting with less than ideal equipment. Those uparmored humvees weren't exactly bomb proof ya know. They were never meant to be a true fighting vehicle but that's what we used because that's what we had.
Should we make a game just like real life war?
No.
As someone said earlier, a game should be fair and fun, two things a war should never be. Believe me. It isn't. If my deployments were games, I'd play as the Americans and my opponent would play as the insurgents. They'd show up and ambush us, they'd get a turn where they'd kill a humvee, maybe a few more soldiers, then it'd be my turn where the Americans counter attack, kill and arrest most of them, then call in apaches to blow up the building the rest are hiding in. That's not a fun game. Trust me on this.
30766
Post by: Da Butcha
People keep posting all of these awesome ideas that are allowed with Unbound armies (and believe me, this one is awesome, which is why I chose it--not to pick on anybody).
However, the fact that Unbound allows you to create awesome armies doesn't address the fact that it also allows you to create terrible armies (insert ridiculous example here). Is it absolutely necessary to allow ridiculous, unfluffy, boring, un-fun armies just so that we can have some cool fluffy ones? Must ALL-RIPTIDE be the price of Genestealer Cult?
Are we actually at the point where we can't even expect that from professional games designers?
"Well, they only do this for a living. There's no possible way, in the age of magazines, print-on-demand, and electronic publications, for a large games company to create rules which encourage and allow interesting armies that fit into their longstanding, popular intellectual property, unless you simply allow the players to select any damn units that they want. "
Oh, and incidentally, given that Unbound Armies are still bound by the allies matrix, you STILL can't field a Genestealer Cult + PDF with Unbound.
That will have to wait for Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition: Totally Unbound (which, true to the name, comes as a sheaf of unbound pages).
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
streamdragon wrote:
It does make me wonder how Shadow in the Warp and other psychic things will function though. What good is the -3 LD on psykers doing to stop actual psychic powers, if those powers no longer require a LD test?
Going back to my initial guess, the psychic test will probably be LD + a dice roll.
Low leadership = more dice required to reliably cast a spell.
However, rolling more dice gives a higher chance to cause a peril's of the warp as well. This could in all be very well for tyranids vs psychic armies like eldar, since their jetbike councils are all Ld8 and LD5 when in shadows range.
It's plausible to me at least.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Da Butcha wrote:That will have to wait for Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition: Totally Unbound (which, true to the name, comes as a sheaf of unbound pages).
Hehe...maybe "unbound" really means is "no hard copies will be printed".
When 20 guys sit in a room and think for too long, wierder decisions than that can happen.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Da Butcha wrote:Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition: Totally Unbound (which, true to the name, comes as a sheaf of unbound pages).
... and every page bears the words "Whatever, do what you want", "roll a D6 for it" and/or "forge a narrative".
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Da Butcha wrote:[
Oh, and incidentally, given that Unbound Armies are still bound by the allies matrix, you STILL can't field a Genestealer Cult + PDF with Unbound.
Jes Bickham said in the WD article there is an "All New" Allies matrix. Therein lies hope (albeit drab) that the tyranids get Guard as allies of convenience, just for that very reason. I'm also crossing my fingers that the rules for Battle Brothers will change considerably.
If the book is $100 (still no firm confirmation on that, i'm hoping it's $75) that is $50 per year. Back when i played tons of Halo 3, my XBL membership cost that much. While i'd like this 7th edition rulebook to last the standard 4 to 5 year cycle, I'm not too beat up over 6th leaving us early.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I'm tentatively hopeful. But I'm not gonna worry about it till it's out. And I'm not painting any of my own stuff for it right now while I wait. Though I am painting other games and some commissions for others....Meh, it's only 3 weeks.
85495
Post by: SgtLockett
Why are we attacking people because they like some of the new rules? Seriously if you don't like the new rules then don't use them. You don't like unbound? Don't use it. Theres no reason to tell people their views are wrong just cause your butthurt over the rules changing so soon. Look at it with an open mind, who knows... maybe you'll like the new rules when you can actually read them and they aren't rumors.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
 Hulksmash wrote:I'm tentatively hopeful. But I'm not gonna worry about it till it's out. And I'm not painting any of my own stuff for it right now while I wait. Though I am painting other games and some commissions for others....Meh, it's only 3 weeks.
Same, I was going to finish up my Templars and Khorne csm but gonna switch to finishing my fantasy army for now.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
SgtLockett wrote:Seriously if you don't like the new rules then don't use them. You don't like unbound? Don't use it.
Balkanisation of the player base is not a good thing. It's already getting harder for people to find a game without deliberately halving the number of opponents with the Battleforged-Only/Anything-Goes split.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Da Butcha wrote:
People keep posting all of these awesome ideas that are allowed with Unbound armies (and believe me, this one is awesome, which is why I chose it--not to pick on anybody).
However, the fact that Unbound allows you to create awesome armies doesn't address the fact that it also allows you to create terrible armies (insert ridiculous example here). Is it absolutely necessary to allow ridiculous, unfluffy, boring, un-fun armies just so that we can have some cool fluffy ones? Must ALL-RIPTIDE be the price of Genestealer Cult?
Are we actually at the point where we can't even expect that from professional games designers?
"Well, they only do this for a living. There's no possible way, in the age of magazines, print-on-demand, and electronic publications, for a large games company to create rules which encourage and allow interesting armies that fit into their longstanding, popular intellectual property, unless you simply allow the players to select any damn units that they want. "
Oh, and incidentally, given that Unbound Armies are still bound by the allies matrix, you STILL can't field a Genestealer Cult + PDF with Unbound.
That will have to wait for Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition: Totally Unbound (which, true to the name, comes as a sheaf of unbound pages).
@ the bolded. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF you're right. 
And yes, I understand that Unbound will allow for some truly, truly broken armies. Then again, the current FOC does too.
Like I said, what Unbound does is basically turn regular 40k games into Apocalypse games. So any complaints about Unbound intrinsically apply to Apoc as well. Now I understand that not everyone enjoys or wants to play Apoc; that's a fair complaint. But I think that there are certain exaggerations as to the effect Unbound will have on 40k as a whole (instead of individual games).
Yes broken armies will most certainly be possible with Unbound. Broken armies will most certainly be possible within Battle Forged limitations (i.e., the FOC). I understand and empathize with players whose main sources of games is PUGs at a store. I can only hope for those players that GW actually manages to make the bonus for a Battle Forged army sizable enough that it can deal with Unbound armies. I'm also hoping the changed nature of battle objectives for the new missions will even things out between Unbound and Battle Forged armies. Granted, for the current spate of missions which are apparently still in the new BRB, Unbound armies with no troops will certainly have a difficult time scoring objectives. In the end, I just don't see Unbound being some sort of camel-back-breaking rule option for the majority of players.
Tournaments will still impose whatever restrictions they want; competitive players are relatively unscathed.
Among-friend players will still be able to plan games in advance and limit what sort of zaniness they want.
Pick up players will definitely be the most hard hit by this. I've never tried doing a PUG at a store, so I can't speak from experience.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Anpu42 wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Anpu42 wrote:
2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.
I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.
If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?
We have.
As for the book, we will do what we always do, put out a donation Jar and we as a group buy the new book.
So if you already did this, why do you need a new edition again? In fact, if you already disregard the rules anyway, why didn't you and your buddies kept playing Rogue Trader?
6593
Post by: Ventus
I'm hoping GW goes ultimate narrative. Each player decides each turn what their armies do - how far they move, what their shooting does, how many dice you get and what numbers you need to hit, etc. Write up whatever rules you need for your narrative. Actually it would be better to remove the dice - takes away from the narrative - better for the player to tell their opponent what happened that turn (eg - my lascannon hit your tank which exploded and happened to cause catastrophic damage to the other 2 tanks nearby and they exploded as well. Followed by the next players turn - my guardsman happens to be carry a new explosive device that he detonates in a suicide attack - his brother was the tank commander - the explosive is super powerful but a shaped charge and only your forces are completely destroyed by the result - wow, great game! Lets set up again and see who goes first and decides the outcome of the next game!)
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
SgtLockett wrote:Why are we attacking people because they like some of the new rules? Seriously if you don't like the new rules then don't use them. You don't like unbound? Don't use it. Theres no reason to tell people their views are wrong just cause your butthurt over the rules changing so soon. Look at it with an open mind, who knows... maybe you'll like the new rules when you can actually read them and they aren't rumors.
Disagreeing isn't the same as attacking. At least try to understand the oppositions point of view in a discussion. It'll make you sound less condescending and ignorant. It could be that based on the evidence we have, many people feel that this new edition is going the opposite direction they would have liked. Instead of tighter and more balanced rules they get "no rules."
For some, this new "anything goes" is going to be fun. And granted, with my friends we've tried similar ways to play and it was indeed fun.
For many people, like me, who rely on pick up games, this isn't good news at all. I don't want to show up with my tac SOB list and face heldrake spam or not play. That's not fun and hurts a portion of the gaming community. How big is this portion? I can't say.
The actual edition may prove to be good, but judging by what's been released, it looks awful.
Its the fact that GW is going the opposite way for casual and competative players to enjoy a game with strangers that's the problem. With your mates, sure, it'll be great, but it was that anyway, so why hurt the other side of the fanbase?
61093
Post by: skink007
If you want to play a narrative battle, what is the point of the rulebook in the first place? If you play a narrative I assume (correct me if i'm wrong) you actually PLAY the game. i.e. it's not just, "well this guy died in the BL novel so he comes off the table, and this unit got slaughtered so they're off, and this titan got it's head shot off by a guy with a plasma pistol, so it's gone."
What i'm saying is, even with narrative battles and narrative lists, you still want there to be some sort of semblance to a "balanced" game. (I know I said that word). In fact, it should NOT be the responsibility of the players to make everything up in order to make the game a cool experience. There should be some things that happen, because of the rules, that are not what you expected.
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.
It is now entirely on the players to write the outcome of the game. There is no need for rules if you just want to make a movie with your toy soldiers as the stars. In any case, this was as several people have pointed out, always the case. If you wanted to throw the rules out the window, then you did.
DISCLAIMER: What we have is piecemeal, not the whole picture. I understand this. However, until I see the whole picture, I'm going to discuss the parts I can see.
72279
Post by: Loopstah
I've been thinking about this and have come to the startling conclusion that there are zero problems with 7th edition until you introduce players into the equation.
Players break the game, not the rules. Unfortunately people are always going to be gits so whatever GW do people will spoil the fun.
Being able to do what you want doesn't mean you should.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 skink007 wrote:I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.
Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.
Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.
37147
Post by: Auswin
One thing I do like about the idea of unbound armies is for small games. There are days where I'm in a crunch and only have 1.5 hours to burn.
My current options are:
1. Don't head to the store and have no game.
2. Try and find a way to make a semi-interesting 1,000 point list.
No.1 often happens, No.2 very rarely. Only because there are certain armies I feel like using (like GK) that simply can't adhere to force org while taking the units in that codex that interest me.
Yes, technically we've always been allowed to break force org and do our own thing, but oftentimes people don't like the idea of playing something that's not spelled out in the book.
This scenario would allow me to take elite choices and interesting HQs to fill 1,000 without being shackled to the force org and still get a game.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
For those who rely on primary pick-up games, how often do you actually have a game against "That guy" who brings a super competitive netlist to a pickup game. And do you actually agree to play that guy?
Not sure how Unbound is any different than agreeing or not agreeing to play a cheese list, its purely optional
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Loopstah wrote:I've been thinking about this and have come to the startling conclusion that there are zero problems with 7th edition until you introduce players into the equation.
Players break the game, not the rules. Unfortunately people are always going to be gits so whatever GW do people will spoil the fun.
Being able to do what you want doesn't mean you should.
Please tell me that you didn't just put the blame of having a broken rule set on the players for actually finding the parts that are broken?
61093
Post by: skink007
streamdragon wrote: skink007 wrote:I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.
Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.
Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.
Well make the Genestealer Cult list anyway. Because why not? It'll be fun.
The thing about apocalypse is that you pretty much could not play without planning to play apocalypse ahead of time with your buddies. It took planning and set up. I feel that the "normal" rules should be usable for when you're at your buddies house, and the two of you suddenly want to throw together a quick game. There need to be guidelines for that.
9370
Post by: Accolade
PhantomViper wrote:Loopstah wrote:I've been thinking about this and have come to the startling conclusion that there are zero problems with 7th edition until you introduce players into the equation.
Players break the game, not the rules. Unfortunately people are always going to be gits so whatever GW do people will spoil the fun.
Being able to do what you want doesn't mean you should.
Please tell me that you didn't just put the blame of having a broken rule set on the players for actually finding the parts that are broken?
You, 40k player! How dare you purchase our high quality (and high price) rulebook and not play to our specifications!
It's your fault those rules aren't better defined, you should have known better than to try to play competitively!
27151
Post by: streamdragon
skink007 wrote: streamdragon wrote: skink007 wrote:I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.
Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.
Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.
Well make the Genestealer Cult list anyway. Because why not? It'll be fun.
The thing about apocalypse is that you pretty much could not play without planning to play apocalypse ahead of time with your buddies. It took planning and set up. I feel that the "normal" rules should be usable for when you're at your buddies house, and the two of you suddenly want to throw together a quick game. There need to be guidelines for that.
See, I disagree with you re: Apocalypse. It might seem like it takes tons of planning, but it's really not any different than setting up a normal game.
Decide points, make a list.
Set up the board (which doesn't have to be a monster board if you're only playing, say, 2,000 points.)
Set DZs and objective markers.
Play.
All apocalypse (at least the old book, I haven't really read the new book) gave you was a different ruleset for deployment and objectives. Sure, it COULD be used to field massive 15,000 point armies, but it didn't have to be. I used it to play a 2v1 game at 4,000 points simply because it allowed me to field 2k Nids + 2k IG on the same side vs 2k Eldar and 2k Tau. I didn't have enough models ready to field either army at 4k. We did it at a friend's house on a 6x4 table.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
Auswin wrote:
Yes, technically we've always been allowed to break force org and do our own thing, but oftentimes people don't like the idea of playing something that's not spelled out in the book.
This scenario would allow me to take elite choices and interesting HQs to fill 1,000 without being shackled to the force org and still get a game.
I feel exactly the same way, even my close friends who I play with cannot easily be persuaded to go by a rule that isn't in the book. Not everyone is flexible, and this becomes even less so at an FLGS against someone who you don't know very well (or at all).
On the second point, I am particularly excited about how this ruleset will affect Grey Knights. Obviously this won't be competitive, but I am absolutely going to take a manly war council filled with independent characters, inquisitors, librarians, etc... I always feel hamstrung by the 2 HQ choice with GKs unless I am playing certain lists, because that is by far my favorite part of the Codex and who doesn't want a gang of Psycannon wielding, deep striking, divination psykers? It would also be kind of funny to cover the entire board in servo skulls...
18080
Post by: Anpu42
PhantomViper wrote: Anpu42 wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Anpu42 wrote:
2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.
I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.
If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?
We have.
As for the book, we will do what we always do, put out a donation Jar and we as a group buy the new book.
So if you already did this, why do you need a new edition again? In fact, if you already disregard the rules anyway, why didn't you and your buddies kept playing Rogue Trader?
What do you have aginst my group buying the book?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
ClockworkZion wrote:
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
All of my Grey Knight units will be generating Warp Charges, I'm excited about that, everything's a psyker, even my vehicles!
74089
Post by: rabidguineapig
ClockworkZion wrote:
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
I'd also say the Flying Circus would be up there - With Fatey, LoC, and 2-3 Tzeentch DPs at ML3, and 2 squads of Horrors you're looking at 15-18 + D6 warp charge points per turn. IG can't get anywhere near that.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
 WrentheFaceless wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
All of my Grey Knight units will be generating Warp Charges, I'm excited about that, everything's a psyker, even my vehicles!
Hopefully my Adepta Sororitas will be doing the opposite as everything has Adamantium Will, even my vehicles
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?
Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.
I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"
Yakety Sax playing the whole time...
Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Alex C wrote:What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?
Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.
I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"
Yakety Sax playing the whole time...
Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.
They only go away if you discard the card or complete the objective.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Alex C wrote:What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?
Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.
I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"
Yakety Sax playing the whole time...
Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.
I read it slightly differently, where you claim objectives at the end of each turn (keeping a running tally of VP, I assume). When you claim an objective, you then draw a new one to replace the one you already finished. Or, you could discard an objective (presumably with some limit on number discarded per turn) to draw a new one if the one you had was not doable or just not worth the effort.
I think that's a pretty interesting break from "calculate VP at the end"; although those missions are still in the rule book also from the sound of it.
57935
Post by: Samurai_Eduh
Alex C wrote:What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?
Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.
I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"
Yakety Sax playing the whole time...
Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.
From what I am reading, you can keep a card until you complete it, then you can get another. If you can't/dont want to do that card, next turn you can discard and get another. For example, if you get the "Cast a Psychic power" objective and you cast a power, next turn you get a new objective. If you get blocked, you can keep the card until you are able to cast if you want. If you don't have a psyker, next turn you can discard and get a new objective.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Mr Morden wrote:Hopefully my Adepta Sororitas will be doing the opposite as everything has Adamantium Will, even my vehicles
I'd forgotten about them putting that into Shield of Faith until you mentioned it!
Probably would have remembered if my Sisters were ever on the table anymore...
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Anpu42 wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Anpu42 wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Anpu42 wrote:
2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.
I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.
If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?
We have.
As for the book, we will do what we always do, put out a donation Jar and we as a group buy the new book.
So if you already did this, why do you need a new edition again? In fact, if you already disregard the rules anyway, why didn't you and your buddies kept playing Rogue Trader?
What do you have aginst my group buying the book?
Did I say that I had anything against your group buying the book? Stop trying to put words in my mouth, please.
What I don't understand is why you wrote a fairly lengthy post praising Unbound when in reality this change seems to be completely irrelevant to the way that your group plays the game...
Which is what all these arguments boil down to. To all the players that prefer to play narrative battles without any semblance of balance or competitiveness involved, this rule is irrelevant since they could just ignore the FOC and play like they wanted in any previous edition anyway (and I did it several times myself in the context of narrative campaigns, its quite fun).
To all the people that just wan't to head down to the shop, find a random opponent and play the game, this rule is detrimental because it will just add another barrier to be negotiated before the game can be enjoyed.
And to all the TO's it is also detrimental because it means that they need to add further restrictions to their events, meaning that more players will have a reason to disagree with the tournament rules with the potential lower turn out that that entails.
This rule is BAD for the game, no matter what way you look at it.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
ClockworkZion wrote:
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Ah, comprehension fail on my part then...
1478
Post by: warboss
WrentheFaceless wrote:For those who rely on primary pick-up games, how often do you actually have a game against "That guy" who brings a super competitive netlist to a pickup game. And do you actually agree to play that guy?
Not sure how Unbound is any different than agreeing or not agreeing to play a cheese list, its purely optional
I don't understand why it is so hard to understand be here we go again... alot of people don't have a choice in who they play in pick up games. I frequently arrive at the store and find a single person to play against that isn't already in a game or have one prescheduled. It is a choice of playing that person or going home and wasting the 25 mile trip each way. Having the "core" rules exclude armies that are not fun to play against as standard eliminates alot of the risk in playing against the types of armies that are not fun to face. I don't care about losing but I don't want the result determined largely before I roll any dice either.
In 3rd edition (when I last faced a "competitive" crowd of any sort), no one brought an army of leman russ tanks for years. Why? Because it wasn't standard 40k and they'd have to "ask" to use it and in all likelihood they'd be rejected. When the armored lists came out and made armies of mostly AV14 tanks "legal", they appeared. Why? Because it was now standard. I played the guy once and then had to tell him I didn't want to play (along with everyone else) which ended up hurting his feelings and causing uncomfortable scenes for weeks. The same thing happened with the stupid catachan jungle fighter codex with the same guy. He wasn't a bad guy nor a power gamer and he really was a great hobbyist who painted up armies simply for variety (we even called him "army of the week" *insert name here*)... but some of the armies he chose were not fun to play against. You could ALWAYS chose to deploy 3x the normal amount of terrain in a very lopsided fashion and give one side bonuses to ignore them while the other side had to deal with it... but you had to ask first and you'd likely be told no. With the catachan jungle fighter codex, it became standard and when it did someone showed up wanting to use it. I again tried it once and it was a waste of an evening and never wanted to play it again (and others didn't even bother when they read the terrain rules).
The simple fact is that if you make it legal someone eventually will want to use it and you may have no choice but to either play against it or go home. Yes, you can always refuse to play any one for any reason but making crap unfair and unfun lists "legal" means intrisically that you're more likely to face them or waste your time. It doesn't even have to be a TFG who wants to use it (the guy above wasn't one but simply an avid hobbyist) either but I don't doubt that more than a few TFGs will take advantage of this. I want to play a large skirmish game when I go to the store and not have to potentially negotiate a 40k pre-nup before every game complete with a checklist of what we're not potentially using. As in all things opinion, YMMV.
Again, for the folks who are wondering why people are complaining, the above is obviously contigent on the exact rules regarding the use of "unbound" armies which we don't have yet. In the end, I'm defaulting to experience both in 40k in particular and tabletop gaming in general. The "screw you" nonstandard armies in 3rd edition that became "standard" weren't fun to play against in my experience. The ally rules worried me from the second I saw them (both in terms of immediate abuse as well as a portent for the future) and my fears were indeed founded and expanded upon with future non-permission additions like dataslates, escalation, etc. When I look at the blurb GW has chosen to give us regarding Unbound armies, I will default to what has actually occured both in the past and just recently instead of putting my head in the sand. I certainly hope that I'm proven wrong though and that GW hasn't prioritzed sales over any semblance of fairness and balance yet again like with allies, dataslates, and detachments... but I'm not holding my breath.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 hotsauceman1 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.
IG only get 3 per Astra Militarum Detachment that ignore FOC.
14
Post by: Ghaz
streamdragon wrote: skink007 wrote:I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.
Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.
Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.
You did see where it said there was a new allies matrix?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Ghaz wrote:You did see where it said there was a new allies matrix?
Even then it's better to assume that Nids won't get anything for allies than get your hopes up and only have them crushed later.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
ClockworkZion wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.
IG only get 3 per Astra Militarum Detachment that ignore FOC.
Wyrdbane Psykers.
9370
Post by: Accolade
warboss wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:For those who rely on primary pick-up games, how often do you actually have a game against "That guy" who brings a super competitive netlist to a pickup game. And do you actually agree to play that guy? Not sure how Unbound is any different than agreeing or not agreeing to play a cheese list, its purely optional
I don't understand why it is so hard to understand be here we go again... alot of people don't have a choice in who they play in pick up games. I frequently arrive at the store and find a single person to play against that isn't already in a game or have one prescheduled. It is a choice of playing that person or going home and wasting the 25 mile trip each way. Having the "core" rules exclude armies that are not fun to play against as standard eliminates alot of the risk in playing against the types of armies that are not fun to face. I don't care about losing but I don't want the result determined largely before I roll any dice either. In 3rd edition (when I last faced a "competitive" crowd of any sort), no one brought an army of leman russ tanks for years. Why? Because it wasn't standard 40k and they'd have to "ask" to use it and in all likelihood they'd be rejected. When the armored lists came out and made armies of mostly AV14 tanks "legal", they appeared. Why? Because it was now standard. I played the guy once and then had to tell him I didn't want to play (along with everyone else) which ended up hurting his feelings and causing uncomfortable scenes for weeks. The same thing happened with the stupid catachan jungle fighter codex with the same guy. He wasn't a bad guy nor a power gamer and he really was a great hobbyist who painted up armies simply for variety (we even called him "army of the week" *insert name here*)... but some of the armies he chose were not fun to play against. You could ALWAYS chose to deploy 3x the normal amount of terrain in a very lopsided fashion and give one side bonuses to ignore them while the other side had to deal with it... but you had to ask first and you'd likely be told no. With the catachan jungle fighter codex, it became standard and when it did someone showed up wanting to use it. I again tried it once and it was a waste of an evening and never wanted to play it again (and others didn't even bother when they read the terrain rules). The simple fact is that if you make it legal someone eventually will want to use it and you may have no choice but to either play against it or go home. Yes, you can always refuse to play any one for any reason but making crap unfair and unfun lists "legal" means intrisically that you're more likely to face them or waste your time. It doesn't even have to be a TFG who wants to use it (the guy above wasn't one but simply an avid hobbyist) either but I don't doubt that more than a few TFGs will take advantage of this. I want to play a large skirmish game when I go to the store and not have to potentially negotiate a 40k pre-nup before every game complete with a checklist of what we're not potentially using. As in all things opinion, YMMV. Again, for the folks who are wondering why people are complaining, the above is obviously contigent on the exact rules regarding the use of "unbound" armies which we don't have yet. In the end, I'm defaulting to experience both in 40k in particular and tabletop gaming in general. The "screw you" nonstandard armies in 3rd edition that became "standard" weren't fun to play against in my experience. The ally rules worried me from the second I saw them (both in terms of immediate abuse as well as a portent for the future) and my fears were indeed founded and expanded upon with future non-permission additions like dataslates, escalation, etc. When I look at the blurb GW has chosen to give us regarding Unbound armies, I will default to what has actually occured both in the past and just recently instead of putting my head in the sand. I certainly hope that I'm proven wrong though and that GW hasn't prioritzed sales over any semblance of fairness and balance yet again like with allies, dataslates, and detachments... but I'm not holding my breath.
I think warboss presents a well thought-out scenario here. The argument that it will just be TFG's bringing cheesy un-fun lists is a little too black-and-white. People playing pickup games will be facing shades of grey in terms of the unbound armies. It won't always be clear whether they are facing a facestomper or just particularly effective list. And a lot of people fielding these lists won't necessarily be looking to cream opponents, but instead will be building lists thinking "well, these guys in my list are really cool so they should have the best rules." It's a lot like crazy characters in the rules proposal forum, where people feel their own particular force is special and is worthy of better rules. Declining these sort of games is a bit more difficult; people will want the rational for why you're not playing them, and there evolves a whole lot of back-and-forth that frankly shouldn't be necessary for playing 40k, IMO.
1478
Post by: warboss
hotsauceman1 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?
I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)
Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.
IG only get 3 per Astra Militarum Detachment that ignore FOC.
Wyrdbane Psykers.
They don't ignore the FOC. In any case, I suspect the brotherhood of psyker rule will likely just count the unit as a single psyker instead of getting extra dice for each model.
37147
Post by: Auswin
I think the objective cards could be absolutely fascinating and precisely what I want in a game of 40k, provided the tasks are meaningful.
I hope it's not rudimentary stuff like "cast a pyschic power" and more game-modifying stuff. I'd love to see a gunline army be pressured into going to linebreaker, or an in-your-face assault list be forced to find a way to fall back and cap objectives on turn 2.
It's a wrinkle in the game. Sometimes these things hamper games, sometimes they improve them. I really hope it's the latter.
Right now there's a fairly standard way of winning objective based games. Stick a high toughness troop choice on it, or mass a large number of bodies on one. If that's switched up by forcing an elite choice or heavy support to end the turn on an objective we could see some really interesting cat-and-mouse micro gaming where one player could ignore the cards and play their strat for the over-arching objective, while the other is player on their heels but racking up points for small victories along the way.
|
|
