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.
>snipped for brevity<
I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.
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.
Don't ignore FOC, and are still squishy ML1s. I'm not saying they'd be horrible to spam, I just don't know if they'd be enough to really win a game with, even if you went all in on an Unbound army with them.
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.
This is both true and false. Its true in that ulta-competative players will break down a rule book and try to purposefully find the most busted builds possible. Its simple human nature, and its been going on since gaming was a thing. Its nothing new, and its certainly not exclusive to Warhammer.
However, its false to put the blame solely on the players, because GW should know by now that their customer base has a significant population of WAAC players and plan accordingly. Yes, its more difficult with 40K than some other tabletop games because of the sheer variety of armies and units, but some of the more abusive units had to have been planned that way (seriously, how could they not have foreseen the Riptide, Heldrake, and Wave Serpent debacles???).
Anyway, back on topic, to me, the sky is not falling, there is no reason to sell my stuff yet. The small bit from WD hardly gives enough detail to create a well-informed opinion, and all this random speculation is just fanning the flames. Nobody seems to be talking about how these all-Riptide, all-Heldrake armies are going to score VPs, especially since the new missions seem to allow you to collect VPs at the end of the turn instead of the game (and if this gets carried over to the Eternal War missions, I'll be very happy). What if holding an objective gives you 1 VP for every turn you hold it? What if being wiped is no longer the auto-lose it used to be? What if the Battle Forged bonus is something akin to veteran abilities, so maybe the army can choose between Tank Hunter, Monster Hunter, and Shred USRs? Suddenly those all-Riptide lists don't look so bad to play against if every model you field has Monster Hunter! Again, there is still not enough info to really know how its all going to shake out.
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.
40k is all but dead at my FLGS...every once in a while, a player will have an army out in their car. If you ask around, the reason why is that none of the kids want to spend time bringing in an army for a pick up game just to get mowed down by the rich kid with more toys. So "Unbound" would probably be the death knell for 40k as a pick up game at my FLGS...this is totally why these rumors are disconcerting to me, because I like playing and meeting new people, but I don't like MtG or that Star Wars game.
If the psychic phase is anything like the Fantasy magic phase, you can only use 6 dice max per cast, with a significant chance of a miscast (perils).
Each power would have a casting value, with each psyker able to add his ML to the dice roll's total in an attempt to beat the casting value. I don't forsee leadership being used for psykers at all. If they did, in order to cast a power you would need to first pass a LD test, then you would need to make your casting attempt and even if you succeed, your opponent has the option to dispel.
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.
>snipped for brevity<
I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.
I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.
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.
Why are chaos players so poorly tuned into their own fluff? Night Lords =/= all raptors, not by a long shot.
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
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?
I did. But as Clockwork points out:
ClockworkZion wrote:
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.
I'm still basing all my thoughts on the current rules, only because I don't know the new rules. Believe me. I've got a metric crapton of spare IG bodies, genestealer arms and old school metal genestealer hybrid models ready to go if I can indeed pair the two forces together.
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.
>snipped for brevity<
I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.
I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.
Warboss was commenting that certain "unfun" armies being allowed by rules means (such as Unbound) will mean having to play those. I suppose in my mind I was automatically lumping those players into TFG category unfairly. Replace instances of "TFG" with "TFA" (Those Frelling Armies). My point was that Unbound doesn't change the existance of broken armies. And for every broken army it adds, it adds an unknown number of not broken but still fun FOC breaking armies. Is that ration 1 broken to 1 not-broken? Who knows? Given that there are nigh-infinite lists out there, I'm thinking in the end the existance of Unbound is not going to really change the overall ration of TFA to not-TFA games.
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.
40k is all but dead at my FLGS...every once in a while, a player will have an army out in their car. If you ask around, the reason why is that none of the kids want to spend time bringing in an army for a pick up game just to get mowed down by the rich kid with more toys. So "Unbound" would probably be the death knell for 40k as a pick up game at my FLGS...this is totally why these rumors are disconcerting to me, because I like playing and meeting new people, but I don't like MtG or that Star Wars game.
That's pretty sad, and I definitely sympathize. I really like 40k models, they're some of my favorite. But the game around the miniatures seems like it's turning into something I don't feel will be sustainable in the long run.
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.
>snipped for brevity<
I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.
I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.
Yeah, TFGs won't be getting a whole lot of games in 7th any more than they did before; they aren't really the issue.
The issue is the massive grey area between acceptable and "cheesy" lists. People are going to disagree to a noticeable extent. Someone with all drakes will be easily enough turned-down, but armies of drakes and daemon princes will be defended as "fluff-driven." It's not exceptionally different from the current ally system, just way way more exacerbated.
That being said, ally abuse seems to be something people were universally asking to have dealt with in 7th, so I can't see why people would be excited about ally abuse being turned up to 11.
azreal13 wrote:I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
azreal13 wrote: I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.
Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.
Accolade wrote: 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.
Thanks. The guy in my example wasn't a TFG but simply someone who built and painted up armies at an incredible rate. He literally had a new 1500-2000pt army every month (or two max) completely painted up for years. If they made rules for it, he tried it as long as it was 3rd edition legal (no grey partly built hordes for him EVER). He wasted his time and money on two armies that no one wanted to play against and I wasted two of my weeks worth of play finding that out. I'd rather not have that become the default. I don't play much now (I barely make a trip to the FLGS every 6-8 weeks roughly and half the times I don't play) so showing up and seeing some abomination of an 8 proxy Transformer Riptide unbound list as my only choice of a game wastes my only game time for the month or even longer. If that list wasn't "legal", that same guy might show up with 3 riptides (whether proxy or real) plus a bunch of normal stuff as his army instead. If you allow it to be built, they will come and cheese it out.
This isn't a black and white thing as you said as someone like the guy I mentioned above from my 3rd edition days might actually spend dozens of hours building up a 10 riptide list complete with a backstory and painted up/converted to look like voltron lions... he may not be a TFG but that doesn't make the force any more fun to play against. The WD article mentioned some sort of a benefit when you have a warforged lists but who knows what that benefit will be. If we again default to experience with the escalation rules, a reroll on seizing plus a special warlord table doesn't IMHO counter the other guy using multiple strength D large blast templates on a nigh unkillable platform in any fair way. That is however what GW feels is a "fair" counter to someone having a $500 apoc figure with rules no one else gets and the other guy having a standard list. That is the only thing we have currently to go on but obviously that will change in about two weeks.
azreal13 wrote: I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
Sounds like that guy would be "That guy' regardless of the rules.
Lobukia wrote: Why are chaos players so poorly tuned into their own fluff? Night Lords =/= all raptors, not by a long shot.
And where does it say Night Lords can't be all Raptors?
unmercifulconker wrote: Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.
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.
>snipped for brevity<
I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.
I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.
Warboss was commenting that certain "unfun" armies being allowed by rules means (such as Unbound) will mean having to play those. I suppose in my mind I was automatically lumping those players into TFG category unfairly. Replace instances of "TFG" with "TFA" (Those Frelling Armies). My point was that Unbound doesn't change the existance of broken armies. And for every broken army it adds, it adds an unknown number of not broken but still fun FOC breaking armies. Is that ration 1 broken to 1 not-broken? Who knows? Given that there are nigh-infinite lists out there, I'm thinking in the end the existance of Unbound is not going to really change the overall ration of TFA to not-TFA games.
Fair enough, but for the tac-list type player, it means their chances of fighting a broken army has risen dramatically. Sure, that all terminator army sure sounds cool but it would eat my SOB for lunch without much effort. If I faced that at my store, I'd refuse it. It seems that my percentage of refusing games will rise more than I can accept. (We'll see once all the details are out, but as it is, that's how it looks.)
azreal13 wrote: I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.
Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.
No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.
If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.
MWHistorian wrote: Fair enough, but for the tac-list type player, it means their chances of fighting a broken army has risen dramatically. Sure, that all terminator army sure sounds cool but it would eat my SOB for lunch without much effort. If I faced that at my store, I'd refuse it. It seems that my percentage of refusing games will rise more than I can accept. (We'll see once all the details are out, but as it is, that's how it looks.)
As a side note, the only person I've ever gotten to agree to play against my Deathwing army in 6th edition with the nerf to power swords is a guy who also plays Dark Angels. I'm not a TFG (although I used to be a rules lawyer admittedly but not a munchkin... there is a significant difference) and I built the army back in early 5th edition when they sucked simply because I was happy to finally have new blood angel models (I used space hulk figs) as this was months before rumors of the current codex/figs. Everyone else just sees terminators and says, nah... I've got to go do something else... whistle...
azreal13 wrote: I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
Sounds like that guy would be "That guy' regardless of the rules.
Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.
Right. The sole purpose of the points mechanic is to make the game fair. If the points mechanic does not make the game fair (and it doesn't), Games Workshop is not doing their job.
azreal13 wrote: I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.
Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.
No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.
If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.
In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
GW will carry on, but I most likely won't be in the ranks. It seems too soon for a full new edition. The rules are going to be streamlined to sell more models. I understand it's a business, but if the rules are solid the models will get bought anyway. Warmachine is looking better everyday.
azreal13 wrote: I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.
Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.
No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.
If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.
In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
The specific individual in question isn't really "that guy." In fact, when playing a game, he can be very fair, pointing out things you may have overlooked in your turn etc..
The only issue is that, relative to the majority of the rest of the club, he is more focused on winning. Therefore he takes the best units he can.
Were all the units priced in line with their efficacy in game, the problem goes away, he can still be just as keen to win, but the opportunity to pick the most efficient units to facilitate that simply disappears.
azreal13 wrote: I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)
Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.
This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.
Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.
No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.
If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.
In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
Go to the Infinity forums, go to the Malifaux forums, go to the WMH forums, go to the FoW forums, go to the X-Wing forums (and those are just the game that I currently am involved with), see how many accusations of "TFG" are thrown around in those compared to any GW game forum.
The fact is that "TFG" accusations, except for people that actually cheat and break the rules to win a game, are almost non-existent in any game other than 40K or WHFB. Its not a problem with the players, the players are the same in every miniature wargame, its a problem with the rules.
PhantomViper wrote: Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.
Come now.. don't be ridiculous. Every game has power lists, issues, etc to some extent. Some simply have more than others but a black and white T/F statement like your's is instantly recognizable as false. Plenty of people consider TIE swarm lists to be broken in x-wing and that is a very nicely balanced and elegant game. Other games like Heavy Gear have plenty of TFG lists that abuse poorly written rules. Warmachine fully embraced the cheese with its play like you've got a pair rule for years. The point is whether or not the company addresses those issues after they create them. We're getting a premature editon swap in 40k this month... it will be telling whether GW learned something from the last two years of unrestricted forcefeeding apoc into 40k that turned a half dozen years of stagnant sales/profits into a decrease or whether the new edition is just the latest in a series of $$ cashing in immediately at the expense of long term health of the game.
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.
>snipped for brevity<
I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.
I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.
Warboss was commenting that certain "unfun" armies being allowed by rules means (such as Unbound) will mean having to play those. I suppose in my mind I was automatically lumping those players into TFG category unfairly. Replace instances of "TFG" with "TFA" (Those Frelling Armies). My point was that Unbound doesn't change the existance of broken armies. And for every broken army it adds, it adds an unknown number of not broken but still fun FOC breaking armies. Is that ration 1 broken to 1 not-broken? Who knows? Given that there are nigh-infinite lists out there, I'm thinking in the end the existance of Unbound is not going to really change the overall ration of TFA to not-TFA games.
Fair enough, but for the tac-list type player, it means their chances of fighting a broken army has risen dramatically. Sure, that all terminator army sure sounds cool but it would eat my SOB for lunch without much effort. If I faced that at my store, I'd refuse it. It seems that my percentage of refusing games will rise more than I can accept. (We'll see once all the details are out, but as it is, that's how it looks.)
You've never faced Deathwing or Draigowing with SoB? Meltas > Termies
Jokes aside (I havent faced either with my Sisters and one guy in my grouo plays both GK and DA!), I can see your POV and being worried about TFAs showing up. But I stand by the idea that Unbound isn't really any better or worse than FOC armies over the totality of armies it suddenly allows.
PhantomViper wrote: Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.
Come now.. don't be ridiculous. Every game has power lists, issues, etc to some extent. Some simply have more than others but a black and white T/F statement like your's is instantly recognizable as false. Plenty of people consider TIE swarm lists to be broken in x-wing and that is a very nicely balanced and elegant game. Other games like Heavy Gear have plenty of TFG lists that abuse poorly written rules. Warmachine fully embraced the cheese with its play like you've got a pair rule for years. The point is whether or not the company addresses those issues after they create them.
Do as I said then, go to any of the forums that I mentioned and see how many people accuse their fellow gamers of being "TFG" just because they take a strong list. In the occasions were blatantly unfair lists seem to exist in other games (early war pre-nerf BEF in FoW, the TIE swarm you mentioned in X-Wing, pre-nerf eGaspy lists in WMH), the players blamed the company for allowing the lists to exist, they didn't blame their fellow players for using them...
WrentheFaceless wrote: In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
Yeah... Player problem. Like the last time I played chess against my girlfriend, and I used the Yugoslav attack. I'm such a dick.
I just love how when a company makes a wargame with clearly established procedures for determining winners and losers, players who play completely within the rules somehow end up being the bad guys.
Can GW fix the problem? Yes. Do they? No. Who do we blame? The players!
PhantomViper wrote: Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.
Come now.. don't be ridiculous. Every game has power lists, issues, etc to some extent. Some simply have more than others but a black and white T/F statement like your's is instantly recognizable as false. Plenty of people consider TIE swarm lists to be broken in x-wing and that is a very nicely balanced and elegant game. Other games like Heavy Gear have plenty of TFG lists that abuse poorly written rules. Warmachine fully embraced the cheese with its play like you've got a pair rule for years. The point is whether or not the company addresses those issues after they create them.
Do as I said then, go to any of the forums that I mentioned and see how many people accuse their fellow gamers of being "TFG" just because they take a strong list. In the occasions were blatantly unfair lists seem to exist in other games (early war pre-nerf BEF in FoW, the TIE swarm you mentioned in X-Wing, pre-nerf eGaspy lists in WMH), the players blamed the company for allowing the lists to exist, they didn't blame their fellow players for using them...
And those companies worked to fix their problems. The TIE swarm is a result of a new game that gave TIE Fighters away for relatively cheap. Now with the introduction of the Z-95 and the TIE Defender and Phantom, TIE Swarms are suddenly going to become less viable and Imperials are going to have options for more varied lists. And Battlefront eventually admitted their mistake with the BEF and released a free sticker set to correct the rules and points values to reflect the nerf.
WrentheFaceless wrote: In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
Yeah... Player problem. Like the last time I played chess against my girlfriend, and I used the Yugoslav attack. I'm such a dick.
I just love how when a company makes a wargame with clearly established procedures for determining winners and losers, players who play completely within the rules somehow end up being the bad guys.
Can GW fix the problem? Yes. Do they? No. Who do we blame? The players!
Well if shes inexperienced or not as good of a player as you, you kindof are
And yes people that take it to that extremes where the rules are bent as close to breaking, they are as well.
People letting them get away with it are the problem, and I'm glad tournaments are having rules to counter it.
But there will always be people that get around it to win
Yes the rules may not be the best, but taking that much of advantage of them to make the game unfun for everyone else doesnt make you not a problem as well
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.
Yeah, it's a little sad that there'll be automatic labeling of players as TFG for bringing what are technically "unbound" lists, but really are just the only way they can, within printed rules, play their vision of a proper Biel-Tan army, for example.
Sure, there'll be superdouches who do try to bring stupid amounts of game breaking units spammed all over, but there'll also be poor sods who just want to play their list with lots of Banshees, Scorpions, etc, and as soon as they say "it's an unbound list", people will start foaming at the mouth.
6th edition rulebook and starter box confirmed to be OOP in all languages.
I know GW aren't so good at updating the site when items move to "while stocks last" but even so I'd dispute this - I can clearly still order the starter box on the website and there's no "while stocks last" label. Just throwing it out there, sorry if this has been addressed already.
WrentheFaceless wrote: In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
Yeah... Player problem. Like the last time I played chess against my girlfriend, and I used the Yugoslav attack. I'm such a dick.
I just love how when a company makes a wargame with clearly established procedures for determining winners and losers, players who play completely within the rules somehow end up being the bad guys.
Can GW fix the problem? Yes. Do they? No. Who do we blame? The players!
Well if shes inexperienced or not as good of a player as you, you kindof are
And yes people that take it to that extremes where the rules are bent as close to breaking, they are as well.
People letting them get away with it are the problem, and I'm glad tournaments are having rules to counter it.
But there will always be people that get around it to win
Yes the rules may not be the best, but taking that much of advantage of them to make the game unfun for everyone else doesnt make you not a problem as well
About the chess thing, if I play poorly on purpose she'd be way more pissed than by losing to me. "Hai thar, sweetie, since you're slow in the head, I'll just condescendingly play down to your level so you might feel like you have a chance. I'm such a nice guy!" Yeah.... The couch is really uncomfortable so I'd rather not sleep there.
And as for me being the problem in 40k, that's great and all, but I'm a small group of players that all enjoy playing competitively. We like making the hardest armies we can, and crush each other, hear the lamentations of our women and all that. We're all good. But there are other guys at a local club, and there is literally no point in any of us playing against those guys. Since they're not in charge of my sleeping arrangements, I could of course pull the same condescending dickery, but playing fluffy 40k armies doesn't automatically make one slow, so they might not appreciate being condescended. "Oh, wanna play a game? Sure. Let me just make my army worse first, ya know, so you'll stand a chance. Oops, I seem to have forgotten to shoot my Riptide and then left it in charge range from your Chaos Lord. Silly me! Hey, at least now you'll kill something, eh? Wink, wink!"
The problem with an unbalanced 40k isn't that you're forced to play boring games. The problem is that an already niche group is being divided into two groups that are so far apart that interaction between the two is meaningless.
shade1313 wrote: Yeah, it's a little sad that there'll be automatic labeling of players as TFG for bringing what are technically "unbound" lists, but really are just the only way they can, within printed rules, play their vision of a proper Biel-Tan army, for example.
Sure, there'll be superdouches who do try to bring stupid amounts of game breaking units spammed all over, but there'll also be poor sods who just want to play their list with lots of Banshees, Scorpions, etc, and as soon as they say "it's an unbound list", people will start foaming at the mouth.
Unbound sounds like it'll go in the same direction as Forge World units; while not inherently broken, some lists / combinations will make for very un-fun games and a handful of people will end up spoiling it for everyone else.
All it takes is for someone to show up unannounced with 6 Riptides and suddenly no one wants to play against your mass Pyrovore army because "Unbound is OP".
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.
Yeah, it's a little sad that there'll be automatic labeling of players as TFG for bringing what are technically "unbound" lists, but really are just the only way they can, within printed rules, play their vision of a proper Biel-Tan army, for example.
Sure, there'll be superdouches who do try to bring stupid amounts of game breaking units spammed all over, but there'll also be poor sods who just want to play their list with lots of Banshees, Scorpions, etc, and as soon as they say "it's an unbound list", people will start foaming at the mouth.
Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.
WrentheFaceless wrote: In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
Yeah... Player problem. Like the last time I played chess against my girlfriend, and I used the Yugoslav attack. I'm such a dick.
I just love how when a company makes a wargame with clearly established procedures for determining winners and losers, players who play completely within the rules somehow end up being the bad guys.
Can GW fix the problem? Yes. Do they? No. Who do we blame? The players!
Well if shes inexperienced or not as good of a player as you, you kindof are
And yes people that take it to that extremes where the rules are bent as close to breaking, they are as well.
People letting them get away with it are the problem, and I'm glad tournaments are having rules to counter it.
But there will always be people that get around it to win
Yes the rules may not be the best, but taking that much of advantage of them to make the game unfun for everyone else doesnt make you not a problem as well
About the chess thing, if I play poorly on purpose she'd be way more pissed than by losing to me. "Hai thar, sweetie, since you're slow in the head, I'll just condescendingly play down to your level so you might feel like you have a chance. I'm such a nice guy!" Yeah.... The couch is really uncomfortable so I'd rather not sleep there.
And as for me being the problem in 40k, that's great and all, but I'm a small group of players that all enjoy playing competitively. We like making the hardest armies we can, and crush each other, hear the lamentations of our women and all that. We're all good. But there are other guys at a local club, and there is literally no point in any of us playing against those guys. Since they're not in charge of my sleeping arrangements, I could of course pull the same condescending dickery, but playing fluffy 40k armies doesn't automatically make one slow, so they might not appreciate being condescended. "Oh, wanna play a game? Sure. Let me just make my army worse first, ya know, so you'll stand a chance. Oops, I seem to have forgotten to shoot my Riptide and then left it in charge range from your Chaos Lord. Silly me! Hey, at least now you'll kill something, eh? Wink, wink!"
The problem with an unbalanced 40k isn't that you're forced to play boring games. The problem is that an already niche group is being divided into two groups that are so far apart that interaction between the two is meaningless.
Rules wont fix the problems you decribe, you cant make non-competitive players competitive, same as you cant make competitive players non-competitive. No rules from GW can ever fix that mentality or that rift between those two groups.
Is it at all possible that both positions may have merits?
Competitive players have reason to be frustrated if they feel the game they enjoy and have invested time and money in is losing what they enjoy it for.
On the other hand, there are people who are excited to just throw together forces that weren't possible before to possibly make fluff forces or for other reasons.
I think maybe what needs to be asked, for the people who are not happy with the change, is at what point do you cut your losses and move to something else?
Thud wrote: About the chess thing, if I play poorly on purpose she'd be way more pissed than by losing to me. "Hai thar, sweetie, since you're slow in the head, I'll just condescendingly play down to your level so you might feel like you have a chance. I'm such a nice guy!" Yeah.... The couch is really uncomfortable so I'd rather not sleep there.
Thing is, you introduced the chess analogy in the first place. It was a poor analogy for the situation that was being described - eg, 40k powergamers - just because the systems are so different. That isn't really your fault, the whole "all people who play very competitively are dicks" thing doesn't have legs, and neither does the "they're all off the hook" position either. These things are subtle and nuanced. Only sith deal in absolutes, etc.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Rules wont fix the problems you decide, you cant make non-competitive players competitive, same as you cant make competitive players non-competitive. No rules from GW can ever fix that mentality or that rift between those two groups.
Really? Cause, at that club I mentioned, most of the guys have started playing Warmachine and they seem to be doing just that. Non-competitive players and competitive players are playing each other with relatively balanced armies and are all having fun.
Rules wont fix the problems you decide, you cant make non-competitive players competitive, same as you cant make competitive players non-competitive. No rules from GW can ever fix that mentality or that rift between those two groups.
And yet other games don't have nearly such a huge divide as 40k. Hmm... could it be the rules? It's getting to the point where there's no middle ground. It's like polarizing American politics.
Rules wont fix the problems you decide, you cant make non-competitive players competitive, same as you cant make competitive players non-competitive. No rules from GW can ever fix that mentality or that rift between those two groups.
And yet other games don't have nearly such a huge divide as 40k. Hmm... could it be the rules? It's getting to the point where there's no middle ground. It's like polarizing American politics.
Considering people are freaking out about a paragraph in White Dwarf, would be nice to see the actual Unbound rules before declaring the game dead for what...the 7th time?
Other games dont have as huge of divide as other games arent as huge as this 30 year old game. People will adapt, they always do, and always have. Sure some will leave, but frothing at the mouth based on....4 columns of text in a WD. Right...
If the rules really are how they stand and how we fear then there is no point even buying the rulebook since there will be so many complaints and reduced sales that 8th edition will be right around the corner.
In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
QFT. Unbound is going to create some challenging situations.
To give people a little perspective on how unrestricted / spam lists work in the real world, there's a guy at my FLGS who started bringing a Heldrake spam list. There's a thread about it here:
We mostly play games at 2500+ points. He was bringing double FOC with 6 Heldrakes and about 120 plague zombies. Before he switched to Tyranids, his record was something like 35 - 4.
He cleaned up against the local meta, which includes Tau, Eldar, Necrons, SMs, IG, etc. It lead to a lot of Tau / Eldar players declining games against CSMs because they thought our armies are OP. Other players and I tried to figure out ways of dealing with his lists, and we were not very successful.
The reason he was able to win so much is that no one really wants to invest in models and cheese lists just to beat this guy. We could swap models all we wanted, but that took a lot of time and effort just to prepare for a big, dumb, boring fight. The guy in question had his tactics down, he knew how to stretch a movement phase out to 45 minutes when he needed cover for everything behind the wall of zombies. It was awful playing with him, fun left the room when he set up his forces. EVERYTHING became laborious.
The advice most people had about the situation was to not play him, which is the opposite of what most clubs are about. You want more players to get in on the game. But how is that going to work when everyone can start bringing 10 Heldrakes? FOC does more than instill some sense of balance in the game, it limits people's ability to be TFG and ruin the experience. My biggest concern with unbound armies is that GW is setting the community up for a lot more of these types of guys, only they have no restrictions on what they can do.
The way this situation resolved itself, btw, was that TFG stopped playing CSMs. He felt like no one could actually beat him and he was the best of the best with that army. He plays Tyranids now and has like 160 models in his standard army. His lists are only slightly less annoying, he still drags out each phase of the game and moves everything into cover on each turn. He wins by wearing out the other player moreso than through great victories. He literally threatens to pull his CSMs back out throughout games, he constantly argues about the rules even when he knows he's wrong, he tells other players they don't know what they are doing. Like, I can't win against his Tyranids, I can barely concentrate on a plan when it's over 30 minutes to get past his turn one and with all the chatter.
Imagine a world where every other player is just like him. It really concerns me to think this is what unbound is leading to.
unmercifulconker wrote: If the rules really are how they stand and how we fear then there is no point even buying the rulebook since there will be so many complaints and reduced sales that 8th edition will be right around the corner.
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. And they've shown they're happy to obsolete that rulebook within 2 years, so... fool me once, etc.
Rules wont fix the problems you decide, you cant make non-competitive players competitive, same as you cant make competitive players non-competitive. No rules from GW can ever fix that mentality or that rift between those two groups.
And yet other games don't have nearly such a huge divide as 40k. Hmm... could it be the rules? It's getting to the point where there's no middle ground. It's like polarizing American politics.
Considering people are freaking out about a paragraph in White Dwarf, would be nice to see the actual Unbound rules before declaring the game dead for what...the 7th time?
Other games dont have as huge of divide as other games arent as huge as this 30 year old game. People will adapt, they always do, and always have. Sure some will leave, but frothing at the mouth based on....4 columns of text in a WD. Right...
Again, you fail to understand the argument. This is the latest in a pattern for GW. It's a pattern that ignores the fan base, throws good rules to the curb, and is an obvious ploy just to get people to buy more stuff because as it says on record, buying GW crap is THE HOBBY.
It's the latest in the pattern that just shoves more "buy the big stuff" at the gamer as possible. Sure, maybe the lists that follow the FOC will get bonuses that more than compensate for it, but I doubt it. Either way one will over power the other because it's been shown repetitively ad nauseum that GW doesn't know how to balance things.
So it its just a few paragraphs from WD, its a multi-year trend of GW getting worse and worse with no change to that pattern in sight. So yes, some people have reason to be negative.
So, a special phase like the magic phase, no FOC for spamming lots if stuff, and another 90-100$ dollars out the window because why the hell not...yeah I might stick with 6th for a while longer...
MWHistorian wrote: Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.
Sisters are one of the armies best equipped to deal with Termie spam. In fact, whenever I see an all terminator army across the table I chuckle and prepare for the easy win.
Rules wont fix the problems you decide, you cant make non-competitive players competitive, same as you cant make competitive players non-competitive. No rules from GW can ever fix that mentality or that rift between those two groups.
And yet other games don't have nearly such a huge divide as 40k. Hmm... could it be the rules? It's getting to the point where there's no middle ground. It's like polarizing American politics.
Considering people are freaking out about a paragraph in White Dwarf, would be nice to see the actual Unbound rules before declaring the game dead for what...the 7th time?
Other games dont have as huge of divide as other games arent as huge as this 30 year old game. People will adapt, they always do, and always have. Sure some will leave, but frothing at the mouth based on....4 columns of text in a WD. Right...
Again, you fail to understand the argument. This is the latest in a pattern for GW. It's a pattern that ignores the fan base, throws good rules to the curb, and is an obvious ploy just to get people to buy more stuff because as it says on record, buying GW crap is THE HOBBY.
It's the latest in the pattern that just shoves more "buy the big stuff" at the gamer as possible. Sure, maybe the lists that follow the FOC will get bonuses that more than compensate for it, but I doubt it. Either way one will over power the other because it's been shown repetitively ad nauseum that GW doesn't know how to balance things.
So it its just a few paragraphs from WD, its a multi-year trend of GW getting worse and worse with no change to that pattern in sight. So yes, some people have reason to be negative.
I think anyone would be hard-pressed to not say that GW is altering the rules for the sole purpose of making you buy more models. I get that they are a company, etc. etc., but what I'm getting at is: the rules of the game are being altered to force you to buy more models for a typical game without adding additional value.
If Privateer Press did the same thing with WM/H I think people would decry the changes as greedy. It's not us vs. GW because we are jealous or their success, it's us vs. GW trying to exploit the rules and force more purchases, when in reality if they just took steps to address customer concerns, people would buy more of their stuff anyway!
Certainly it's pretty clear Unbound is designed to drive sales but I'm not sure about force? Is that based purely on competitive play? Are we saying only crazy unbound lists will be competitive in the brave new world? We don't know what the battle-forged bonus(es) are yet.
I have been playing 40k since day 1. I have played all the versions except 4. I have played power gamers and casuals, I have played good players and bad ones. I have won tournaments and also come last in them. The rules will not stop that happening.
The worst game I ever played was 5th ed against a guy whop had the death company dreadnought vs my warrior heavy nid list. His dread got into my warriors and ripped them apart. I felt the rules were stupid and that anyone bringing that build to a friendly game is going to have a rubbish game. He saw that I didnt enjoy the game, and so dint come away with a good feeling himself. We have not played since, as I cannot be bothered to try and get a game with him, as he is too into using broken rules and loop holes in the rules.
The best games I have played have been the ones where the balance is very even, where every inch counts and the players have cool armies with well painted models.
I dislike playing games where I win easily, as its simply not fun. If you bring models and I bring a hammer, who has fun? Not you, as all your models get broken. Not me as you think IM a duck.
The rules are not to blame. I dont think GW make balanced games, but I dont mind playing the game. I enjoyed a game I played recently, as I was a better player and started to rip my opponent a new one, but I failed a critical roll and lost the game...to pure chance! The game swung between us and my advantage was denied by chance. Who would have thunk it? It was a fun game.
I also played a game against a guy who had 3 land raiders and the fliers. I got minced as I had a tactical army! Well, you win some and lose some.
I am playing against Old hammer players now, and they approach the game with the idea of having fun, of playing fiar and of getting excited about cool models, good paint jobs, narrative and camaraderie. This has not much to do with the rules, but anyway we play old editions! Is that not the way to play? Surely it is!
The golden rule, the most important one, is play with people you enjoy playing with.
Accolade wrote: If Privateer Press did the same thing with WM/H I think people would decry the changes as greedy. It's not us vs. GW because we are jealous or their success, it's us vs. GW trying to exploit the rules and force more purchases, when in reality if they just took steps to address customer concerns, people would buy more of their stuff anyway!
They're not just altering the rules but also the points costs. My IG army with the new AM codex just lost 200pts out of 2500pts. Now, some simple minded person would see that and post "why are you complaining!?! you get to use more stuff than just 1 month ago!!". If that same person bothered to look at the trends, they'd see that my Tau army lost almost as much with their recent update as well. My bog standard Space Marines got BOTH better and cheaper compared with 3rd edition (14pts instead of 15pts and they now get chapter rules, frags, and kraks for -1pt). Everything is getting "cheaper" sequentially in points because GW wants to make every 1500pt army more expensive in $$$. That trend is going on for over a decade but the newest extension of that is forcing apoc down our throats at the platoon(s) level of normal 40k.
The way this situation resolved itself, btw, was that TFG stopped playing CSMs. He felt like no one could actually beat him and he was the best of the best with that army. He plays Tyranids now and has like 160 models in his standard army. His lists are only slightly less annoying, he still drags out each phase of the game and moves everything into cover on each turn. He wins by wearing out the other player moreso than through great victories. He literally threatens to pull his CSMs back out throughout games, he constantly argues about the rules even when he knows he's wrong, he tells other players they don't know what they are doing. Like, I can't win against his Tyranids, I can barely concentrate on a plan when it's over 30 minutes to get past his turn one and with all the chatter.
Imagine a world where every other player is just like him. It really concerns me to think this is what unbound is leading to.
I think that most people, thankfully, aren't like TFG you described. In every game you're going to have TFG, who will be a gigantic chore to play against because it's simply not fun to play him. It's more the player than the game(IMO).
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.
Why are chaos players so poorly tuned into their own fluff? Night Lords =/= all raptors, not by a long shot.
Well sorry Mr Lord of fluff.
It is natural to assume that, as Night Lords are known for terror tactics, ambush and infiltration, they would have large contingents of Raptors and Warptalons to deepstrike and take the enemy by surprise.
Accolade wrote: If Privateer Press did the same thing with WM/H I think people would decry the changes as greedy. It's not us vs. GW because we are jealous or their success, it's us vs. GW trying to exploit the rules and force more purchases, when in reality if they just took steps to address customer concerns, people would buy more of their stuff anyway!
They're not just altering the rules but also the points costs. My IG army with the new AM codex just lost 200pts out of 2500pts. Now, some simple minded person would see that and post "why are you complaining!?! you get to use more stuff than just 1 month ago!!". If that same person bothered to look at the trends, they'd see that my Tau army lost almost as much with their recent update as well. My bog standard Space Marines got BOTH better and cheaper compared with 3rd edition (14pts instead of 15pts and they now get chapter rules, frags, and kraks for -1pt). Everything is getting "cheaper" sequentially in points because GW wants to make every 1500pt army more expensive in $$$. That trend is going on for over a decade but the newest extension of that is forcing apoc down our throats at the platoon(s) level of normal 40k.
I honestly have to ask, how many people do you know that buy EXACTLY x number of models and then stop? Or only have 1 army?
If marines dropped to 10 pts a model I would have enough marines just sitting around to fill in those points, or vehicles. Decreasing costs is only a problem if all you own is exactly what you need for one size of game. Here is the other thing, you can bring a tactical army and do okay against the most powerful lists, but it requires making some changes, and I am thoroughly enjoying the versatility that comes from the Alternate missions that the big tournaments are implementing.
SHOULD GW be the one trying to balance everything? Sure but they have not. So we can either sit on our thumbs pointing fingers or actively try to do something about. Being responsible for a problem does not mean they are the only ones who can give a solution.
MWHistorian wrote: Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.
Sisters are one of the armies best equipped to deal with Termie spam. In fact, whenever I see an all terminator army across the table I chuckle and prepare for the easy win.
Tend to agree - lots of Meltas, Rending guns and Exorcist missiles tend to kill Terminators - alot - Storm Shield armed ones are harder but they don't shoot back.
Bull0 wrote: Certainly it's pretty clear Unbound is designed to drive sales but I'm not sure about force? Is that based purely on competitive play? Are we saying only crazy unbound lists will be competitive in the brave new world? We don't know what the battle-forged bonus(es) are yet.
I would say that GW is hoping 7th will drive sales with all groups:
Unbound will let one group of people buy whatever models they want to field as an army, and those playing competitively will most likely need to adjust their armies in a significant way to approach a radically different meta...that or buy more options to have in the wings should they repeatedly come up against hard-to-deal-with lists. It could be a number of different scenarios but GW expects that all will be buying a lot of new models (including a $100 new rulebook).
I think GW sees this release as a win-win (or else why would they do it?), I believe that they are still focused on the short-term (i.e. through their current financial reports) and are negatively impacting the long-term prospects of the game.
Agamemnon2 wrote: It just all looks perfectly tedious to me. What on earth could the bonuses for FOC-compliant lists be, to make running them worthwhile?
With the way things are going, it'll probably be some sort of random table comprised of 5 things that won't help you (or only help in one extremely specific circumstance) and one thing that might make a difference.
Or better yet, maybe just a re-roll on Warlord traits
MWHistorian wrote: Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.
Sisters are one of the armies best equipped to deal with Termie spam. In fact, whenever I see an all terminator army across the table I chuckle and prepare for the easy win.
Tend to agree - lots of Meltas, Rending guns and Exorcist missiles tend to kill Terminators - alot - Storm Shield armed ones are harder but they don't shoot back.
I had Celestine dueling his warpsmith and I just couldn't get through his +2 armor! Oh, it was a bad day. My exo's kept rolling one missile that usually missed and the Warpsmith killed Celestine...twice. Bad day.
But back on topic, for my army, certain kinds of armies will eat my lunch and Sisters are too expensive to just buy a gak load of whatever unit and spam the crap out of it. That's not the kind of game I want to play either. I want a game where you have to choose carefully what kind of army you want to play and play to those strengths and yet be adaptable.
GW just wants me to buy more expensive models like I'm a 12 year old rich kid with birthday money.
Edit:
Add to everything that GW won't support my favorite army, Sisters. Not even a print codex and no new models in a decade. That's inexcusable.
Leth wrote: I honestly have to ask, how many people do you know that buy EXACTLY x number of models and then stop? Or only have 1 army?
I don't have a single army but I do effectively buy till exactly x number of models because every army must fit in a carrying case. My IG army I referenced earlier as well as the tau have every slot and space filled in the GW carrying case. The IG army was made back in 3rd edition and has dropped from about 2700pts give or take to 2300pts. If I want to expand the army, I'm not adding but rather replacing. The gradual but constant steady "shrinkage" is noticeable for me as my total collection size is dropping for armies that I'm effectively done with beyond just some codex update conversions of a few arms/limbs.
Bull0 wrote: Certainly it's pretty clear Unbound is designed to drive sales but I'm not sure about force? Is that based purely on competitive play? Are we saying only crazy unbound lists will be competitive in the brave new world? We don't know what the battle-forged bonus(es) are yet.
I would say that GW is hoping 7th will drive sales with all groups:
Unbound will let one group of people buy whatever models they want to field as an army, and those playing competitively will most likely need to adjust their armies in a significant way to approach a radically different meta...that or buy more options to have in the wings should they repeatedly come up against hard-to-deal-with lists. It could be a number of different scenarios but GW expects that all will be buying a lot of new models (including a $100 new rulebook).
I think GW sees this release as a win-win (or else why would they do it?), I believe that they are still focused on the short-term (i.e. through their current financial reports) and are negatively impacting the long-term prospects of the game.
Businesses exist to make money, more at 11
Honestly, tournaments will most likely restrict it to only Battle-Forged lists, which is basically the FOC now
Not sure how more playtype options are a bad thing. That and the hinted new alliance charts perhaps this is what people actually asked for, A more fine tuned competitive set with better allies for "Battle forged" And those who want to play casually and just put everything on the table with "unbound'
Bull0 wrote: Certainly it's pretty clear Unbound is designed to drive sales but I'm not sure about force? Is that based purely on competitive play? Are we saying only crazy unbound lists will be competitive in the brave new world? We don't know what the battle-forged bonus(es) are yet.
I would say that GW is hoping 7th will drive sales with all groups:
Unbound will let one group of people buy whatever models they want to field as an army, and those playing competitively will most likely need to adjust their armies in a significant way to approach a radically different meta...that or buy more options to have in the wings should they repeatedly come up against hard-to-deal-with lists. It could be a number of different scenarios but GW expects that all will be buying a lot of new models (including a $100 new rulebook).
I think GW sees this release as a win-win (or else why would they do it?), I believe that they are still focused on the short-term (i.e. through their current financial reports) and are negatively impacting the long-term prospects of the game.
Businesses exist to make money, more at 11
Honestly, tournaments will most likely restrict it to only Battle-Forged lists, which is basically the FOC now
Right, I stated that in the previous post, no one is ever surprised that GW is trying to make money, I'm not demonizing them for it, etc. etc. etc.
The issue comes from how they try to get money from their customers. They've had a history of up'ing the cost of models/rules, lowering the in-game point values of units, and tweaking the core rules to encourage more purchases.
That is certainly a viable tactic, but I think a much better approach would be to look at customer complaints and address them, produce models people are asking for (i.e. Genestealer Cults since Rogue Trader days), and so forth.
@Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you
Scumbag businesses exist to make as much profit as possible.
Every business is a 'scumbag business' acording to the Internet
Most of them are since everyone wants to make as much profit as possible, that you cut corners or mold your product in a way to solely generate more profit rather than provide for the customer. Huh, kinda like GW.
I think most complaints come from GW doing things that are actually so spiteful and abusive that they actually hurt their profits, like them issuing CD's to blogs, websites and bits suppliers. That wasn't just business, those were just outright ____ moves that really only hurt GW. Also, the way GW treats independent retailers is shameful. I know a group of successful writers that chose Warmachine over GW just because of their practices. (Like trying to trade mark "Space Marine.") That's a lot of support they lost. Now Warmachine has a hugo nominated best seller in their stable.
Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.
Bull0 wrote: @Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you
Opinions are not 'explanations', especially ones based on the lack of actual facts that we have regarding the new formats that we have now. I understand their arguments, I disagree with certain aspects of them.
Sorry I dont agree with the 'hivemind' around here. But i'm not conceding anything until I see how this is actually going to happen.
Sorry, when you said you "weren't sure how more options were a bad thing", I assumed you simply didn't understand, since a bunch of people have told you all about how they're a bad thing. Good and bad are by definition subjective, so you either meant to say "I think more options is a good thing" or "I disagree that more options are a bad thing but I'm not going to say why".
Bull0 wrote: @Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you
Opinions are not 'explanations', especially ones based on the lack of actual facts that we have regarding the new formats that we have now. I understand their arguments, I disagree with certain aspects of them.
Sorry I dont agree with the 'hivemind' around here. But i'm not conceding anything until I see how this is actually going to happen.
How are any of my examples not based on actual facts? Please elaborate.
MWHistorian wrote: Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.
In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.
QFT. Unbound is going to create some challenging situations.
To give people a little perspective on how unrestricted / spam lists work in the real world, there's a guy at my FLGS who started bringing a Heldrake spam list. There's a thread about it here:
We mostly play games at 2500+ points. He was bringing double FOC with 6 Heldrakes and about 120 plague zombies. Before he switched to Tyranids, his record was something like 35 - 4.
He cleaned up against the local meta, which includes Tau, Eldar, Necrons, SMs, IG, etc. It lead to a lot of Tau / Eldar players declining games against CSMs because they thought our armies are OP. Other players and I tried to figure out ways of dealing with his lists, and we were not very successful.
The reason he was able to win so much is that no one really wants to invest in models and cheese lists just to beat this guy. We could swap models all we wanted, but that took a lot of time and effort just to prepare for a big, dumb, boring fight. The guy in question had his tactics down, he knew how to stretch a movement phase out to 45 minutes when he needed cover for everything behind the wall of zombies. It was awful playing with him, fun left the room when he set up his forces. EVERYTHING became laborious.
The advice most people had about the situation was to not play him, which is the opposite of what most clubs are about. You want more players to get in on the game. But how is that going to work when everyone can start bringing 10 Heldrakes? FOC does more than instill some sense of balance in the game, it limits people's ability to be TFG and ruin the experience. My biggest concern with unbound armies is that GW is setting the community up for a lot more of these types of guys, only they have no restrictions on what they can do.
The way this situation resolved itself, btw, was that TFG stopped playing CSMs. He felt like no one could actually beat him and he was the best of the best with that army. He plays Tyranids now and has like 160 models in his standard army. His lists are only slightly less annoying, he still drags out each phase of the game and moves everything into cover on each turn. He wins by wearing out the other player moreso than through great victories. He literally threatens to pull his CSMs back out throughout games, he constantly argues about the rules even when he knows he's wrong, he tells other players they don't know what they are doing. Like, I can't win against his Tyranids, I can barely concentrate on a plan when it's over 30 minutes to get past his turn one and with all the chatter.
Imagine a world where every other player is just like him. It really concerns me to think this is what unbound is leading to.
But.. "companies are there to make money......"
All in all, There is ALOT more merit to this story in how the local game scene will perceive the "Unbound" thing and how it opens the door to TFG style play under the guise of "bringing a hard list".
Yes, this one is only describing one mutt in 1 store, but you all as well as I can count on BOTH hands the amount of TFG thought process of "We'll just see how far we can push the envelope in the sake of a win..."
At the end of the day it will end up being the same. Either you laugh them off the table as a outright tool, or you just up and tell them- "Go feth yourself, you are plopping down a table and a half full of unfinished models, and unpainted stuff, just for the sake of wasting my time."
At either end of the spectrum, and with the price increase to the point of paying with one of your first born for the sake of a game, your seeing the death of 40K by a thousand cuts.
They aren't even being covert about how much this is going to cost you, now they are going for the impulse kills.
Its not just about making money. Its about producing a sustainable product that people WANT to buy, and not just for the lickiest and chewiest, its about playing a reasonably good game, having some fun with your mates, and not having to worry about coming into your next game ready to argue a case in the supreme court.
THIS new stuff looks like a hot mess from this Grots standpoint. rather then encourage play, encourage you to go out and have fun, it plays to the lower base instinct of gamers, and rewards Dbaggery on so many levels it really looks like they don't have a clue as to their own products.
Worst thing about it is that this crap is coming, wanted or not.
Bull0 wrote:Sorry, when you said you "weren't sure how more options were a bad thing", I assumed you simply didn't understand, since a bunch of people have told you all about how they're a bad thing. Good and bad are by definition subjective, so you either meant to say "I think more options is a good thing" or "I disagree that more options are a bad thing but I'm not going to say why".
I think the options instead of one format, that two formats, one what we have now, and one to plop everything you have down and play, are good options, taken as is, disregarding competitiveness and all that, as thats not really important to the options and will be decided by the TOs as they always have been
Bull0 wrote: @Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you
Opinions are not 'explanations', especially ones based on the lack of actual facts that we have regarding the new formats that we have now. I understand their arguments, I disagree with certain aspects of them.
Sorry I dont agree with the 'hivemind' around here. But i'm not conceding anything until I see how this is actually going to happen.
How are any of my examples not based on actual facts? Please elaborate.
Yes GW is a business, some of their changes are motivated to sell more minis, I wont argue that, as if I were a business I'd make changes to sell more stuff to if my livelyhood or botom line was on the table. But jumping to the conclusions that have been thrown around here based off of a page and a half of a WD magazine, without any specifics, is a little 'chicken little' for me. And I hate trying to have rational discussions based on a 'sky is falling" albiet perhaps its my ignorance as I'm fairly new to playing 40k, but have followed it for years.
I think that most people, thankfully, aren't like TFG you described. In every game you're going to have TFG, who will be a gigantic chore to play against because it's simply not fun to play him. It's more the player than the game(IMO).
Let's hope most people don't decide to be like TFG.
There is a psychology at work with TFG. He knows his games are not fun for other players, but defends himself by saying the army lists are legal, he bought all his models at the store, and there's no reason he should have to nerf his forces to suit the decisions other people make with their armies. He is following the rules and finding enjoyment and satisfaction in the way he plays his games. I talk with him from time to time and do understand his original motives around bringing this list. He looks at Tau and Eldar as OP, and I come away from our conversations with the sense he started this list as a punitive measure against those armies. His CSM army is a dare for those armies to try and beat him.
Just to be really clear, I think this guy is an interesting personality, he's not an irredeemable jerk nor is he someone you really want to be friends with. He clearly understands the mechanics of 40k at a high level and uses the rules in a clear and legal way. His gamesmanship is annoying but doesn't really cross the bounds to where you would just want to tell him to frag off. When he has made other players cry, he has apologized and it seemed like he genuinely felt bad. The worst things about him are the choices he makes about hygiene (which are not unique to his case) and that he may have picked up a few models that were not his after particularly brutal games.
There's an old saying, if you don't like the law, change it. TFG does go by the rules, mostly, and he certainly has put a lot of time and effort into this pursuit. There is no rule about having fun, being a good sport, or trying to make friends. It bothers me that, someday soon, he will be more in the right, and the way he plays will be even more legitimate than it was before.
Unless there's a serious liability that goes along with Unbound lists, I can guarantee you he will be playing a spam list in a couple weeks that is composed of 100% of the best units in a Tyranid army. There are people in my FLGS who do admire his accomplishments with CSMs and try to do something similar to that with their own lists. If this is the new way to win, why should we expect people will not gravitate to it?
Keeping my mind open to the possibilities, but am a little pessimistic about how it's all going to turn out.
PhantomViper wrote: Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.
I think that that's stretching it a bit. Sure, GW games are likely the biggest source of "that guys" due to slack rules, but I think it's a bit idealistic to say that all other games have elimated any chance for a person to be TFG.
PhantomViper wrote: Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.
I think that that's stretching it a bit. Sure, GW games are likely the biggest source of "that guys" due to slack rules, but I think it's a bit idealistic to say that all other games have elimated any chance for a person to be TFG.
TFG exists in all games, not just mini wargames; they're in card games, they're in video games, they're in sports etc.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Yes GW is a business, some of their changes are motivated to sell more minis, I wont argue that, as if I were a business I'd make changes to sell more stuff to if my livelyhood or botom line was on the table. But jumping to the conclusions that have been thrown around here based off of a page and a half of a WD magazine, without any specifics, is a little 'chicken little' for me. And I hate trying to have rational discussions based on a 'sky is falling" albiet perhaps its my ignorance as I'm fairly new to playing 40k, but have followed it for years.
I don't need the WDW to make the points I've made. Each point about revenue generation techniques has been occurring for the last couple of years, the rumors regarding 7th seem to only reinforce the paradigm I believe GW is working under.
I am also not saying the sky is falling, I am saying this: I believe GW is hurting their long-term business in hopes of boosting their short-term (this could be for a number of reasons but it's not the crux of the issue). Most of what has been discussed these last few pages seems legitimate to me and has been rationally discussed.
I am excited to see how they plan to implement this psychic phase. Zoanthropes make more sense being mastery 2 and one power is one and one power is two. Interesting to see how power generation happens as well. Will it be one power per level? Also how will costs of power change. If they are generating a d6 + mastery level it means that powers are probably going to get more expensive. 2-3 points for some probably. Also will there be a cap or will armies be able to go crazy with the dice?
So many unknowns it will be interesting to see what happens
MWHistorian wrote: Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.
People have been saying this for 20 years.
"Basically, GW (in some areas) is seen as a money hungry monster. If a company continuously raises prices, while lowering the overall support structure, while proclaiming advances in support, you end up with very unhappy people. All this from a company that most of us remember as a bunch of nice, hardworking gamers. Sigh, We'll just have to wait till they cut their own legs off, then maybe they'll fix things." - Lusiphur - rec.games.miniatures.warhammer - 9/8/96
If 7th tightens down the mechanics a bit, makes vehicles a bit more survivable and gives assault armies a bit better chance... I'll be happy. The most important thing to me is fine-tuning 6th into 7th... they can do whatever they want with list construction after that. GTs will put reasonable limits on it, and so will clubs/FLGSs if they want to keep people coming.
Seriously, I couldn't care less about unbound, as it will most likely never see the light of day in any place I could ever play.
MWHistorian wrote: Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.
People have been saying this for 20 years.
"Basically, GW (in some areas) is seen as a money hungry monster. If a company continuously raises prices, while lowering the overall support structure, while proclaiming advances in support, you end up with very unhappy people. All this from a company that most of us remember as a bunch of nice, hardworking gamers. Sigh, We'll just have to wait till they cut their own legs off, then maybe they'll fix things." - Lusiphur - rec.games.miniatures.warhammer - 9/8/96
Well, you could say we've seen some of the symptoms of this sort of mindset.
The loss of Games Day, bitz services, Battle Bunkers, etc. etc. could all be a result of GW not running their business optimally. I don't think GW has ever gone so far as to alienate all of its customers or anything, and they obviously have many, important positive attributes (otherwise they wouldn't exist!), but I think they have worked themselves into a much less healthy state over these last 20 years.
Its not just about making money. Its about producing a sustainable product that people WANT to buy, and not just for the lickiest and chewiest, its about playing a reasonably good game, having some fun with your mates, and not having to worry about coming into your next game ready to argue a case in the supreme court.
THIS new stuff looks like a hot mess from this Grots standpoint. rather then encourage play, encourage you to go out and have fun, it plays to the lower base instinct of gamers, and rewards Dbaggery on so many levels it really looks like they don't have a clue as to their own products.
Worst thing about it is that this crap is coming, wanted or not.
QFT. There's a real chance GW is opening a bag of worms with this new release. The worst thing they can do is make the game unenjoyable for everyone, instead of just the people with 'lower tier' armies.
I have always felt like it's important to guide new players into enjoying the hobby, moreso than just trying to win games. Imbalances make it tougher to do that, it's really hard to get someone to see the value in playing against a force that has no counter. For that matter, there's a certain kind of arrogance in setting out to build an unbeatable army in the first place, which most people can understand. 2++ invulnerable saves, D weapons, deathstars - these are what I am talking about. They don't seem like they belong in a game where the outcomes are uncertain and there's a chance for both sides. They seem more like a lock, unfair in their own way, and make you wonder why you would want to spend time on them.
These rumors about unbound armies make me think it's going to be harder to share my appreciation for 40k with other people. At their worst, these rules are going to legitimize very exclusive, almost unstoppable lists that would require a lot of time and effort to counter. There's a real chance this is going to degenerate into an arms race moreso than a chance to sell other models.
I don't know how I could get other people to appreciate that way of playing the game. I will wait and see what happens, but yeah - the risk is that we are losing the part of the hobby that made it most worthwhile.
Lobukia wrote: If 7th tightens down the mechanics a bit, makes vehicles a bit more survivable and gives assault armies a bit better chance... I'll be happy. The most important thing to me is fine-tuning 6th into 7th... they can do whatever they want with list construction after that. GTs will put reasonable limits on it, and so will clubs/FLGSs if they want to keep people coming.
My hope exactly but I know that GW won't make my wish true!
Lobukia wrote: Seriously, I couldn't care less about unbound, as it will most likely never see the light of day in any place I could ever play.
Quite probably what will happen to me as well. Though I can imagine a few one offs with one of my friend to "Narativelly" tell a story between his Nidz and my marines. Other than that, it will be FoC as usuall.
But, we still have a whole rule book to digest first!
Not knowing all the facts/rules yet in regards to Unbound.....
Watch Unbound be some rare, gotta role for it to get it, certain scenarios only, must be 25% less in points based of opponents army points to fight a battle forged army, and/or can not score/win unless it annihilates the opponent.
That'd be funny after all these pages of rage & debate if it had some crazy limitations afterall.
It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.
Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread
That's all I have to offer really. As a painter/modeller, rules don't really affect me and passing editions do nothing to entice me back, in fat they actively kill what little desire I have to play and encourage me to avoid giving GW money.
I feel bad for those who do game and are sick of seemingly constant attempts to spoil something they enjoy.
MWHistorian wrote: Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.
People have been saying this for 20 years.
"Basically, GW (in some areas) is seen as a money hungry monster. If a company continuously raises prices, while lowering the overall support structure, while proclaiming advances in support, you end up with very unhappy people. All this from a company that most of us remember as a bunch of nice, hardworking gamers.
Sigh, We'll just have to wait till they cut their own legs off, then maybe they'll fix things."
- Lusiphur - rec.games.miniatures.warhammer - 9/8/96
If only half the available armies weren't immune to it... Not sure if you're joking about the above btw or if Pretre needs to record a rumor for you in the tracker.
It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.
Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread
You're talking about a company that has no respect for its customers (as evidenced by court records and employee statements and other stuff that I'm too lazy to site a the moment) and whose battle reports show a fundamental lack of knowledge about the game itself and rules and units that come out that have clearly not been play tested.
The idea that GW has some kind of secret strategy to make everything awesome in an intelligent and subtle way is laughable. I'm going to be skeptical until they prove otherwise.
(Though admittedly, plastic SOB might lure me back. Shame that'll never happen.)
That's all I have to offer really. As a painter/modeller, rules don't really affect me and passing editions do nothing to entice me back, in fat they actively kill what little desire I have to play and encourage me to avoid giving GW money.
I feel bad for those who do game and are sick of seemingly constant attempts to spoil something they enjoy.
If these rules turn out to make me want to play less that's all I'll be doing with 40k: finishing my Flesh Tearers Battle Company (just ordered 20 Chain Axes for my Assault Marines, and 2 sets of brass icons for the vehicles from FW to help round this army build off) and moving on to another game and waiting for 40k to get better. I last played a game last year when Apoc came out (I'm also dealing with college stuff so it's not that big of a surprise, I have to choose one or the other and the one I need to pay for to take classes trumps the one I need to buy models for) so stepping out of 40k all the way wouldn't be that hard right now. I'm already considering building a Skaven army for Fantasy and give me something to work on between working on Flesh Tearer units (I'm not committed to them just yet, but I am considering them pretty strongly).
That Torrent of Fire link was interesting to look at though. Apparently things are better than I've been thinking lately, but expectations as low as mine that's now hard right now.
If only half the available armies weren't immune to it... Not sure if you're joking about the above btw or if Pretre needs to record a rumor for you in the tracker.
I assume that was a joke. But if it's right I wouldn't be too surprised.
It'd invalidate a lot of Warlord Trait options though.
Lobukia wrote: If 7th tightens down the mechanics a bit, makes vehicles a bit more survivable and gives assault armies a bit better chance... I'll be happy. The most important thing to me is fine-tuning 6th into 7th... they can do whatever they want with list construction after that.
GTs will put reasonable limits on it, and so will clubs/FLGSs if they want to keep people coming.
Seriously, I couldn't care less about unbound, as it will most likely never see the light of day in any place I could ever play.
Completely agree with the first bit, but 40k players are strange in that they feel entitled to ignore certain rules. This just doesn't happen in any comparable tabletop games. If it's in the core rules, why should anyone feel they can ban it and are somehow morally right in doing so?
Superheavies I get, as it is impossible to bring a TAC list equipped to deal with superheavies too, but they're not core rules.
I think it's unfair to impose limitations on how people play the game just because it may not fit in with the way that others feel the game 'should' be played.
For me, if there is any 'split' in the 40k playerbase it's caused by those that feel they are entitled to pick and choose rules and impose those beliefs on others.
MWHistorian wrote: Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.
Sisters are one of the armies best equipped to deal with Termie spam. In fact, whenever I see an all terminator army across the table I chuckle and prepare for the easy win.
Why are you guys going on about being able to win against Terminators? Since when are Terminators good? Reading you guys brag about being able to kill Terminators is like reading about a 40 year old bragging about beating up a baby.
Scumbag businesses exist to make as much profit as possible.
Every business is a 'scumbag business' acording to the Internet
That is basically every publicly traded company, and probably most private ones.
I think it's because people forget that Capitalism runs on Greed and that companies have to be greedy to successfully make profits. No company can operate at a loss (unless you're Uwe Boll and can us legal loopholes to make the government fund your endeavors). I don't feel this excuses the actions of a company towards its player base, just that it's a really poor argument to start complaining that a company is "greedy" when there are so many other, better arguments to make.
MWHistorian wrote: Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.
Sisters are one of the armies best equipped to deal with Termie spam. In fact, whenever I see an all terminator army across the table I chuckle and prepare for the easy win.
Why are you guys going on about being able to win against Terminators? Since when are Terminators good? Reading you guys brag about being able to kill Terminators is like reading about a 40 year old bragging about beating up a baby.
Because I'm using them as an example of something that's not considered OP but certain armies won't be able to cope with them when spammed en masse like the new rules will allow. Keep up.
Scumbag businesses exist to make as much profit as possible.
Every business is a 'scumbag business' acording to the Internet
That is basically every publicly traded company, and probably most private ones.
I am sure that the fact that GW is public is the source of a lot of decision that I wouldn't take at GW.
Growth drives everthing for the share holders.
In the world of table top gaming, growth must be difficult to attain simply with a new influx of players. So you have to bleed your current customer base and its a vicious circle once you go down that path...
It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.
Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread
You're talking about a company that has no respect for its customers (as evidenced by court records and employee statements and other stuff that I'm too lazy to site a the moment) and whose battle reports show a fundamental lack of knowledge about the game itself and rules and units that come out that have clearly not been play tested.
The idea that GW has some kind of secret strategy to make everything awesome in an intelligent and subtle way is laughable. I'm going to be skeptical until they prove otherwise.
(Though admittedly, plastic SOB might lure me back. Shame that'll never happen.)
If you think GW is different from other companies in that regard I find that laughable. Also you are assuming that they are not play-tested. The number of different interactions that can occur is beyond anything that one small team could hope to prepare for. Its easy to say its obvious once someone else pointed it out to you. There might be a team of 15-20 people testing a rule set and thousands of people trying to break it. Not saying they couldnt do better but even for all those *good games* people will find ways to break them as well.
Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand
I never said it was some secret strategy, however the imbalance is not to the same extent people are portraying on the internet. Working with the assumption that people coming to tournaments are bringing competative lists for their books then even the bottom tier is getting a 30% win rate and the top tier is getting a 70% win rate with a gradual rate of decline in between shows that the imbalances are not as bad as people are saying.
Leth wrote: Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base.
I recall venomous hatred towards the concept of digital codexes when they started coming out, and while I can understand some of the dislike for some of the things that come with them (for instance the ePub version's poor formatting) the concept is sound and at a lower price point (like half the cost of the codex) they'd be much better received.
Leth wrote: Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base.
I recall venomous hatred towards the concept of digital codexes when they started coming out, and while I can understand some of the dislike for some of the things that come with them (for instance the ePub version's poor formatting) the concept is sound and at a lower price point (like half the cost of the codex) they'd be much better received.
33 vrs 50 for most codexes, close enough for me.
Also I use the .mobi format so no idea on the epub
Its not just about making money. Its about producing a sustainable product that people WANT to buy, and not just for the lickiest and chewiest, its about playing a reasonably good game, having some fun with your mates, and not having to worry about coming into your next game ready to argue a case in the supreme court.
THIS new stuff looks like a hot mess from this Grots standpoint. rather then encourage play, encourage you to go out and have fun, it plays to the lower base instinct of gamers, and rewards Dbaggery on so many levels it really looks like they don't have a clue as to their own products.
Worst thing about it is that this crap is coming, wanted or not.
QFT. There's a real chance GW is opening a bag of worms with this new release. The worst thing they can do is make the game unenjoyable for everyone, instead of just the people with 'lower tier' armies.
I have always felt like it's important to guide new players into enjoying the hobby, moreso than just trying to win games. Imbalances make it tougher to do that, it's really hard to get someone to see the value in playing against a force that has no counter. For that matter, there's a certain kind of arrogance in setting out to build an unbeatable army in the first place, which most people can understand. 2++ invulnerable saves, D weapons, deathstars - these are what I am talking about. They don't seem like they belong in a game where the outcomes are uncertain and there's a chance for both sides. They seem more like a lock, unfair in their own way, and make you wonder why you would want to spend time on them.
These rumors about unbound armies make me think it's going to be harder to share my appreciation for 40k with other people. At their worst, these rules are going to legitimize very exclusive, almost unstoppable lists that would require a lot of time and effort to counter. There's a real chance this is going to degenerate into an arms race moreso than a chance to sell other models.
I don't know how I could get other people to appreciate that way of playing the game. I will wait and see what happens, but yeah - the risk is that we are losing the part of the hobby that made it most worthwhile.
I don't disagree with the concerns that have been raised but I think the focus is getting a little too narrow in this discussion. While WAAC uber lists and TFGs are going to continue to exacerbate some of the imbalance issues with the 40K and that GW definitely had a revenue spike as a primary goal with 7th Ed I think we're failing to see some of, IMHO, the likely motivations behind the creation of unbound lists.
I'm going to go with Hanlon's razor and try not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. (I'm sticking with stupidity for the sake of the quote but I'm not trying to disparage any of GW's designers personally it's more to point out their inability to see the unintended consequences of their actions). All we know for sure about unbound armies from the WDW leak is that it allows players to field an army without the constraints of the FOC. To my mind the lifting of that restriction was probably geared toward little Timmys and collectors trying to get them playing more. One of the complaints I often see about starter sets, bundles, etc. is that they don't fulfill the FOC and require additional purchases to become tabletop legal. With unbound armies a new gamer can buy whatever they want and not worry about being told that their army isn't legal until they add more troop kits/whatever. The new gamer is no longer forced to purchase kits for the sake of FOC compliance. Likewise older gamers who are more hobbyist/collectors no longer have to feel forced into making additional purchases to be able to field a legal army. I don't have to update/reorganize my IG army with every new codex or edition or not play with all of my Russes because I have more tanks than heavy support slots. I can play with whatever I have and only be constrained by current point values. As previously stated by others, it also takes narrative scenarios/campaigns that benefit from breaking the FOC and makes them officially sanctioned by the BRB.
That all strikes me as stuff that the GW designers would consider to be awesome improvements to the game since, as others have already discussed, those designers seem to be somewhat cocooned in an echo chamber of ideal friendly gaming conditions. I don't think the obvious opening for intentional abuse by players because that kind of player interaction or competitive mindset isn't even on their radar as evidenced by their disdain of tournament support and emphasis on narrative friendly play. I think they don't see the unintentional abuse(both newbies and collectors could bring unbalanced armies for a pickup game simply because those are the models they have and they want to play and the BRB says its ok) as a problem because they assume players are approaching the game with a certain attitude that fits their ideal vision for the game.
I think the worst case scenario that has caused so much angst among players in this thread was probably shrugged off by the design team as not worthy of concern because if a small minority of players were going to abuse unbound armies, well, jerks are gonna be jerks no matter what you do. IMHO, the big trending problem for GW right now is the deliberate lack of communication and seemingly vast disconnect between the game they think they're making and the game that is actually being played.
It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.
Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread
You're talking about a company that has no respect for its customers (as evidenced by court records and employee statements and other stuff that I'm too lazy to site a the moment) and whose battle reports show a fundamental lack of knowledge about the game itself and rules and units that come out that have clearly not been play tested.
The idea that GW has some kind of secret strategy to make everything awesome in an intelligent and subtle way is laughable. I'm going to be skeptical until they prove otherwise.
(Though admittedly, plastic SOB might lure me back. Shame that'll never happen.)
If you think GW is different from other companies in that regard I find that laughable. Also you are assuming that they are not play-tested. The number of different interactions that can occur is beyond anything that one small team could hope to prepare for. Its easy to say its obvious once someone else pointed it out to you. There might be a team of 15-20 people testing a rule set and thousands of people trying to break it. Not saying they couldnt do better but even for all those *good games* people will find ways to break them as well.
Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand
I never said it was some secret strategy, however the imbalance is not to the same extent people are portraying on the internet. Working with the assumption that people coming to tournaments are bringing competative lists for their books then even the bottom tier is getting a 30% win rate and the top tier is getting a 70% win rate with a gradual rate of decline in between shows that the imbalances are not as bad as people are saying.
Ah, there they are Statistics raising their ugly head. First of all, what is a top tier army anymore? You can field an army with a huge variety of units from just about any codex, making the term "army" too amorphous to truly define. Despite that, lets look at the numbers.
So, an amalgamation of the best armies has a 70% chance of winning. A statistic garnered from playing all levels of armies. Which includes mid level and top armies as well as the lowest level armies.
An amalgamation of the worst armies has a 30% chance of winning. A statistic garnered from playing all levels of armies. Which includes mid level and top armies as well as the lowest level armies.
The statistics are deceiving. What is the percentage of wins for a top tier army against a group that doesn't contain other top tier armies? It has to be higher than 70%
What is the winning percentage of bottom tier armies against top tier armies? It has to be lower than 30%, it has to be substantially lower than 30%. If a lower tier army were to play 20 games each against each of the tiers. 10 wins (half) against other lower tier, 7 wins against mid level, and 3 wins against top tier would be a 30% victory rate. That gievs you a 30% win rate and an 85% chance of losing against a top tier army, a terrible prospect.
Using the same numbers for a mid level army... 13 wins against a lower tier, 10 wins against a mid level, 7 wins against a top tier. That gives you a 50% win rate (I'm supposing this percentage) Gives you a 65% chance of losing to a top tier army. Better but still rotten.
Top tier....18 wins against bottom tier, 16 wins against mid level, 10 against top tier. That gives you a 70% win rate. ( I awarded the two extra wins needed to reach 70% at the expense of the lower tiers, keeping the 50% win ratio for a equivalent level army.)
The good;
- Unbound / Battle-Forgerd = New player friendly, allows flexibility but it's going to be very tricky to balance an UB vs BF with the benefits each could bring.
- GW is trying.. umm
The Bad;
- The psychic phase - Is it adding more complexity? I hope Nids don't get shafted.
- Tactical Objectives... adding more complexity?!
The Unknown;
- The Balance or screw up of Allies
- Psychic Powers, I could almost put money on a automatic take re-roll to hit power NOT being included.
Agamemnon2 wrote: It just all looks perfectly tedious to me. What on earth could the bonuses for FOC-compliant lists be, to make running them worthwhile?
The bonus is that we have rulebook precedent for "Bound" tournaments. While I don't need precedent for gak the vast majority of players seem to hate playing 'homeruled' 40k.
Single biggest change to the game will be what they make Bound into, because god knows the players won't suffer any added regulation beyond that even as they simultaneously bitch about Taudar. Can it take allies and gak up 'the narrative' like it can now? Or are they making it legitimately straight and narrow?
feth the psychic phase, this is the big question and the big game changer for 7th.
Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand.
Out of curiosity, what benefit do you forsee with an all digital switch that you consider it a panacea for the woes of current 40k? Do you think they'll just update the book files for free when they change? They didn't when they updated the Space Marine codex last year to my knowledge. Folks who bought the digital codex a few months earlier didn't get an upgrade to the new one but instead had to pay the full price just like with the paper copies. Do you relish the day when you can "rent" the rules and pay $14.99 per month like a WOW subscription to GW for two years, miss a payment, and then lose access to your codex collection? Digital has its benefits but the switch to entirely digital without a massive change to the price structure (which, if you follow what GW actually does is almost impossible) benefits only one side and that is GW. I'm not sure why you think it'll be such a benefit from the consumer side to completely abandon physical copies. Don't get me wrong... there are numerous benefits to digital copies as an option and they're the right choice for lots of gamers but they're not perfect or even good for plenty others.
If only half the available armies weren't immune to it... Not sure if you're joking about the above btw or if Pretre needs to record a rumor for you in the tracker.
Causes fear AND it weapons do soul blaze: best USRs ever!
Lobukia wrote: If 7th tightens down the mechanics a bit, makes vehicles a bit more survivable and gives assault armies a bit better chance... I'll be happy. The most important thing to me is fine-tuning 6th into 7th... they can do whatever they want with list construction after that. GTs will put reasonable limits on it, and so will clubs/FLGSs if they want to keep people coming.
Seriously, I couldn't care less about unbound, as it will most likely never see the light of day in any place I could ever play.
Unfortunately gw has shown no ability to do any such thing such as tightening the rules. Maybe my lack of faith will turn out wrong but I just don't see them actually fixing anything, just throwing more models at us and confusing the rules even more.
Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand.
Out of curiosity, what benefit do you forsee with an all digital switch that you consider it a panacea for the woes of current 40k? Do you think they'll just update the book files for free when they change? They didn't when they updated the Space Marine codex last year to my knowledge. Folks who bought the digital codex a few months earlier didn't get an upgrade to the new one but instead had to pay the full price just like with the paper copies. Do you relish the day when you can "rent" the rules and pay $14.99 per month like a WOW subscription to GW for two years, miss a payment, and then lose access to your codex collection? Digital has its benefits but the switch to entirely digital without a massive change to the price structure (which, if you follow what GW actually does is almost impossible) benefits only one side and that is GW. I'm not sure why you think it'll be such a benefit from the consumer side to completely abandon physical copies. Don't get me wrong... there are numerous benefits to digital copies as an option and they're the right choice for lots of gamers but they're not perfect or even good for plenty others.
It see it being an opportunity to provide those constant updates that everyone here seems to be complaining about. Being able to provide small tweeks here and there to points costs and the like without making it a big hassle. I get the ebooks, not the interactive ones from apple so no idea on that. The ebooks are cheaper, more convenient and easy to search and find the things I am looking for. It would be easy to integrate new units over the course of the codex instead of having to wait years in between editions. Digital gives them a good platform to do all this from.
It has been to my benefit to get rid of the physical side, especially with the option to bring two-three books I can just throw my tablet in my bag and have all the rules I need on the go.
Also I never said they were perfect for everyone, I am saying that a lot of the current issues people have would be easily solved via a digital platform.
What company does not have a subscription model for updates? It is just a matter of the scale. Privateer press constantly releases FAQs and new rules inside their magazine. Eventually they release a new book or compilation. That sounds like a subscription model to me. Everything is a subscription model if you really think about it. It is just a matter of time and scale.
Everything I have ever bought from GW I could still use today. I could still play with my third edition codexes and third edition rulebooks if I wanted to. Nothing is preventing me from doing so. However I want to play with the current rules and so I need to pay for them.
I guess the best analogy I can come up with is that I could still use my CRT TV and it will do everything it used to, but I want to see things in HDTV and so I need to upgrade or buy a new edition to do so.
The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
The good;
- Unbound / Battle-Forgerd = New player friendly, allows flexibility but it's going to be very tricky to balance an UB vs BF with the benefits each could bring.
- GW is trying.. umm
The Bad;
- The psychic phase - Is it adding more complexity? I hope Nids don't get shafted.
- Tactical Objectives... adding more complexity?!
The Unknown;
- The Balance or screw up of Allies
- Psychic Powers, I could almost put money on a automatic take re-roll to hit power NOT being included.
Huh...
I would have put the Good: Psychic Phase, Tactical Objectives and the Bad: Unbound armies looking quite silly...
But really, what we have here, is a freakin' massive hunk of Unknown.
I am a bit worried about this whole update though, because my friends and I have been having some good times recently, having not played in years. We grew up on 2nd Ed and pretty quickly lost interest in 3rd. I'll be really sad if interest wanes again... Hopefully, if it is really bad, we'll just stick in 6th. And I have to say, much as I hoped it was a rules update, it looks much more like a new edition. I believe he even says new edition in that White Dwarf article...
The problem is, there are still Codices that haven't been updated to 6th. I was really expecting that they would finally complete the goal of getting them all updated with the speed they were going at. How many non 6th codices were left? About 5? So one more year and they could have done it? If they had, we probably would have been content to sit in 6th for a long time...
I suppose we're playing more 2nd again, so we can just keep doing that too.
Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand.
Out of curiosity, what benefit do you forsee with an all digital switch that you consider it a panacea for the woes of current 40k? Do you think they'll just update the book files for free when they change? They didn't when they updated the Space Marine codex last year to my knowledge. Folks who bought the digital codex a few months earlier didn't get an upgrade to the new one but instead had to pay the full price just like with the paper copies. Do you relish the day when you can "rent" the rules and pay $14.99 per month like a WOW subscription to GW for two years, miss a payment, and then lose access to your codex collection? Digital has its benefits but the switch to entirely digital without a massive change to the price structure (which, if you follow what GW actually does is almost impossible) benefits only one side and that is GW. I'm not sure why you think it'll be such a benefit from the consumer side to completely abandon physical copies. Don't get me wrong... there are numerous benefits to digital copies as an option and they're the right choice for lots of gamers but they're not perfect or even good for plenty others.
It see it being an opportunity to provide those constant updates that everyone here seems to be complaining about. Being able to provide small tweeks here and there to points costs and the like without making it a big hassle. I get the ebooks, not the interactive ones from apple so no idea on that. The ebooks are cheaper, more convenient and easy to search and find the things I am looking for. It would be easy to integrate new units over the course of the codex instead of having to wait years in between editions. Digital gives them a good platform to do all this from.
It has been to my benefit to get rid of the physical side, especially with the option to bring two-three books I can just throw my tablet in my bag and have all the rules I need on the go.
Also I never said they were perfect for everyone, I am saying that a lot of the current issues people have would be easily solved via a digital platform.
What company does not have a subscription model for updates? It is just a matter of the scale. Privateer press constantly releases FAQs and new rules inside their magazine. Eventually they release a new book or compilation. That sounds like a subscription model to me. Everything is a subscription model if you really think about it. It is just a matter of time and scale.
So tell me how you're enjoying the MT ebook... oh wait
In all seriousness, I agree in general that there are some significant advantages to the digitization of GW's rules documents, but the way they are handling it does not instill much confidence that these benefits will be passed to the consumer in the long run. Most telling is the fact that the MT book has not been released on a non-apple platform, with no apparent intent to ever do so. Not to mention the fact that tweaks and updates have seemingly been distributed inconsistently (from what I hear), and many of the prices are the same as print. If the future of GW digital is nothing but over-costed, ipad-exclusive "mini-dexes" with limited or inconsistent attempts to provide updates, then I doubt anyone will find the service worthwhile.
I think people are getting too nervous about this unbound thing. Complete guess here but I'm going to guess that an unbound army is an army with out FOC slots. That means no troops, no HQs none of that. So even if you play with models that would be troops in a battle forged army they won't count as troops and won't be scoring. No HQs would mean no warlords. If you are playing an eternal war mission with out these things you will find it a difficult battle no matter what you bring.
I'm more concerned with how formations will work. Will you be able to play a battle forged army with formations?
skink007 wrote: The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
Hear, hear!
The main rules (other than mechanics that seemingly contradict and poor wording choices) have very little to do with balance. They could use Unbound or Battle Forged or Apocalypse or what ever they wanted. If a unit that is twice as good costs twice the points it would all even out in the end. The biggest problems is when a model that is twice as good only costs 1.3 to 1.
skink007 wrote: The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
Fluff is very subjective and usually a casualty of ignorance. For example, those who think a fluffy ba army I
Is only assault troops when in reality blood angels have 10 companies and use the codex astartes. Imo everything in a codex is fluffy, but unbound armies and allies are where the problems happen.
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
2) better take a battery charger with you.
Books may be bulky, but with some light, you can read them regardless.
3) Yep, added costs of updates and they may make them more frequently to the point your digital copy became far more pricey than just a new book.
DJGietzen wrote: I think people are getting too nervous about this unbound thing. Complete guess here but I'm going to guess that an unbound army is an army with out FOC slots. That means no troops, no HQs none of that. So even if you play with models that would be troops in a battle forged army they won't count as troops and won't be scoring. No HQs would mean no warlords. If you are playing an eternal war mission with out these things you will find it a difficult battle no matter what you bring.
I'm more concerned with how formations will work. Will you be able to play a battle forged army with formations?
No Warlords would mean no "Slay the Warlord" and seeing as even Apoc has Warlords I'd assume that it'd still be a think in "Unbound".
skink007 wrote: The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
Fluff is very subjective and usually a casualty of ignorance. For example, those who think a fluffy ba army I
Is only assault troops when in reality blood angels have 10 companies and use the codex astartes. Imo everything in a codex is fluffy, but unbound armies and allies are where the problems happen.
Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"
skink007 wrote: Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"
Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.
That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.
I like the idea of people having to buy a new edition every two years. Hopefully this time they'll put a stripped down incomplete rulebook in the starter set so people won't just be able to get a copy of the rules off eBay for cheap. I want people to get hit with a nice "pay $100 to keep playing this game" tax as often as possible. Hopefully also GW will short independent retailers on the rulebooks so the only reliable way to get it is to buy it direct from GW. More money for GW, less for parasite online discounters.
Now that I think about it, they should probably do an edition change every year. They can stop talking about 6th, 7th, etc., and just give the rules a designation based on the year they are produced. Like core sets in Magic: The Gathering but 100% not optional. Warhammer 40k (2014). The beginning of a new era.
GW needs as much money as possible from each player before they quit in order to survive. They can sell them a starter or a battleforce, a codex, some paint, hobby stuff, etc., and then have the customer make a couple more unit purchases before they quit and anything after that is gravy. Now they can also have them buy the rules again even more regularly.
This new edition after two years is a start, but we need 40k players everywhere paying extra every year for the new rules. And we also need the changes to be minor. Keeps development and studio costs down.
The changes should also create new sales opportunities. Maybe making a psychic phase and some variable objectives. After all, there's an opportunity for each person to have to spend $20+ for psychic cards and objective cards.
Designing games for profitability first and foremost is what good game design is all about. Game considerations should definitely be secondary to business concerns. The core act of the hobby is, after all, the purchasing of GW products.
skink007 wrote: Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"
Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.
That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.
It's a points balance problem.
The problem is there is no standard points costing system. They don't, say, add a point to the total for each additional point of toughness they add, or they increase the armour save by. Without that the points will never be "balanced" completely because each thing is points costed subjectively instead of based on any kind of system.
skink007 wrote: Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"
Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.
That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.
It's a points balance problem.
Agreed. If points were close to what units actually perform as, Penitent Engines would be waaay cheaper and Riptides would be a lot more expensive. (for some examples.)
If points were close to accurate, the FOC unbound thing would be much much less of a problem.
frozenwastes wrote: I like the idea of people having to buy a new edition every two years. Hopefully this time they'll put a stripped down incomplete rulebook in the starter set so people won't just be able to get a copy of the rules off eBay for cheap. I want people to get hit with a nice "pay $100 to keep playing this game" tax as often as possible. Hopefully also GW will short independent retailers on the rulebooks so the only reliable way to get it is to buy it direct from GW. More money for GW, less for parasite online discounters.
Now that I think about it, they should probably do an edition change every year. They can stop talking about 6th, 7th, etc., and just give the rules a designation based on the year they are produced. Like core sets in Magic: The Gathering but 100% not optional. Warhammer 40k (2014). The beginning of a new era.
GW needs as much money as possible from each player before they quit in order to survive. They can sell them a starter or a battleforce, a codex, some paint, hobby stuff, etc., and then have the customer make a couple more unit purchases before they quit and anything after that is gravy. Now they can also have them buy the rules again even more regularly.
This new edition after two years is a start, but we need 40k players everywhere paying extra every year for the new rules. And we also need the changes to be minor. Keeps development and studio costs down.
The changes should also create new sales opportunities. Maybe making a psychic phase and some variable objectives. After all, there's an opportunity for each person to have to spend $20+ for psychic cards and objective cards.
Designing games for profitability first and foremost is what good game design is all about. Game considerations should definitely be secondary to business concerns. The core act of the hobby is, after all, the purchasing of GW products.
skink007 wrote: Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"
Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.
That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.
It's a points balance problem.
The problem is there is no standard points costing system. They don't, say, add a point to the total for each additional point of toughness they add, or they increase the armour save by. Without that the points will never be "balanced" completely because each thing is points costed subjectively instead of based on any kind of system.
You are right. It has to be subjective or otherwise we get units that are all copy-pastes of each other. I never expect the game to be perfect, but it could be better than it is now.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital
The Bad;
- The psychic phase - Is it adding more complexity? I hope Nids don't get shafted.
- Tactical Objectives... adding more complexity?!
I don't see this as bad at all. As I read in the scan, they'll be for Maelstrom of War missions, not Eternal War ones. So the present-day missions will not sport any kind of cards. If you don't like then, don't play the new missions. I am, for one, very interested in combat cards. Dynamic objectives are more interesting than 'these 3-5 objectives are worth each 3 VP. Have scoring people near them in the end and you win'.
DJGietzen wrote: I think people are getting too nervous about this unbound thing. Complete guess here but I'm going to guess that an unbound army is an army with out FOC slots. That means no troops, no HQs none of that. So even if you play with models that would be troops in a battle forged army they won't count as troops and won't be scoring. No HQs would mean no warlords. If you are playing an eternal war mission with out these things you will find it a difficult battle no matter what you bring.
I'm more concerned with how formations will work. Will you be able to play a battle forged army with formations?
No Warlords would mean no "Slay the Warlord" and seeing as even Apoc has Warlords I'd assume that it'd still be a think in "Unbound".
On'y if they don't change the wording on slay the warlord. If it was changed to "If, at the end of the game, the enemy does not control a Warlord, you score 1 Victory Point." or "If, at the end of the game, your Warlord is still alive, you score 1 Victory Point." Either would do the same thing in terms of points spread as the current rule.
I actualy expect warlords to still be in unbound armies even if I'm right about the no HQ thing. It would probably be the model with the highest leadership like we have seen in Codex: LoTD
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital
You know in the argreement for all their digital products you are allowed to print off a copy for personal use right as well as place it on as many platforms as you own. At least from black library. Apple has different requirements that are wonky to use their platform.
In addition I got a tablet for less than 10 bucks a month added on to my plan(tablet was free with 2 year). If I turn on airport mode it will last for an entire weekend(as it did during adepticon). I was hesitent at first until I tried it.
skink007 wrote: You are right. It has to be subjective or otherwise we get units that are all copy-pastes of each other. I never expect the game to be perfect, but it could be better than it is now.
I don't think they'd be exactly the same, but they'd have a very similar base points cost for certain things perhaps.
I was playing with a system for points costing a model for example (it's not perfect but it does outline a kind of means something like this could be done). It still had some subjectivity (how much I valued certain things at for instance) but changing the cost of those options would change the cost for all the models with that option and rebalanced everything more easilly.:
Spoiler:
Because of this I’ve worked out a fairly simple system for determining how much models cost points wise. This is done by following steps much like one would for equipping a model with additional wargear and starting with a base profile and building it up from there. I’m going to lay out the basic set-up and walk through how it’d apply to a Space Marine, an Imperial Guardsman, a Carnifex and then a Rhino. The base profile always starts at a cost of 0 points and is adjusted from there
Non-Vehicle Models
WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
...2...2...2.2.1.1.1..5.....-..Infantry
Add 1 point:
For each additional point a characteristic is improved by
Each point save is improved by
For adding an adding an additional type to the model’s type (example: adding Jump to make the model a Jump Infantry model or making the model a Character)
If the model is a Scoring model
For each special rule added to the model that only has one mechanic (examples: Fear, Fleet)
For offensive grenades
For defensive grenades
Subtract 1 point:
For each point the model’s characteristics are lowered by
Add 2 points:
For each special rule that has more than one mechanic (example: Zealot, Chapter Tactics)
Changing the model’s Type to Beast, Cavalry or Bike
Add 10 points:
Changing the creature to Jetbike
Add 50 Points:
Change model’s type to Monstrous Creature
Add 75 points:
Changing the model’s type to Flying Monstrous Creature
Ranged Weapons
Range S AP Type
6”..........1..-....Rapid-Fire
If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 0 Points:
Changing weapon type to “Pistol”, Heavy, or Salvo
Subtract 1 Point:
Adding Gets Hot
Add 1 Point:
For each 6” increment the weapon’s maximum range is increased by
For each point in strength the weapon gains
For each point the weapon’s AP is improved by
For changing the Weapon type to “Assualt”
For each additional shot the weapon can fire over the first (excludes Rapid Fire and Pistol, all other weapon types fire 1 shot base)
For each additional special rule the weapon has (excluding Gets Hot and Poison)
Add 2 Points:
For changing the strength to X
If the weapon has the Poison Special Rule
Melee Weapons
Range S..........AP..Type
-............User......- ...Melee
If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 1 Point:
For each point of strength it increases the bearer by (example: +1, +2, ect)
For each point of AP the weapon is improved by
For each additional rule the weapon gains (excluding Instant Death and Poison)
For each additional point that it increases the bearer’s stats by (example: +1 Initiative)
For each point the weapon modifies and opposing model’s stats by (example: -1, -2, ect)
Add 5 Points:
If the weapon multiplies the bearer’s strength (example: x2, x3)
If the weapon has the Instant Death special rule
If the weapon wounds on a fixed number or has the Poison special rule
Vehicles
WSBS S FASA RA I A HP Type
...-....1....-...9...9...9...-..-..1.......-
Add 1 Point:
Each point that a characteristic value is raised by (“-” counts as “0”, excludes Hull Points)
Every model the vehicle can carry
Each special rule added to the model
For Each Access Point
For each Fire Point
Add 5 Points:
Each additional vehicle type added to the vehicle (to include it’s initial type (ex: walker, tank, includes the Transport type)
Each additional Hull Point beyond the first
Add 100 Points:
If Vehicle is a Super Heavy (this is in addition to the 5 points for changing it's type)
Examples:
Tactical Space Marine
WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
.4.....4...4.4.4.1.1...8..3+.Infantry, And They Shall No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
COST:
+18 Characteristic Increase
+1 Scoring
+2 And They Shall No Fear
+2 Chapter Tactics
+1 Combat Squads
+8 Bolter (shown below)
+5 Bolt Pistol (shown below)
Total: 37 Points/model (doesn't include Grenades due to simplicity's sake here)
Bolter
Range S AP Type
24”........4..5...Rapid-Fire
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP Total: 8 Points
Bolt Pistol
Range S AP Type
6”..........4...5..Pistol
+3 Strength
+2 AP Total: 5 Points
Imperial Guardsman
WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
..3.....3..3.3.3.1.1...7..5+.Infantry, Orders, Combined Squads
COST:
+10 Characteristic Improvement
+2 for Save
+1 Scoring
+1 Combined Squads
+1 Orders
+5 Lasgun (shown below)
Total: 20 Points
Lasgun: Range S AP Type
24”.......3...-.....Rapid-Fire
COST:
+3 Range
+2 Strength
Total: 5 points
Carnifex: WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
..3.....3..9 6 2 4 3 7 3+ Monstrous Creature, Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
COST:
+23 Characteristic Increases
+50 Monstrous Creature
+3 Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
+0 Two Pairs Scything Talons (shown below)
Total: 76 Points
Scything Talons: Range S AP Type
-...........User.....-....Melee
+0 Points
Rhino: WSBS S FASA RA I A HP Type
..-....4....-..11..11...10...-..-..3....Tank, Transport
COST:
+8 Characteristic Increases
+10 (+2 HP)
+10 Capacity
+10 Tank, Transport
+3 Access Points
+2 Fire Points
+10 Storm Bolter
Total: 53 Points
Storm Bolter: Range S AP Type
24”.......4..5...Assault 2
COST:
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP +1 Assault
+1 Shot
Total: 10 Points
I'm still just shocked that there's a new edition after only two years. I know GW had a bad financial report recently, but I didn't think things were so bad they'd have to move up a revenue generator like a new version of 40k so soon after the last one.
MWHistorian wrote: Because I'm using them as an example of something that's not considered OP but certain armies won't be able to cope with them when spammed en masse like the new rules will allow. Keep up.
As I pointed out, the rules already allow for them.
skink007 wrote: The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
I agree point balance could be better (and the walker/MC distinction better defined), but I have to disagree with the underlined. List making is part of the game, a rather important part at that. If you aren't prepared for something, and your opponent brings it, no amount of points balance is going to save you. In a perfectly point-balanced game, if I don't bring any anti-tank weapons and my opponent drops even a single Land Raider or something, the points didn't mess up. The same with flyers and AA. If you wanted to complain about Escalation or SHA bringing in things outside the main book that people didn't necessarily know to account for, you might have an argument. By things like tanks and flyers are in the main book now, for better or worse, and you should expect to see them.
By all means, if you know your opponent and/or their list, and you want to make comments like "you won't need AA, I'm not bringing any flyers", go for it. It's sporting to your opponent and is more likely to get you another game. But expecting to be able to take just any unit and always have a chance of winning the game completely defeats the purpose of each unit in each army having a specific role. It almost defeats the purpose of a wargame entirely.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
EPubs however are horrible, ugly mess. I really like the new high quality colour hardbacks, digital books (not even iBooks) just are not the same.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
EPubs however are horrible, ugly mess. I really like the new high quality colour hardbacks, digital books (not even iBooks) just are not the same.
Not to mention wasn't there a book released recently that was iBook only and GW flat out said "we have no plans to release this in non-Apple formats".
Can't remember if that was an actual rule book or something else though.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
EPubs however are horrible, ugly mess. I really like the new high quality colour hardbacks, digital books (not even iBooks) just are not the same.
Not to mention wasn't there a book released recently that was iBook only and GW flat out said "we have no plans to release this in non-Apple formats".
Can't remember if that was an actual rule book or something else though.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital
You know in the argreement for all their digital products you are allowed to print off a copy for personal use right as well as place it on as many platforms as you own. At least from black library. Apple has different requirements that are wonky to use their platform.
In addition I got a tablet for less than 10 bucks a month added on to my plan(tablet was free with 2 year). If I turn on airport mode it will last for an entire weekend(as it did during adepticon). I was hesitent at first until I tried it.
Yeah I printed out the relevant bits of my Adepta Sororitas Codex and the Inquisition one - but I only cos I had no choice - I just like books - pdfs are always 2nd choice for me. Its also true that the epub version of the codex was a mess.....
Re balance - the problem does seem to be that there are well known "mistakes" in the points cost / effectivness of certain units in the game and no interest from GW in fixing the problem............ If they closed the gaps betwen the currently Useless (Howling Banshees), Average (Falcon Grav tank) and the Broken (Wave Serpent*) units - the game would be better for everyone
Prior to this, I was actually looking forward to 7th, because I thought it might fix some of the issues with 6th.
Here's the thing: I have, as do many people here, thousands of dollars invested in GW products. Some people in this thread may be up in the tens of thousands. Maybe more, I don't know; the point is, we're talking huge amounts of money poured into their models and rules, none of which we can realistically hope to recoup. The rules are worthless once outdated, and the models lose huge chunks of their resale value once they're assembled and painted, unless they're done so to a professional standard, which very few people's are. Once the money goes into GW stuff, that's where it's going to stay.
Because of this, I've been willing to play a game that has, over the last two years, steadily fallen to pieces on just about every conceivable level, because to throw in the towel and cut my losses is to accept I've wasted a monumentally huge amount of time and money on something bad. That's something bad, not something pointless, or diverting, or silly, or superficial; bad. 6th edition, and everything that followed, has been bad. The over-reliance on random outcomes for what should be tactical choices - psychic powers, warlord traits, assault range - took away the ability to plan things in advance and shifted the focus onto instinctive reactions to unpredictable circumstances, which is to strategy games what randomly mashing buttons is to fighting games. The rules weren't proofread properly, leading to GW needing to clarify really, really basic things, like whether flying monstrous creatures can choose Skyfire (because the rulebook doesn't say, even though it's "intended"), how Look Out, Sir! works (because the wording in the book makes zero sense) and whether Allies of Convenience & Desperate Allies deny you your own objectives (because the rulebook says they do, even though they're "intended" not to). Again, these are really basic parts of the core mechanics, not one-off weird events that the designers couldn't have foreseen, yet they can't be bothered making sure the rules are communicated effectively. It may have high production values and cost a bomb, but it reads and plays like a fledgling company's free open beta PDF. It's dreadful. This isn't to say that it's impossible to have fun with it, but that's because certain players and certain environments will create a fun atmosphere regardless of how shoddy the game is.
Then came the steady trickle of dataslates and supplements. It's not that rules are ridiculous (although they are) or that they have no reason to even exist (although they don't), it's that keeping track of what's a legal army composition and what units are capable of doing what is now an uphill struggle I can't be bothered partaking in. "I have five deep-striking Helbrutes with It Will Not Die, it's a new dataslate" - Yeah, I am going to go along with this because life's too short to audit my opponent's iBooks library before every game, but this shouldn't be happening in the first place and there's no reason (apart from milking blood from a stone) why these couldn't have gone in their respective codices( the Iyanden supplement was advertised the same week Codex: Eldar went on sale, so there was literally no excuse in that instance). To argue that people should "just say no to supplements" solves nothing, firstly because house-ruling away a bad part of a game doesn't make the game itself better, and secondly because it just creates a division in the player base between pro- and anti- supplement players. I'm not mad at players who use supplements, because they're 100% legal and endorsed by GW; if I bought the Iyanden or Crimson Slaughter or Farsight books and got told that they were banned from my FLGS / tournament, I'd be justifiably angry about it.
What makes this sting: 5th worked. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it worked. They had a solid basis on which to build a better version, and have done nothing but drive it further and further into the ground.
It's been almost two years of steadily-mounting frustration at the state the game is in. And now, we get 7th. And we get it early, because GW have realised that barely anyone is playing 6th ("But they are at my club!" - I'm sure they are, but globally their customers are leaving in droves while the tabletop market continues to grow; this is a fact) and they need to revive the game.
VERBATIM QUOTE FROM WHITE DWARF A: "Unbound armies allow you to take whatever you want from your collection, and throw the Force Organisation chart out of the window".
VERBATIM QUOTE FROM WHITE DWARF B: "I can now make an army composed entirely of Forgefiends, Heldrakes and Defilers".
VERBATIM QUOTE FROM WHITE DWARF C: "The only limit to your games now are the models you have in your collection. Thrilling stuff".
This is what GW's official publication says. I am not making this up or exaggerating it. This is officially A Thing.
This isn't the straw that broke the camel's back, because that implies there was a series of small mistakes that eventually reached critical mass. I could, frankly, have dealt with a lot more straws before I threw in the towel, because I am not one to part with an investment of this size lightly. No, this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
My unbound army is 50 one-man Nurgle Chaos Spawn units. Have fun shooting them one at a time.
My unbound army is 8 Land Raiders. 98% of your firepower can't hurt them. What a fun afternoon this'll be.
Your unbound army is 10 Riptides. I heartilly look forward to forging this narrative with you.
Your unbound army is 6 Heldrakes. I'm playing Knights. Here's to six turns of trying to glance your rear armour with a stubber while you try to flame my backside. Knights aren't even unbound, by the way, although they might as well be.
Does it matter if your battle-forged army gets a bonus in a situation like that? Even if (as people are predicting) you get some bonus victory point thing, that doesn't change that, fundamentally, playing against stupidly broken lists isn't fun or interesting. Yeah, maybe my battle-forged army can score more VP's than my opponent's 9 Vendetta list, but who cares? Who wants to play against that in the first place? Even if you can "win" against 12 Wave Serpents, is it worth spending time playing against something that tedious?
And, as with the supplements, it isn't fair on *either* side to simply say "don't play against unbound lists if you don't want to", because unbound lists are going to be legal and people are going to drop vast quantities of time and money in them, and even if they're utterly broken, unplayable messes, it's not fair to refuse to play with someone who's following the rules.
This is what will kill 40k. Not the individual rules or codices, but the admission - and blanket acceptance - that it's not a game, just an expensive way to show off figures that you bought for the sake of buying them. And it's true that I've bought GW figures in the past because I happened to like them, which is why I own a Carnosaur and a Mutalith despite not playing Fantasy. But it isn't why I own 70 veteran guardsmen with converted carapace armour, or 30 Space Marine bikers, or 100+ Orks, and I imagine that goes for most people, because assembling and painting literally hundreds of essentially identical figures isn't something people do for its own sake, particularly at GW prices. Sorry, but the sky is falling on GW - their financial situation isn't good (just because they're not going bankrupt next week doesn't equate to good news; at best they're treading water), their customer base is shrinking while tabletop market itself is expanding, and now they're not even pretending to make a workable game system anymore. Buy our stuff because reasons.
So. Me and GW have parted ways indefinitely after almost two decades. I am hanging on to my figures, because they could potentially be used as proxies in another game (I'm thinking Infinity, because the rules are free and I don't particularly like their official miniatures' aesthetic anyway), but I don't see myself giving another cent to GW unless present circumstances change severely. When the company inevitably implodes and everything is radically restructured so it actually works properly, I'll give it another look. Before then, no.
I just can't justify putting any more time and money into something that does nothing but let me down and rip me off.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
2) better take a battery charger with you.
Books may be bulky, but with some light, you can read them regardless.
3) Yep, added costs of updates and they may make them more frequently to the point your digital copy became far more pricey than just a new book.
4) it encourages GW to get lazy and greedy
1. There are kindle versions, and they are cheaper. Although the formatting isn't great it's still searchable.
2. I have an iPad, and fully charged will easily last a few days of use to and from work (I commute via train) as well as use at home for gaming. Battery life on tablets is a non-issue
3. Updates to the digital book cost nothing unless it is an entirely new version. Not sure what you're complaining about here.
4. How does it encourage them to be (more) lazy and greedy then they currently are? You're not backing up your statements at all. As has already been discussed, GW is a publicly traded company, greedy is a given. While it would be cool if you got an e-version of whatever paper codex you buy, I don't feel entitled to that.
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital
I feel the opposite. I prefer the digital versions.
I still refuse to believe unbound will be the new main set of rules for 40k, and for those jumping ship already what if they fix a lot of the problems witb 6th and have a great core edition but with unbound in it? We will do what tournaments and stores always do, play by the best rules and missions to create a fun and more bbalanced game.
Dont give up hope yet.
I'd bet my life that 6 months after release, unbound armies are simply unseen/unheard of outside of fluff-driven campaigns. It will be generally known by gaming groups and gamers that you don't bring unbound lists to games, in the same way that now you wouldn't show up to a game with 5 Baneblades and demand that they play Apocolypse with you.
Hell you can play multiplayer PC games with cheat mode enabled if you want. Doesn't mean people actually do it when they're gaming. Just chill out guys, or at least focus on different things that will force you to sell all your models and quit the hobby .
WrentheFaceless wrote: What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...
The same place that the "Ultramarines have twin-linked tactical squads all the time" rumour before 6th edition Space Marine codex. i.e. speculation piled on top of speculation at which point it becomes fact.
As I said above, Unbound armies simply won't even exist in any real level in 7th edition outside of entirely narrative driven/fluffy scenarios. And people in those scenarios have always just ignored the official rules anyway, I suppose GW are just supplying a rough framework in which to do that.
I don't think it's a question of format. It is just another legal way of building a list before you play a game.
The fact we're all talking about house ruling out a major addition to the new expensive (unreleased) rulebook speaks to the massive disconnect between company and customer.
Eldarain wrote: I don't think it's a question of format. It is just another legal way of building a list before you play a game.
The fact we're all talking about house ruling out a major addition to the new expensive (unreleased) rulebook speaks to the massive disconnect between company and customer.
I'd argue it doesn't. GW wants us to house rule things to make the game suit us better, and that's exactly what we're doing.
Eldarain wrote: I don't think it's a question of format. It is just another legal way of building a list before you play a game.
The fact we're all talking about house ruling out a major addition to the new expensive (unreleased) rulebook speaks to the massive disconnect between company and customer.
More like massive disconnect between the the internet and a couple paragraphs of sizzle text for changes comming.
WrentheFaceless wrote: What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...
I don't see anyone who has made that statement. The general problem is simply that Unbound aka Apoc aka Escalation is now a core part of the rules, whereas it was optional before. This means that people are likely to be drawn to it, if enough do then those of us who have absolutely no interest in playing such games will likely have a harder time playing "normal" aka Battle Forged 40k. If it's hard to get a game in, then it's time to move to something more friendly. This has the effect of further lowering the number of 40k players, which is not a good thing.
WrentheFaceless wrote: What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...
I don't see anyone who has made that statement. The general problem is simply that Unbound aka Apoc aka Escalation is now a core part of the rules, whereas it was optional before. This means that people are likely to be drawn to it, if enough do then those of us who have absolutely no interest in playing such games will likely have a harder time playing "normal" aka Battle Forged 40k. If it's hard to get a game in, then it's time to move to something more friendly. This has the effect of further lowering the number of 40k players, which is not a good thing.
So you've seen the actual rulebook confirming this then?
I think I only played like 20 games of 6th total rofl. I have played since RT and liked 6th the least for a variety of reasons, glad I didn't buy anything in the past year or more. It's been less than 3 years since 6th right? How long until I can get a cheap rulebook (aka box set book on ebay) do you all think? I'm not buying any more miniatures since I already have enough to play 10 different matchups here at home so I'll just give the new rules a spin. If we get back the ability to go full reserve at least I will be able to play my Imperial armies again, we house ruled that back in like a month after 6th came out because my DoA Red Hunter (Blood Angel) Army was going to take their ball and go home.
The worst part is that 40k was always something I looked forward to getting into with my kids and now that my oldest is getting into it I have to suggest something else. The tedious nature of 6th games and the crazy cost of buying a new army has me telling him "let's just play with the armies we have and buy a few more board games instead of starting a new army". It takes so dang long to play a game that even when we are pumped to play one over the weekend we usually opt for Zombicide or something instead to get right to the fun.
Here's hoping for a less tedious, faster and more FUN ruleset (at least from our gaming house perspective).
Well double force org at 2000 points was in the rules and many 2000 tournaments or games are adjusted to ignore those rules.
It has been seen that if GW crrates something so unbalanced it will be universally banned or restricted, there is no way in hell any decent tournament will alloe unbound armies.
WrentheFaceless wrote: What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...
I don't see anyone who has made that statement. The general problem is simply that Unbound aka Apoc aka Escalation is now a core part of the rules, whereas it was optional before. This means that people are likely to be drawn to it, if enough do then those of us who have absolutely no interest in playing such games will likely have a harder time playing "normal" aka Battle Forged 40k. If it's hard to get a game in, then it's time to move to something more friendly. This has the effect of further lowering the number of 40k players, which is not a good thing.
So you've seen the actual rulebook confirming this then?
Of course he has. They all have, that's why they know the sky is falling /sarcasm.
Seriously...I understand that it's easy to freak out about a couple of lines of text, but we don't even know all of the details about what an "unbound" list is, nor do we know what bonuses you get for a "battle-forged" list. But, that's the Internet for you...the most vocal minority always saying that the end is nigh.
skink007 wrote: The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
I agree point balance could be better (and the walker/MC distinction better defined), but I have to disagree with the underlined. List making is part of the game, a rather important part at that. If you aren't prepared for something, and your opponent brings it, no amount of points balance is going to save you. In a perfectly point-balanced game, if I don't bring any anti-tank weapons and my opponent drops even a single Land Raider or something, the points didn't mess up. The same with flyers and AA. If you wanted to complain about Escalation or SHA bringing in things outside the main book that people didn't necessarily know to account for, you might have an argument. By things like tanks and flyers are in the main book now, for better or worse, and you should expect to see them.
By all means, if you know your opponent and/or their list, and you want to make comments like "you won't need AA, I'm not bringing any flyers", go for it. It's sporting to your opponent and is more likely to get you another game. But expecting to be able to take just any unit and always have a chance of winning the game completely defeats the purpose of each unit in each army having a specific role. It almost defeats the purpose of a wargame entirely.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. If you take a Land Raider and I don't have anything to kill it than my Land Raider worth of points should be able to do some damage somewhere else, it's down to my tactics to avoid the Land Raider or mitigate the damage it causes.
That being said, a problem with Unbound armies that you have highlighted is this: What if you bring an army of nothing but Land Raiders? If I have simply nothing to kill a Land Raider and that's all you have, we definitely have a problem. Perhaps my original statement needs refining. The problem does not lie entirely with the FOC or lack thereof.
Somewhere deep in the bowels of this ever expanding thread, buried within smoke and ruin, I believe someone referred to 6th saying "It can't get any worse"
Unless my friend buys this I'll be waiting for some lengthy reviews before even thinking about purchasing a 7th.
skink007 wrote: The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
I agree point balance could be better (and the walker/MC distinction better defined), but I have to disagree with the underlined. List making is part of the game, a rather important part at that. If you aren't prepared for something, and your opponent brings it, no amount of points balance is going to save you. In a perfectly point-balanced game, if I don't bring any anti-tank weapons and my opponent drops even a single Land Raider or something, the points didn't mess up. The same with flyers and AA. If you wanted to complain about Escalation or SHA bringing in things outside the main book that people didn't necessarily know to account for, you might have an argument. By things like tanks and flyers are in the main book now, for better or worse, and you should expect to see them.
By all means, if you know your opponent and/or their list, and you want to make comments like "you won't need AA, I'm not bringing any flyers", go for it. It's sporting to your opponent and is more likely to get you another game. But expecting to be able to take just any unit and always have a chance of winning the game completely defeats the purpose of each unit in each army having a specific role. It almost defeats the purpose of a wargame entirely.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. If you take a Land Raider and I don't have anything to kill it than my Land Raider worth of points should be able to do some damage somewhere else, it's down to my tactics to avoid the Land Raider or mitigate the damage it causes.
That being said, a problem with Unbound armies that you have highlighted is this: What if you bring an army of nothing but Land Raiders? If I have simply nothing to kill a Land Raider and that's all you have, we definitely have a problem. Perhaps my original statement needs refining. The problem does not lie entirely with the FOC or lack thereof.
Why should you be able to get an advantage for failing to bring something to handle AV14? The strategy of the game isn't just how you play what's on the table, it's also how you allocate those points in your list. It's not my fault you decide to take three Knights and I bring three Stormravens with multi-meltas and plasma, or you bring a horde of gaunts and I have two Land Raiders. That has nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with poor list-making strategy.
streamdragon wrote: Not to mention wasn't there a book released recently that was iBook only and GW flat out said "we have no plans to release this in non-Apple formats"..
Which is why I said 'Most...' rather than 'All...'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KommissarKarl wrote: As I said above, Unbound armies simply won't even exist in any real level in 7th edition outside of entirely narrative driven/fluffy scenarios. And people in those scenarios have always just ignored the official rules anyway, I suppose GW are just supplying a rough framework in which to do that.
An argument could be made that there is little point including something in the rules if it's going to be ignored by everyone except for those who would have played that way even if it wasn't in the rules at all...
KommissarKarl wrote: As I said above, Unbound armies simply won't even exist in any real level in 7th edition outside of entirely narrative driven/fluffy scenarios. And people in those scenarios have always just ignored the official rules anyway, I suppose GW are just supplying a rough framework in which to do that.
An argument could be made that there is little point including something in the rules if it's going to be ignored by everyone except for those who would have played that way even if it wasn't in the rules at all...
Forgeworld and Escalation are part of the 'core' rules, but those get ignored all the time. I know Escalation is a dirty word around here but Forgeworld seems alright
skink007 wrote: The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."
The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.
I agree point balance could be better (and the walker/MC distinction better defined), but I have to disagree with the underlined. List making is part of the game, a rather important part at that. If you aren't prepared for something, and your opponent brings it, no amount of points balance is going to save you. In a perfectly point-balanced game, if I don't bring any anti-tank weapons and my opponent drops even a single Land Raider or something, the points didn't mess up. The same with flyers and AA. If you wanted to complain about Escalation or SHA bringing in things outside the main book that people didn't necessarily know to account for, you might have an argument. By things like tanks and flyers are in the main book now, for better or worse, and you should expect to see them.
By all means, if you know your opponent and/or their list, and you want to make comments like "you won't need AA, I'm not bringing any flyers", go for it. It's sporting to your opponent and is more likely to get you another game. But expecting to be able to take just any unit and always have a chance of winning the game completely defeats the purpose of each unit in each army having a specific role. It almost defeats the purpose of a wargame entirely.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. If you take a Land Raider and I don't have anything to kill it than my Land Raider worth of points should be able to do some damage somewhere else, it's down to my tactics to avoid the Land Raider or mitigate the damage it causes.
That being said, a problem with Unbound armies that you have highlighted is this: What if you bring an army of nothing but Land Raiders? If I have simply nothing to kill a Land Raider and that's all you have, we definitely have a problem. Perhaps my original statement needs refining. The problem does not lie entirely with the FOC or lack thereof.
Why should you be able to get an advantage for failing to bring something to handle AV14? The strategy of the game isn't just how you play what's on the table, it's also how you allocate those points in your list. It's not my fault you decide to take three Knights and I bring three Stormravens with multi-meltas and plasma, or you bring a horde of gaunts and I have two Land Raiders. That has nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with poor list-making strategy.
I don't disagree with this. If i said that I do somewhere, that was simply poor organization of thoughts on my part!
I like how there's so much "the sky is falling" from the community about this new edition. 40k was never a tightly balanced game, and the broken stuff under this edition's restrictions is just as bad as any broken stuff that the new edition will bring. If you think that we're going from Space Chess to something objectively worse than what we have now...well, I'm not sure what game that you've been playing, but it's not Warhammer 40k.
I've been reading the leaked WD at face value rather than trying to read between the lines and nowhere does it say or hint at that Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other. The allusion to in-game bonuses for Battle-Forged armies does not equal Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other.
I believe that the intent of the statement is to point out that playing games (you and your opponent) using Battle-Forged armies is still desirable as to take advantage of added game rules. Not necessarily that Battle-Forged armies get bonuses to aid their shortcomings vs. an Unbound army.
JSF wrote:Because of this, I've been willing to play a game that has, over the last two years, steadily fallen to pieces on just about every conceivable level, because to throw in the towel and cut my losses is to accept I've wasted a monumentally huge amount of time and money on something bad.
What makes this sting: 5th worked. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it worked. They had a solid basis on which to build a better version, and have done nothing but drive it further and further into the ground.
I am hanging on to my figures, because they could potentially be used as proxies in another game
Now is the perfect opportunity to pull out your 5th edition books and snag whatever 5th edition codexes you don't have yet for cheap. People are getting in the mind set that they're going to be leaving 6th edition, so why not offer your local gaming buddies the opportunity to return to 5th edition and start playing that regularly?
I don't know what your local scene is like, but I'd start exchanging contact info and talking the idea up and seeing if you can't get a handful of people who are interested in joining you in playing a version of the rules you enjoyed.
Worst case scenario is that 7th edition actually turns out good and you can adopt it once the verdict comes. And if 7th does for 40k what 8th did for WFB, you'll have lots of players around with armies not satisfied with the current rules.
oni wrote: I've been reading the leaked WD at face value rather than trying to read between the lines and nowhere does it say or hint at that Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other. The allusion to in-game bonuses for Battle-Forged armies does not equal Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other.
I believe that the intent of the statement is to point out that playing games (you and your opponent) using Battle-Forged armies is still desirable as to take advantage of added game rules. Not necessarily that Battle-Forged armies get bonuses to aid their shortcomings vs. an Unbound army.
There's no reason for Battle-forged armies to get bonuses specifically for being Battle-forged unless they play against armies that aren't.
I think 7th is going to be fantastic. I'm looking forward to the change. Most of the 7th edition additional options/rules will get "TO'd" out of competition. Just like "1999+1" in 5th, unbound will be a never used option in pickup games and competition. Heck I've had SHA and Escalation since the release and they aren't allowed in any local RTT and forget trying to use the books in pick ups around here. Dual force, your the devil!
SkaerKrow wrote: I like how there's so much "the sky is falling" from the community about this new edition. 40k was never a tightly balanced game, and the broken stuff under this edition's restrictions is just as bad as any broken stuff that the new edition will bring. If you think that we're going from Space Chess to something objectively worse than what we have now...well, I'm not sure what game that you've been playing, but it's not Warhammer 40k.
I don't think anyone mistakes this for Space Chess (which would be cool.)
People are looking at the D weapons, 2+ rerollable invulnerable saves, deathstars, Tau / Eldar / Taudar, dataslabs, whatever and just thinking to themselves, how much worse is this about to get?
It's not about seeking balance, it's about having a playable game. Playable means both sides have a realistic expectation of achieving victory in a given match, even if one side has an advantage. It's getting to the point where that expectation is not realistic against some armies.
It's reasonable and healthy to expect GW's new edition will do little to improve the situation. It would be a nice surprise if the new edition avoids exacerbating the situation, but that's hoping for the best.
Mr Morden wrote: Indeed - makes a lots of sense - I am waiting to see what 7th brings but i might have to look seriously at my GW habit.....
I think a lot of us are. Not quite "rats abandoning a sinking ship" yet, but I think we are checking to see if the water is rising.....
Sorry for the rat metaphor, I've been reading up on Skaven today and it was the first thing that came to mind.
Skaven are Awesome - best thng GW ever did Would have been great to see them in 40k
I bought a Doomwheel just to own a Doomwheel (I love that model and have wanted it for a LONG while now) today. If anything can get me into Fantasy it's gotta be those rats.
Of course then I started considering paint schemes and ended up looking up colorations....so now if I do them I'm undoubtedly going to end up representing all the colors of the rat rainbow. XD
oni wrote: I've been reading the leaked WD at face value rather than trying to read between the lines and nowhere does it say or hint at that Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other. The allusion to in-game bonuses for Battle-Forged armies does not equal Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other.
I believe that the intent of the statement is to point out that playing games (you and your opponent) using Battle-Forged armies is still desirable as to take advantage of added game rules. Not necessarily that Battle-Forged armies get bonuses to aid their shortcomings vs. an Unbound army.
daedalus wrote: I, for one, look forward to running an army of literally nothing but Dreadknights and Psyfledreads.
6th's "dual force at 2000 pts" isn't accepted in most tourneys and a big no no in pickup games. Do you really think...
Seriously? Amount that allows double force org tourneys to amount that doesnt allow it here is over 10 to 1.
And if your experience with double force org events is anything like mine, you'd probably agree that it is really no problem, and the chicken littles were wrong, again, like they usually are.
For me I love the game. My largest problem is how much money I have to put out to really play it. I'm not expecting it to be a bargain mart or anything, but considering that its like $60 for a supplement (like the same as a codex) kinda pisses me off. I'm not looking for someone to say, "well actually its $40" as thats not my point. I bought the fatbook for 6th edition. I love the books and all the fluff and pictures, but GW is pushing me away. For 7th I am totally going onto eBay and getting myself the small rulebook from Orks v. BA (rumor true yet?).
What are your guys' thoughts on how much us gamers are having to spend for the hobby? Here is my bill in the last few weeks:
3 Riptides: $198
Bag: $52
Custom Foam: $50
the rest of my stuff: $300
I understand that this is also because I am building an army and the expenses will drop, but now having even more getting tacked on in a couple of weeks! Its gets me mad.
SkaerKrow wrote: If you think that we're going from Space Chess to something objectively worse than what we have now...well, I'm not sure what game that you've been playing, but it's not Warhammer 40k.
You have misunderstood the complaints if that's what you think people are saying.
The reason people are complaining is precisely that this edition was so flawed, and people had hoped that 7th edition would go some way towards fixing that... but the hints we're being given so far suggest the exact opposite is in fact going to happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WrentheFaceless wrote: Forgeworld and Escalation are part of the 'core' rules, but those get ignored all the time. I know Escalation is a dirty word around here but Forgeworld seems alright
Sorry, is that supposed to be an argument for or against what I said?
Commander_Farsight wrote: For me I love the game. My largest problem is how much money I have to put out to really play it. I'm not expecting it to be a bargain mart or anything, but considering that its like $60 for a supplement (like the same as a codex) kinda pisses me off. I'm not looking for someone to say, "well actually its $40" as thats not my point. I bought the fatbook for 6th edition. I love the books and all the fluff and pictures, but GW is pushing me away. For 7th I am totally going onto eBay and getting myself the small rulebook from Orks v. BA (rumor true yet?).
What are your guys' thoughts on how much us gamers are having to spend for the hobby? Here is my bill in the last few weeks:
3 Riptides: $198
Bag: $52
Custom Foam: $50
the rest of my stuff: $300
I understand that this is also because I am building an army and the expenses will drop, but now having even more getting tacked on in a couple of weeks! Its gets me mad.
You basically just described yourself as GW's target customer. You just dropped $500-700 on a new army. That's all they want or expect out of you as a customer. If you keep shelling out money down the road, that's a bonus.
I tried to see the positive side of GW for a long time, because I enjoyed their games and fluff. But the last 2 years have been such mess I literally couldn't keep up with everything if I wanted to. I simply don't have the time to stay up with all the releases, dataslates, etc. that I could very well show up for a pick up game and the person across the table could lie to me about everything their army does and I would have no idea if it were true or not.
Granted I may not be the typical gamer, but if anything that just makes this an easier pill to swallow as I have so much less invested. I just go back to my old GW Specialist Games and play what I want with free rules and can build new units as I like for a fraction of what a full army costs. I had enough when GW started making the game require as much book keeping and rules referencing as actually playing.
I'm not going to tell you how to enjoy your gaming experience, but if it's an option that works for you, just don't buy into 7th. Nothing invalidates 6th aside from the gaming community accepting it. If there is a FLGS in your area and people agree on what they want to play, nothing is stopping you from not spending anything else on GW rules and staying with the 6th edition rules.
daedalus wrote: I, for one, look forward to running an army of literally nothing but Dreadknights and Psyfledreads.
6th's "dual force at 2000 pts" isn't accepted in most tourneys and a big no no in pickup games. Do you really think...
Seriously? Amount that allows double force org tourneys to amount that doesnt allow it here is over 10 to 1.
And if your experience with double force org events is anything like mine, you'd probably agree that it is really no problem, and the chicken littles were wrong, again, like they usually are.
My experience with them is on the opposite. Between that and Allies it can really over skew the field.
A lot of people also don't like challenges, flyers, wound allocation, look-out sir, and true LOS. If there's something in the rules, someone has an issue with it.
In gratitude to GW and the rumors of their rules for breaking me, I now rock a new avatar for the levels of seething hatred I now harbor (for those who do not see it, it's an Angry Marine).
What if they actually listened to us and change Battle Brothers...?:
"Here at Games Workshop, we hear that there are problems with Battle Brothers in their current form. To help alleviate issues with this, we have now allowed to battle brothers to embark on each others transports so your new friends may be delivered safely to their destination." -GW Writer Guy
TheKbob wrote: What if they actually listened to us and change Battle Brothers...?:
"Here at Games Workshop, we hear that there are problems with Battle Brothers in their current form. To help alleviate issues with this, we have now allowed to battle brothers to embark on each others transports so your new friends may be delivered safely to their destination." -GW Writer Guy
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital
You know in the argreement for all their digital products you are allowed to print off a copy for personal use right as well as place it on as many platforms as you own. At least from black library. Apple has different requirements that are wonky to use their platform.
In addition I got a tablet for less than 10 bucks a month added on to my plan(tablet was free with 2 year). If I turn on airport mode it will last for an entire weekend(as it did during adepticon). I was hesitent at first until I tried it.
What about the people who refuse to buy a tablet, or even a cellphone (like me), are we gak out of luck? Also I don't know where you play but where I do if I brought a tablet it would get stolen the first time I so much a glance away from it. Not that I'm saying they shouldn't have a digital version, but that it would some what limit some of their potential customers if there was only a digital version.
SkaerKrow wrote: I like how there's so much "the sky is falling" from the community about this new edition. 40k was never a tightly balanced game, and the broken stuff under this edition's restrictions is just as bad as any broken stuff that the new edition will bring. If you think that we're going from Space Chess to something objectively worse than what we have now...well, I'm not sure what game that you've been playing, but it's not Warhammer 40k.
I don't think anyone mistakes this for Space Chess (which would be cool.)
People are looking at the D weapons, 2+ rerollable invulnerable saves, deathstars, Tau / Eldar / Taudar, dataslabs, whatever and just thinking to themselves, how much worse is this about to get?
It's not about seeking balance, it's about having a playable game. Playable means both sides have a realistic expectation of achieving victory in a given match, even if one side has an advantage. It's getting to the point where that expectation is not realistic against some armies.
It's reasonable and healthy to expect GW's new edition will do little to improve the situation. It would be a nice surprise if the new edition avoids exacerbating the situation, but that's hoping for the best.
While I respect that you're saying, I don't understand how you can apply that perception to 40k. By its very nature, 40k allows for tremendous amounts of imbalance by giving players freedom to customize their armies. That in itself can create serious disparity between the players' chances of victory, before a single model gets placed on the table. Couple that with the fact that there has always been little balance between power levels of the various army books, and you've only compounded the fact that match-ups and list disparity can completely hose a player right out of the gate. This has always been the way of things, all the way back to at least Second Edition at least (I never played Rogue Trader, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true then, as well).
GW's new philosophy seems to be that, instead of one or two armies having access to crazy, powerful units (as it was in the past), every army is getting access to them now (subtraction by addition?). Instead of getting hosed because you happen to be playing out of a bad/old Codex, now you will be able to dump the Force Org chart and possibly breathe new life into an underachieving book. Now you will be able to pick up a Lord of War in order to prop up an otherwise sagging list. I absolutely cannot get on board with this idea that Seventh Edition is going to be inheritly worse than anything that's come before, because what's come before has always had its moments of being bent, broken, and at times unplayable. Seventh Edition might be bent in different ways from earlier versions of the game, but more bent? Not seeing it.
If you choose not to own a cell phone for whatever reason, that's fine, but don't expect a huge company like GW to base their business decisions on such a insignificant minority of people.
Digital versions are the inevitable next step. Cell phones and tablets are not going out of style.
In gratitude to GW and the rumors of their rules for breaking me, I now rock a new avatar for the levels of seething hatred I now harbor (for those who do not see it, it's an Angry Marine).
skink007 wrote: You are right. It has to be subjective or otherwise we get units that are all copy-pastes of each other. I never expect the game to be perfect, but it could be better than it is now.
I don't think they'd be exactly the same, but they'd have a very similar base points cost for certain things perhaps.
I was playing with a system for points costing a model for example (it's not perfect but it does outline a kind of means something like this could be done). It still had some subjectivity (how much I valued certain things at for instance) but changing the cost of those options would change the cost for all the models with that option and rebalanced everything more easilly.:
Spoiler:
Because of this I’ve worked out a fairly simple system for determining how much models cost points wise. This is done by following steps much like one would for equipping a model with additional wargear and starting with a base profile and building it up from there. I’m going to lay out the basic set-up and walk through how it’d apply to a Space Marine, an Imperial Guardsman, a Carnifex and then a Rhino. The base profile always starts at a cost of 0 points and is adjusted from there
Non-Vehicle Models
WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
...2...2...2.2.1.1.1..5.....-..Infantry
Add 1 point:
For each additional point a characteristic is improved by
Each point save is improved by
For adding an adding an additional type to the model’s type (example: adding Jump to make the model a Jump Infantry model or making the model a Character)
If the model is a Scoring model
For each special rule added to the model that only has one mechanic (examples: Fear, Fleet)
For offensive grenades
For defensive grenades
Subtract 1 point:
For each point the model’s characteristics are lowered by
Add 2 points:
For each special rule that has more than one mechanic (example: Zealot, Chapter Tactics)
Changing the model’s Type to Beast, Cavalry or Bike
Add 10 points:
Changing the creature to Jetbike
Add 50 Points:
Change model’s type to Monstrous Creature
Add 75 points:
Changing the model’s type to Flying Monstrous Creature
Ranged Weapons
Range S AP Type
6”..........1..-....Rapid-Fire
If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 0 Points:
Changing weapon type to “Pistol”, Heavy, or Salvo
Subtract 1 Point:
Adding Gets Hot
Add 1 Point:
For each 6” increment the weapon’s maximum range is increased by
For each point in strength the weapon gains
For each point the weapon’s AP is improved by
For changing the Weapon type to “Assualt”
For each additional shot the weapon can fire over the first (excludes Rapid Fire and Pistol, all other weapon types fire 1 shot base)
For each additional special rule the weapon has (excluding Gets Hot and Poison)
Add 2 Points:
For changing the strength to X
If the weapon has the Poison Special Rule
Melee Weapons
Range S..........AP..Type
-............User......- ...Melee
If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 1 Point:
For each point of strength it increases the bearer by (example: +1, +2, ect)
For each point of AP the weapon is improved by
For each additional rule the weapon gains (excluding Instant Death and Poison)
For each additional point that it increases the bearer’s stats by (example: +1 Initiative)
For each point the weapon modifies and opposing model’s stats by (example: -1, -2, ect)
Add 5 Points:
If the weapon multiplies the bearer’s strength (example: x2, x3)
If the weapon has the Instant Death special rule
If the weapon wounds on a fixed number or has the Poison special rule
Vehicles
WSBS S FASA RA I A HP Type
...-....1....-...9...9...9...-..-..1.......-
Add 1 Point:
Each point that a characteristic value is raised by (“-” counts as “0”, excludes Hull Points)
Every model the vehicle can carry
Each special rule added to the model
For Each Access Point
For each Fire Point
Add 5 Points:
Each additional vehicle type added to the vehicle (to include it’s initial type (ex: walker, tank, includes the Transport type)
Each additional Hull Point beyond the first
Add 100 Points:
If Vehicle is a Super Heavy (this is in addition to the 5 points for changing it's type)
Examples:
Tactical Space Marine
WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
.4.....4...4.4.4.1.1...8..3+.Infantry, And They Shall No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
COST:
+18 Characteristic Increase
+1 Scoring
+2 And They Shall No Fear
+2 Chapter Tactics
+1 Combat Squads
+8 Bolter (shown below)
+5 Bolt Pistol (shown below)
Total: 37 Points/model (doesn't include Grenades due to simplicity's sake here)
Bolter
Range S AP Type
24”........4..5...Rapid-Fire
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP Total: 8 Points
Bolt Pistol
Range S AP Type
6”..........4...5..Pistol
+3 Strength
+2 AP Total: 5 Points
Imperial Guardsman
WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
..3.....3..3.3.3.1.1...7..5+.Infantry, Orders, Combined Squads
COST:
+10 Characteristic Improvement
+2 for Save
+1 Scoring
+1 Combined Squads
+1 Orders
+5 Lasgun (shown below)
Total: 20 Points
Lasgun: Range S AP Type
24”.......3...-.....Rapid-Fire
COST:
+3 Range
+2 Strength
Total: 5 points
Carnifex: WSBS S T I W A LdSv Type
..3.....3..9 6 2 4 3 7 3+ Monstrous Creature, Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
COST:
+23 Characteristic Increases
+50 Monstrous Creature
+3 Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
+0 Two Pairs Scything Talons (shown below)
Total: 76 Points
Scything Talons: Range S AP Type
-...........User.....-....Melee
+0 Points
Rhino: WSBS S FASA RA I A HP Type
..-....4....-..11..11...10...-..-..3....Tank, Transport
COST:
+8 Characteristic Increases
+10 (+2 HP)
+10 Capacity
+10 Tank, Transport
+3 Access Points
+2 Fire Points
+10 Storm Bolter
Total: 53 Points
Storm Bolter: Range S AP Type
24”.......4..5...Assault 2
COST:
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP +1 Assault
+1 Shot
Total: 10 Points
You've got an interesting idea here. Post a topic in Proposed rules, and see what sort of feedback you get.
SkaerKrow wrote: I like how there's so much "the sky is falling" from the community about this new edition. 40k was never a tightly balanced game, and the broken stuff under this edition's restrictions is just as bad as any broken stuff that the new edition will bring. If you think that we're going from Space Chess to something objectively worse than what we have now...well, I'm not sure what game that you've been playing, but it's not Warhammer 40k.
I don't think anyone mistakes this for Space Chess (which would be cool.)
People are looking at the D weapons, 2+ rerollable invulnerable saves, deathstars, Tau / Eldar / Taudar, dataslabs, whatever and just thinking to themselves, how much worse is this about to get?
It's not about seeking balance, it's about having a playable game. Playable means both sides have a realistic expectation of achieving victory in a given match, even if one side has an advantage. It's getting to the point where that expectation is not realistic against some armies.
It's reasonable and healthy to expect GW's new edition will do little to improve the situation. It would be a nice surprise if the new edition avoids exacerbating the situation, but that's hoping for the best.
While I respect that you're saying, I don't understand how you can apply that perception to 40k. By its very nature, 40k allows for tremendous amounts of imbalance by giving players freedom to customize their armies. That in itself can create serious disparity between the players' chances of victory, before a single model gets placed on the table. Couple that with the fact that there has always been little balance between power levels of the various army books, and you've only compounded the fact that match-ups and list disparity can completely hose a player right out of the gate. This has always been the way of things, all the way back to at least Second Edition at least (I never played Rogue Trader, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true then, as well).
GW's new philosophy seems to be that, instead of one or two armies having access to crazy, powerful units (as it was in the past), every army is getting access to them now (subtraction by addition?). Instead of getting hosed because you happen to be playing out of a bad/old Codex, now you will be able to dump the Force Org chart and possibly breathe new life into an underachieving book. Now you will be able to pick up a Lord of War in order to prop up an otherwise sagging list. I absolutely cannot get on board with this idea that Seventh Edition is going to be inheritly worse than anything that's come before, because what's come before has always had its moments of being bent, broken, and at times unplayable. Seventh Edition might be bent in different ways from earlier versions of the game, but more bent? Not seeing it.
I don't buy that at all. You're saying "The game is an imbalanced mess so the only way to fix it is to make it more imbalanced until its unworkable."
In gratitude to GW and the rumors of their rules for breaking me, I now rock a new avatar for the levels of seething hatred I now harbor (for those who do not see it, it's an Angry Marine).
SkaerKrow wrote: By its very nature, 40k allows for tremendous amounts of imbalance by giving players freedom to customize their armies.
That's a result of the quality of GW's rules rather than an inherent facet of customisation, though. It's possible to allow for customisation while still having a more or less balanced game. We have all sorts of other games that are proof of that.
GW choose to not balance their game, and some players choose to give them a pass for that on the assumption that balancing the game would just be too hard. Sort of like how I told my plumber not to bother fixing that leaking pipe, because the ground is too hard for him to easily dig it up. I mean, yeah, he's a professional and getting paid to, you know, do his job... But there's no call to go around expecting him to do it properly.
Instead of getting hosed because you happen to be playing out of a bad/old Codex, now you will be ...
...getting hosed because you're trying to play a fluffy army and your opponent chose to just load up with the best units cherry-picked from multiple codexes...
SkaerKrow wrote: While I respect that you're saying, I don't understand how you can apply that perception to 40k. By its very nature, 40k allows for tremendous amounts of imbalance by giving players freedom to customize their armies. That in itself can create serious disparity between the players' chances of victory, before a single model gets placed on the table. Couple that with the fact that there has always been little balance between power levels of the various army books, and you've only compounded the fact that match-ups and list disparity can completely hose a player right out of the gate. This has always been the way of things, all the way back to at least Second Edition at least (I never played Rogue Trader, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true then, as well).
Its really not much to expect. GW are the only ones on the market not even trying to balance their game.
Their competition have just as much variety yet all manage much better balance.
GW thinks that all Riptide armies are cool and exciting!
GW thinks that allowing the Space Marine player to field a "remnant" squad of 6 marines with a heavy bolter and a flamer is unacceptably deviant and only suitable for house rules.
Someone trusts the judgement of these people? The first is explicitly called out in the leaked article as a legal Unbound army. The second would be disallowed, as 'Unbound' armies still have to follow listed unit sizes.
You might as well say that it's okay to go over on points when you are building to a listed points value, but only if you go over in increments of 75.
Cool! I can have a full army of Heldrakes? I can't wait to make new friends with my collection. Might even throw in a unit of cultists to forge a narrative
They also told me not to forget those Riptides. Gotta collect em all!
You know.. They wouldn't be saying that stuff if people aren't doing it. So happy that no one plays that crap in my area. Feel sorry for those of you who have to put up with it in "casual" play.
The players create balance or break the game. Stick together, stick with your gaming groups, and encourage others to ensure everyone has fun- no matter the edition. I love my miniatures, and will find a way to keep getting stuff out of all the money I put into it. Good luck
tag8833 wrote: You've got an interesting idea here. Post a topic in Proposed rules, and see what sort of feedback you get.
Thanks. Already posted it right after making that post though. It was promptly abused.
I will admit it's not perfect, it was an idea I had rolling around in my head for a little while that I only spent a couple hours actually working on (most of that just typing) but I haven't had time to go back to and actually start re-evaluating it all yet.
Of course that doesn't stop people from bashing on it or trying to tear it down instead of offering something constructive to say about the thing, like ideas on ways to adjust some of the points costing methods (instead of just telling me they don't work as is) or perhaps recommending how to slot certain special rules (instead of making broken as hell models just to basically mock the idea) and so on.
Loki, I say good luck because there are plenty of players out there who are more than happy for a new edition and some change, and that they should stand in the face of adversity- IE the players in their group who try to break all the rules. GW will ruin things by making the models too expensive.. The type of game you play is always dictated by your opponent and yourself.
So, I say good luck in your endeavors of having fun!
Brometheus wrote: Cool! I can have a full army of Heldrakes? I can't wait to make new friends with my collection. Might even throw in a unit of cultists to forge a narrative
They also told me not to forget those Riptides. Gotta collect em all!
You know.. They wouldn't be saying that stuff if people aren't doing it. So happy that no one plays that crap in my area. Feel sorry for those of you who have to put up with it in "casual" play.
The players create balance or break the game. Stick together, stick with your gaming groups, and encourage others to ensure everyone has fun- no matter the edition. I love my miniatures, and will find a way to keep getting stuff out of all the money I put into it. Good luck
So you're encouraging people to ignore the rules? I literally cannot think of any other tabletop wargame where players feel that they can just ignore the core rules because they don't fit into their idea of how the game 'should' be played. Imagine refusing to play against TIE fighters in X-Wing because you think they're too powerful.
I still feel like my opponent is doing me a massive favour by letting me use my titan, despite it being, you know, in the rules [or course I would let them know I'm bringing it beforehand]. Lots of people who feel that they can refuse to play against knight titans too.
I'm looking forward to unbound armies so that I can create fluffier armies. I'm thinking of an entire army of Noise Marines for laughs. A World Eaters army in landraiders sounds great too. This opens up lots of modelling and collecting opportunities. Also, it gives more opportunities to have more narrative style games. Some people will refuse to ignore certain rules because they are THE RULES. Unbound armies should encourage more creativity in scenario creation, and give more support to narrative driven gamers, which I think is a very good thing.
Dude. I'm saying that if someone can take an army of all Heldrakes, that does not mean GW broke the game. Where did I mention anything about flat out ignoring rules?
In a sorta related note, if I am playing certain rules that are not normal and my opponent is doing so as well, who is to say that is incorrect?
and it is a good thing.. If I can ignore FoC and take 4 Sorcerer HQs as a retinue for my Warlord in a store event, well that's a win win win win x100
Brometheus wrote: Cool! I can have a full army of Heldrakes? I can't wait to make new friends with my collection. Might even throw in a unit of cultists to forge a narrative
They also told me not to forget those Riptides. Gotta collect em all!
You know.. They wouldn't be saying that stuff if people aren't doing it. So happy that no one plays that crap in my area. Feel sorry for those of you who have to put up with it in "casual" play.
The players create balance or break the game. Stick together, stick with your gaming groups, and encourage others to ensure everyone has fun- no matter the edition. I love my miniatures, and will find a way to keep getting stuff out of all the money I put into it. Good luck
+1
I agree.
Keep the crazy unbound stuff for casual, but even then don't be a mega douche about it.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Unbound armies should encourage more creativity in scenario creation, and give more support to narrative driven gamers, which I think is a very good thing.
Except from what we've seen the "unbound" rules don't add anything to narrative games. They don't do anything to guide you in constructing narrative-based forces or designing narrative-based missions, they just say "do whatever you want". It's only going to be "support" for narrative games if you're already that kind of player and playing that kind of game, if you're a competitive player (or any other kind of player) then the "unbound" rules will "support" you in doing that other stuff instead.
I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Unbound armies should encourage more creativity in scenario creation, and give more support to narrative driven gamers, which I think is a very good thing.
Except from what we've seen the "unbound" rules don't add anything to narrative games. They don't do anything to guide you in constructing narrative-based forces or designing narrative-based missions, they just say "do whatever you want". It's only going to be "support" for narrative games if you're already that kind of player and playing that kind of game, if you're a competitive player (or any other kind of player) then the "unbound" rules will "support" you in doing that other stuff instead.
I think you underestimate how difficult it can be to arrange narrative style games. In my experience they take a lot of back and forth, arguments and compromise to come up with something that everyone is happy with. Also, some people will just flat out refuse to bend any rules because playing by the rules as written is very important to them. If it's in the book, then for me it will make it a lot easier to arrange fluffy games which don't strictly follow the FOC.
I'm also hoping it will take the wind out of the sails of the "I'm not playing that" crowd. Everything is in, which, for me, equates to lots of fun.
Dakkamite wrote: I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.
Exactly this.
A rule granting the player to ignore certain rules shouldn't be lauded as being creative or narrative oriented; it should be criticized as a lazy way of writing rules for something players could have have done for several editions now by talking with their opponent.
tyrannosaurus wrote: In my experience they take a lot of back and forth, arguments and compromise to come up with something that everyone is happy with.
How exactly is saying "do whatever you want" supposed to help with this? Real support for narrative games would be providing a structure to help resolve those compromises in a way that leads to interesting story-focused games, not just saying "you deal with this problem" and removing all of the rules.
Also, some people will just flat out refuse to bend any rules because playing by the rules as written is very important to them. If it's in the book, then for me it will make it a lot easier to arrange fluffy games which don't strictly follow the FOC.
I think you badly overestimate how open-minded people are going to be. The rules saying "X is legal" hasn't stopped people from whining and crying endlessly about how FW isn't "real 40k", so expect this to end up like mysterious terrain: it's in the rules, but hardly anyone uses it because it's obviously stupid.
tyrannosaurus wrote: In my experience they take a lot of back and forth, arguments and compromise to come up with something that everyone is happy with.
How exactly is saying "do whatever you want" supposed to help with this? Real support for narrative games would be providing a structure to help resolve those compromises in a way that leads to interesting story-focused games, not just saying "you deal with this problem" and removing all of the rules.
Also, some people will just flat out refuse to bend any rules because playing by the rules as written is very important to them. If it's in the book, then for me it will make it a lot easier to arrange fluffy games which don't strictly follow the FOC.
I think you badly overestimate how open-minded people are going to be. The rules saying "X is legal" hasn't stopped people from whining and crying endlessly about how FW isn't "real 40k", so expect this to end up like mysterious terrain: it's in the rules, but hardly anyone uses it because it's obviously stupid.
While I do agree with what you said, you don't need to put it as, for lack of a better term, harshly. If someone can find a silver lining in this dark cloud, then more power to them. Personally Unbound, if it is as people have guessed, has killed any desire for me to play in tournaments, but it has motivated to start looking into being a TO for my flgs.
I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.
We don't know what the bonus is for being forged in battle yet, so tournament players may well never want to go unbound just because of the handicap, regardless of being able to field 15 units of long fangs or not.
We also don't know how unbound lists interact with mission objectives yet either. It might not be that bad, things tend to turn out better than hoped for here!
I personally don't like the idea too much, but I'm reserving judgement. Crying over it now is like moaning at the idea of a horseless carriage without understanding that it will have an engine and petrol and a steering wheel, because a horseless carriage is just a box, IT CAN'T MOVE!
greyknight12 wrote: I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.
You know what they say about hope...
Ye, we know so little. There is the possibility that they have realised the upset escalation and the allies have caused so split the game in two. On the one side more restrictions on what you can take, so limiting you greatly to what can be done, on the other much less restriction on what you can take so you can do things that are not legal under the FOC. However there are massive penalties for not using the FOC making it impractical to use unbound against battle forged. We don't know anything about how the rules work. It could be as clear as APOC/normal 40k split, but at lower point levels. The very fact that they accept that battle forged armies need bonuses implies that the designers have some realisation that some people will try and abuse it.
I don't understand all this pishing and moaning about unbound forces.
~~wavy lines~~
When I started playing in the early 90s, we all used 'unbound' armies because that's all we had - a handful of metal minis with one addition every couple of weeks, depending on what you wanted and how much pocket money you saved!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thokt wrote: 26 single man obliterator squads for 1850.
It's SO FLUFFY!
Are they those one man chaos Dev squads? Effing brutal.
I might have to reconsider my thoughts in the post above...
Dakkamite wrote: I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.
But the inverse is also true.
If I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game, I'd just say "I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
They've taken absolutely nothing away by adding more options (which, as you've said, you're free to ignore).
Nurgle Plague Obliterators....they wont die, deep strike, T5? and each counts as its own squad...oh my!
However until the book drops we don't actually know what 'unbound' will give us, I still think there will be a framework to that, i.e. you cant simply have 9 hellrakes and that's it, you may still need a HQ, even if its a helldrake, but its adds X % to the cost so it restricts that to maybe 8or 7 drakes for example.
I am looking forward to the new edition, change is as good as a holiday, and I got on with 6 quite well, not as much as I loved 4th edition, just seemed to gel with that edition.
Play with what comes in front of you, if you get a 7 riptide force, make a game of it to piss him off, or maybe these objective cards will make a 7 tide army lose a lot??
Dakkamite wrote: I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.
But the inverse is also true.
If I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game, I'd just say "I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
They've taken absolutely nothing away by adding more options (which, as you've said, you're free to ignore).
Except that it's much easier to get people to agree to drop restrictions than to agree to add restrictions, because you're making it more restrictive.
You're essentially saying that the rules don't matter because you can just re-write them; but what we're saying is that yes you can write them, but it'd be nice if they were balanced in the first place.
Except that it's much easier to get people to agree to drop restrictions than to agree to add restrictions, because you're making it more restrictive.
You're essentially saying that the rules don't matter because you can just re-write them; but what we're saying is that yes you can write them, but it'd be nice if they were balanced in the first place.
Not in my experience.
Getting strangers to play with something "outside" the rules has consistently proven surprisingly difficult, if not impossible.
Agreeing to leave out X, or refrain from using Y has never been difficult at all.
Dakkamite wrote: I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.
But what if your opponent didnt agree? They might have like one or two squads capable of denting all those battlewagons, why would he think thats cool?
It feels to me as though it's a money grab. Allow as many of the most powerful units as you wish - it just so happens that they're also generally quite expensive to purchase.
I'd be interested to know the points per £pound (or points per $dollar, whatever) for things like Riptides and the super heavies that are now going to be almost a requirement for competition play. Just how many points of value do we get for our Investment in the big models?
Do any armies with low PPP (points per pound) have any chance at all, or is this becoming a rich kid hobby, even more than it was?
Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.
It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.
Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?
Dakkamite wrote: I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.
They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.
But what if your opponent didnt agree? They might have like one or two squads capable of denting all those battlewagons, why would he think thats cool?
How is that really any different than now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
turgon868 wrote: Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.
It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.
Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?
FOOL! This is a grimdark thread. There are no limits, there is only war!
Only taking Farsight Enclave Riptides with ECPA, HBC, Tl-SMS and EWOs and enough shield drones to severely hamper grav gun fire ...how are you going to counter them?
turgon868 wrote: Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.
It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.
Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?
FOOL! This is a grimdark thread. There are no limits, there is only war!
Lol, I should know better.
In the grim darkness of the far future there is only hopeless pessimism.
turgon868 wrote: Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.
It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.
Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?
FOOL! This is a grimdark thread. There are no limits, there is only war!
Lol, I should know better.
Exalted Turgon868... Laughed my ass off just now lol.
greyknight12 wrote: I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.
Riquende wrote: This is just too funny. I just wish that pararaph in the WD article ended not with "Thrilling stuff" but with "This is great news!".
Would have been the icing on the cake.
Not as funny as the reactions. I just hope the guy from the other thread (I think the astra millitarium rumour thread) who said he hoped the devs all got cancer shows up. That would be the icing on this cake of rage
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.
This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy. First, "everything's available in epub, stop complaining", now "most of it is available in epub, stop complaining", soon we'll be into "the majority is available in epub a few months behind iBook format, stop complaining". Oooh, I wonder how long it will be until Pretre starts quoting people's obviously prescient remarks about how terrible GW's digital strategy would probably turn out to be as somehow being evidence that they were wrong at the time and, despite their remarks matching up fairly well with events in said future time period, are also wrong in that present?
shasolenzabi wrote: Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?
Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.
This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy. First, "everything's available in epub, stop complaining", now "most of it is available in epub, stop complaining", soon we'll be into "the majority is available in epub a few months behind iBook format, stop complaining". Oooh, I wonder how long it will be until Pretre starts quoting people's obviously prescient remarks about how terrible GW's digital strategy would probably turn out to be as somehow being evidence that they were wrong at the time and, despite their remarks matching up fairly well with events in said future time period, are also wrong in that present?
Codexes will always be release-printed. Your trenchant, and I'm sure purely rational, attack on GW's digital strategy seems to have omitted that most of what you are talking about is mini-dexes and data slates. You also haven't stated why you think GW should make a print-run of a product that they know won't make a return, just to appease you.
greyknight12 wrote: I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.
You know what they say about hope...
He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.
insaniak wrote: Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.
Yes, as I already pointed out, I said 'most' because it's not all of them. But thank you for making sure that the obvious was pointed out a second time.
All that the MT codex 'debacle' revealed was that there were no immediate plans to produce the MT codex in ePub format. 1 release does not a pattern make... particularly when it was such a half-baked release to start with.
This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy.
Yup, massive defender of GW's business strategies, that's me alright.
If you read my post again, you might notice that I wasn't telling anyone to stop complaining. I was responding to the claim that GW's digital releases are only any use to those with an iPad, to point out that most of them are not only available in iBook format.
That's not an endorsement of GW's business strategy, nor is it a demand that people stop complaining about things that they judge worthy of complaint. It's merely providing relevant information to someone who was apparently unaware of it.
greyknight12 wrote: I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!" My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.
You know what they say about hope...
He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.
Yet more proof GW really don't know their own rules?
(Or at least don't look at them in the same way as many of us, ie start looking through multiple books to figure out how many riptides can legally be taken.)
greyknight12 wrote: I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.
You know what they say about hope...
He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.
Yet more proof GW really don't know their own rules?
tyrannosaurus wrote: I literally cannot think of any other tabletop wargame where players feel that they can just ignore the core rules because they don't fit into their idea of how the game 'should' be played.
I can't think of any other game that encourages players to invent their own rules and to change the rules of the game as they see fit to make it more fun. Seriously, go read Spirit of the Game in the rulebook. You'll see that the designers encourage you to do whatever you want in the name of fun between both parties.
insaniak wrote: Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.
So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.
Yes, as I already pointed out, I said 'most' because it's not all of them. But thank you for making sure that the obvious was pointed out a second time.
Welcome.
All that the MT codex 'debacle' revealed was that there were no immediate plans to produce the MT codex in ePub format. 1 release does not a pattern make... particularly when it was such a half-baked release to start with.
This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy.
Yup, massive defender of GW's business strategies, that's me alright.
If you read my post again, you might notice that I wasn't telling anyone to stop complaining. I was responding to the claim that GW's digital releases are only any use to those with an iPad, to point out that most of them are not only available in iBook format.
That's not an endorsement of GW's business strategy, nor is it a demand that people stop complaining about things that they judge worthy of complaint. It's merely providing relevant information to someone who was apparently unaware of it.
Whether you're a defender of GW business strategies or not is completely beside the point, I was referring to the argument used, not the subject.
Before MT, you and others were quick to "provide relevant information" that ALL GW digital products were available in non-iPad formats, at every opportunity. Now you can do the same, but with the caveat of "most". In a few months, you will doubtless still be providing that information, by then with the caveat of "the majority, at some point after iPad". And at no point will there be an acknowledgement that plenty of people saw this coming a mile away and were painted as being bittervets or chicken littles, using "relevant information".
That's the kind of goalpost-shiftery the comparison was supposed to highlight; GW is having problems, "oh but LotR is wildly successful, you're wrong", the LotR bubble has burst, "oh but the company is still growing just not as fast, you're wrong", profits are stagnant despite above-inflation price rises and substantial cost cutting, indicating less sales, ".....erm, some guy saw this coming 20 years ago, that means you're wrong and so was he because it didn't happen two weeks after he said it!".
greyknight12 wrote: I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.
You know what they say about hope...
He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.
Yeah, people forget you can already basically make an army of potentially infinite Riptides. Even without Dataslates it can get ridiculious when you count FW's Riptides into the mix....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Is 6th Ed the closest they ever came to updating all Codexes for one edition?
Ignoring RT edition when they had all armies in Chapter Approved
There have been other editions with more codex releases but some of those were one-off books that haven't really returned (Codex: ASSASSINS), or ones we've seen folded into other books (Templars, Catachan). I think this may be the highest percentage off the top of my head though.
Mr Morden wrote: Is 6th Ed the closest they ever came to updating all Codexes for one edition?
Ignoring RT edition when they had all armies in Chapter Approved
No... but 3rd edition revamped the rules so that may not be a fair comparison. If 6e had been given a more traditional lifecycle of 4 years, they would have updated everything at the pace they were going. Of course.. if it had been given a full life cycle, they may not have been going at that pace.
Before MT, you and others were quick to "provide relevant information" that ALL GW digital products were available in non-iPad formats, at every opportunity.
torgoch wrote: I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?
That is one of the details that are missing. For all we know, everything is scoring like with Knights which IIRC are the only non-FOC army we have to go on at the moment. Everything for every army could be scoring since they're completely changing up objectives with the new edition.
torgoch wrote: I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?
That is one of the details that are missing. For all we know, everything is scoring like with Knights which IIRC are the only non-FOC army we have to go on at the moment. Everything for every army could be scoring since they're completely changing up objectives with the new edition.
Apoc keeps scoring limited to models that'd normally be scoring IIRC (namely Troops and anyone who is made scoring), I don't see that likely changing for Unbound.
Sir Arun wrote: Only taking Farsight Enclave Riptides with ECPA, HBC, Tl-SMS and EWOs and enough shield drones to severely hamper grav gun fire ...how are you going to counter them?
(Or at least don't look at them in the same way as many of us, ie start looking througah multiple books to figure out how many riptides can legally be taken.)
Proof of nothing other than that 4 Riptide armies are already possible, played, and not any different under Unbound.
ClockworkZion wrote: Apoc keeps scoring limited to models that'd normally be scoring IIRC (namely Troops and anyone who is made scoring), I don't see that likely changing for Unbound.
I suspect it will depend more on the mission that your force selection.
The article shown makes a comment about 6 new missions (umbrellad under a different type than the current missions). These missions use objective cards that seem to apply to you as the general, rather than any specific point/object on the field. As to the "If you wipe them out you automatically win", we can't even be sure that rule continues for the new missions, with the new objectives.
Naturally, mission selection is still between you and your opponent, but hopefully you should be able to come to some consensus. Game is pretty much already off to a bad start if you can't even agree on that.
I'm not liking this unbound army list stuff. No sir.
I'm willing to wait until I see the rule book, but if it's as silly as "take 500 heldrakes", then I'll probably just refuse to play those lists, just like I refused to play against super heavies in normal games (Escalation). Feel free to build whatever list you want. I'll be over there painting and waiting for someone that didn't bring something silly. Good luck, though. Enjoy your hobby.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I literally cannot think of any other tabletop wargame where players feel that they can just ignore the core rules because they don't fit into their idea of how the game 'should' be played.
I can't think of any other game that encourages players to invent their own rules and to change the rules of the game as they see fit to make it more fun. Seriously, go read Spirit of the Game in the rulebook. You'll see that the designers encourage you to do whatever you want in the name of fun between both parties.
I also can't think of any other game that forces players to invent their own rules and change the rules of the game as they see fit to make the game fun or even playable at all.
The encouragement would be nice, if it didn't have the bitter taste of "Got problems with our rules? Well, it's your problem now!".
Oh, and I can think of one game. It's called Magic the Gathering. Their very home page has a column talking about new, wacky formats, and they have supported more than a few of those officially by releasing supplies and cards targeted at people who don't play competitive. The last release event even had a challenge which was about using your deck to fight a multi-headed hydra which acted on its own. It's just so much easier to create new ways to play the game when you can stop worrying about the core rules.
As the psychic phase now uses a dice pool, is it safe to assume psychic tests aren't based on leadership anymore? I can't see how you'd want to roll MORE dice when keeping under 9-10.
However If it goes the way of Warhammer, and starts using target numbers, what will happen to all the psychic powers in the Codexes? That is a lot of renumbering needed in the FAQ's (and will really mess up the signature spell for Tzeentch daemons)
Is it possible that they designers allowed the Space Marine player to use something not normally available to them, just for the purposes of their test game?
Nah, we all know GW always follows all their own rules for testing and even White Dwarf games!
Holy crap. I will gladly drop Daemons in the list if I can just take a Sorcerer and attempt a Lord of Change summoning. .Unless it is random. In which case I'd just have to "ask" my friends if I can pop my FW model down as a basic LoC. Time will tell.
Its not the end of the world if its a test game and they were mucking about, but if its available to all with psychic abilities then Grey Knight armies might soon have questions to answer.
I think it could be good fun actually especially against unbound armies as a couple of bloodthirsters randomly appear out of tigurius and his apprentice!
ClockworkZion wrote:Sounds like how CSM used to summon Deamons in their old codex actually.
It does. For CSM that makes sense as they fight along side Daemons all the time, for a Space Marine to do it, eh.
Leggy wrote:Sounds a lot like possession. Perhaps the spell lets the psyker transform into a greater daemon, ala Transformation of Kadon, but with no backsies.
But from a fluff perspective, why would Ezekiel summon a Blood Thirster for aid?
But yeah, hopefully it was for testing purposes rather than an actual allowance, we'll see though soon enough.
I think i'm going to have to start a grey knight army specifically to run around summoning as many daemons as possible, just to see how many people's heads implode...
oni wrote: I've been reading the leaked WD at face value rather than trying to read between the lines and nowhere does it say or hint at that Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other. The allusion to in-game bonuses for Battle-Forged armies does not equal Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other.
I believe that the intent of the statement is to point out that playing games (you and your opponent) using Battle-Forged armies is still desirable as to take advantage of added game rules. Not necessarily that Battle-Forged armies get bonuses to aid their shortcomings vs. an Unbound army.
Ok maybe im being a bit too harsh with my first thoughts there, perhaps they are just showing the possibilities of what general games would be like, ignoring fluff.
But then again why couldnt it have been a chaos player instead of DA? I dunno what to think here.
Edit: Actually why the hell can the Emeprors finest even get to summon demons in the first place. Maaaaaaaaaaaaan
