unbound is the same as unlimited primary detachments. no FOC. so it goes 2 ways you can take infinte of them ( points allowing) or you can take NONE, because you dont have a primary detachment.
No, not exatcly. You will need a primary attachment and you still have to respect the allies matrix, so you cannot ally with yourself, except Space Marines who have explicit permission to do so.
Well different Chapter Tactics Marines to each other and the Supplement books to their parent book, but regardless it's not the same as a double FOC army sort of thing.
Formations are the big thing I think that needs to be fixed. Being able to take an unlimited number of them really makes a mess of things.
unbound is the same as unlimited primary detachments. no FOC. so it goes 2 ways you can take infinte of them ( points allowing) or you can take NONE, because you dont have a primary detachment.
No, not exatcly. You will need a primary attachment and you still have to respect the allies matrix, so you cannot ally with yourself, except Space Marines who have explicit permission to do so.
You don't really need to be able to ally with yourself if you can just take whatever you fething please from your codex
I just hope this FOC thing doesn't turn into formations. Build this formation, buy these models and get this bonus.
I'm just really worried that my army won't be playable after 7th drops because I don't have enough models to fill any formations. And the way they've been packing everything up, the fireblade cadre and the ghostwarrior set, seems like THOSE are the types of armies GW wants us to field.
Dungeons and Dragons went through some sweeping changes and you don't see those groups in the backs of shops, rolling dice like they used to, and if they are they're playing 3.5 or 2nd...
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh, and it looks like DE and Eldar won't be changing how they ally (and if they do it won't be by much). The "Ask Gromrindal" section for WD 15:
That's good news. The two Eldar factions being battle brothers was one of the good things in the ally chart.
What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.
Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.
I don't recall people hating the FoC. Plenty of people upset with how GW was circumventing it with formations and special snowflake ally slots.for everything.
sennacherib wrote: What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.
Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.
Seems like GW players are just an upset lot.
Or, is it possible, that maybe we don't all share the one opinion? And just maybe different people have different views on how the game should evolve, and maybe you just saw two different sides of a debate?
No, couldn't possibly be that people actually have valid opinions. We are all just an upset. Just looking to complain about something, no matter what we get. I mean this unbound FOC thing is just perfect! Exactly what EVERYONE asked for (with no exceptions, remember, thats that shared opinion at work again!)
ClockworkZion wrote: Oh, and it looks like DE and Eldar won't be changing how they ally (and if they do it won't be by much). The "Ask Gromrindal" section for WD 15:
That's good news. The two Eldar factions being battle brothers was one of the good things in the ally chart.
Because I love me some Venoms and Wave Serpents with beast packs led by Farseers and Warlock Seer Councels led by the Baron!
unbound is the same as unlimited primary detachments. no FOC. so it goes 2 ways you can take infinte of them ( points allowing) or you can take NONE, because you dont have a primary detachment.
No, not exatcly. You will need a primary attachment and you still have to respect the allies matrix, so you cannot ally with yourself, except Space Marines who have explicit permission to do so.
You don't really need to be able to ally with yourself if you can just take whatever you fething please from your codex
You aren't allow to bring a group consisting of 3 terminators in a normal SM codex, unbound or battleforged. Just as you aren't allowed to take more units that has the 0-1 restriction.
You are allowed to take 4 hellturkeys because you have a CSM codex allied with a suplement, but you aren't allowed 4 hellturkeys if you play CSM and ally with CSM, because ally matrix prohibs you from doing so. Battleforged and Unbound isn't changing those restrictions (in terms of limits ally matrix and unique units/items etc.).
Because I love me some Venoms and Wave Serpents with beast packs led by Farseers and Warlock Seer Councels led by the Baron!
/s
I am not talking about specific mechanic implications; BB rules have problems and should be altered. However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.
Because I love me some Venoms and Wave Serpents with beast packs led by Farseers and Warlock Seer Councels led by the Baron!
/s
I am not talking about specific mechanic implications; BB rules have problems and should be altered. However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.
sennacherib wrote: What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.
Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.
Seems like GW players are just an upset lot.
Next time try to understand someone's arguments. The complaints about the FOC was that it was basically useless and creating grossly imbalanced armies. So GW's way to fix it is to get rid of it and embracing imbalance...the exact opposite of what we wanted. So yeah, we're not happy about that.
Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.
Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.
Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.
Crimson wrote: However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.
Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.
Crimson wrote: However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.
Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.
I want to see Horus Heresy style imbalanced allies where you have stuff like Tau treating Guard as Allies of Convenience while Guard see Tau as Battle Brothers. You know, so the thing actually fits the narrative more.
But the rules should not fit the narrative, the narrative should be forged by the rules! I mean, by you. I mean, by the roll of a dice . No, seriously, it is a good idea.
Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.
Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.
Look, I don't know how much clearer GW needs to be- they hate Sisters and they hate people who play Sisters even more.
I, uh, feel like I should say just kidding, but then I don't think that's actually untrue.
Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.
So if Dark Eldar do not trust Dark Eldar, should the be allies of convenience with units from their own army too? It is the best case scenario, DE mercenaries hired by the Craftworld etc. In a situation where it is Eldar vs. non-eldar, the different Eldar factions will work together.
I want to see Horus Heresy style imbalanced allies where you have stuff like Tau treating Guard as Allies of Convenience while Guard see Tau as Battle Brothers. You know, so the thing actually fits the narrative more.
Whilst I dig the idea of uneven alliance, your specific example doesn't make any sense. Why would guard see filthy xenos as battle brothers? It would make more sense other way around.
sennacherib wrote: What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.
Link me to one of those posts, please, because I must have missed them. All of them. Every complaint I see about the FOC is how certain armies are allowed to exploit or break it in ways that other armies are not.
sennacherib wrote: Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.
I think you are conflating two different issues.
Issue 1: Codexes are not released quickly enough to keep up with the Core rule changes, and thus older codexes fall behind and become less competitive / fun to play.
Issue 2: GW is fragmenting the codexes into 1 million pieces with a new fragment coming out every single week. The quality on the fragments are wildly inconsistent, because they suffer from inadequate play testing, resulting in players being unable to keep up with new changes, and Codexes that used to cost $30 now cost $100 - $150 because they are sold in many, many pieces.
I don't think that anyone is complaining that GW's speed of rereleasing the existing codexes is too fast. I think everyone is complaining about new codexes and dataslates being added weekly without sufficient quality control or content to warrant their price point. For instance, the Imperial Knight codex which is priced like a full codex, but only includes 2 units.
Now, I've got a question. I've seen repeatedly that "Unbound" armies will make it easier for new players to start in 40k. I don't understand this at all. When I was a new player, I was a little overwhelmed with where to start building my collection. The game requirements of 1 HQ and 2 troops made the decision much easier, and guided me into the construction of my 5K point army. If I showed up with my Hive Tyrant and 2 units of Termagaunts to play my first opponent running 3 riptides, I'm pretty sure that it would discourage me rather than encourage me. Or, if I decided that I love big things, and so I started by building my army with 3 Wraith Knights, and no one was willing to play me, I think that I would have been discouraged. How does a lack of structure benefit new players in any way?
Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.
Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.
Look, I don't know how much clearer GW needs to be- they hate Sisters and they hate people who play Sisters even more.
I, uh, feel like I should say just kidding, but then I don't think that's actually untrue.
I actually did laugh out loud on that.
I wish you were joking though.
tag8833 wrote: Now, I've got a question. I've seen repeatedly that "Unbound" armies will make it easier for new players to start in 40k. I don't understand this at all. When I was a new player, I was a little overwhelmed with where to start building my collection. The game requirements of 1 HQ and 2 troops made the decision much easier, and guided me into the construction of my 5K point army. If I showed up with my Hive Tyrant and 2 units of Termagaunts to play my first opponent running 3 riptides, I'm pretty sure that it would discourage me rather than encourage me. Or, if I decided that I love big things, and so I started by building my army with 3 Wraith Knights, and no one was willing to play me, I think that I would have been discouraged. How does a lack of structure benefit new players in any way?
Many players buy miniatures before reading the rules. When they want to try those minis, sometimes it's not possible because they lack an HQ or 2 troops choices. Then they need to buy MORE stuff to play. With Unbound, this kind of players can battle while not having the necessary for a battle-forged army.
I want to see Horus Heresy style imbalanced allies where you have stuff like Tau treating Guard as Allies of Convenience while Guard see Tau as Battle Brothers. You know, so the thing actually fits the narrative more.
Whilst I dig the idea of uneven alliance, your specific example doesn't make any sense. Why would guard see filthy xenos as battle brothers? It would make more sense other way around.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't it still make more sense the other way around? Auxiliaries usually aren't given command.
"Battle Brothers" implies being able to take commands, as well as give them. Indeed, the very term seems "hierarchy-neutral".
If anything, the "lower" part of the hierarchy should regard their superiors as "battle brothers", as far as receiving their orders go, and the "higher" part be more distant, no?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't it still make more sense the other way around? Auxiliaries usually aren't given command.
"Battle Brothers" implies being able to take commands, as well as give them. Indeed, the very term seems "hierarchy-neutral".
If anything, the "lower" part of the hierarchy should regard their superiors as "battle brothers", as far as receiving their orders go, and the "higher" part be more distant, no?
Exactly what I was thinking honestly. Or you could assume the Auxiliaries trust the Tau more than the Tau trust them.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't it still make more sense the other way around? Auxiliaries usually aren't given command.
"Battle Brothers" implies being able to take commands, as well as give them. Indeed, the very term seems "hierarchy-neutral".
If anything, the "lower" part of the hierarchy should regard their superiors as "battle brothers", as far as receiving their orders go, and the "higher" part be more distant, no?
Exactly what I was thinking honestly. Or you could assume the Auxiliaries trust the Tau more than the Tau trust them.
Yes, you are right, never mind. Mixed it up with Crimson.
Crimson wrote: However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.
Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.
yeah, but by this logic, a mono dark eldar army should have a special rules making them work as allies of convenience since they do not trust each other. Eldar and Dark eldar should be battle brothers imo, and it's something that i really like about 40k. There's no reason for both races to hate each other, like in fantasy. Imo, you could see theyr relationship like the one the first american settlers (who went to the new world to avoid religious persecution) had with British. Sure, it was a strained, sometime violent relationship, but they sure as hell would have helped the other if some demented xeno organism tried to eat them.
I was really underwhelmed by the Unbound stuff when I first saw it, but I think it's just forced me to come to terms with the fact that 40k will always suffer from corporate game design efforts. Hopefully the core ruleset may improve overtime, and players will continue to take it on themselves to make the game work for their group. I can't imagine people will be plopping down Unbound armies unannounced anymore than they do so with super heavies.
streetsamurai wrote: yeah, but by this logic, a mono dark eldar army should have a special rules making them work as allies of convenience since they do not trust each other.
streetsamurai wrote: yeah, but by this logic, a mono dark eldar army should have a special rules making them work as allies of convenience since they do not trust each other.
Yeah, that would be cool!
lol, indeed it would be a nice fluffy rules to add.
So venturing to the large game store in the region, I did some general table chatting around the dice rollers. The general consensus was that if they had heard about 7E fell into two categories. The first was a strong "Uhm, no... this book isn't even 2 years old..." or "Meh, roll with the punches". The latter sounded a bit defeatist as in either too invested or this is the only game I play. I can relate having 3 armies worth of 40k.
The others were generally more along the lines of... "Wait, what? 7E? When, Who, Huh?" A few of the younger guys exclaimed they had just chipped in to get a rulebook and what not just a few months ago... they were a bit flustered, but resolute on probably continuing with 6E for the foreseeable future.
I cannot really recall a reaction that elicited general excitement on the notion. Everyone's now just in a holding pattern..
Most of the Dark Eldar's treachery takes place before the raid into realspace, when they sabotage each other's transports to dramatically explode when struck by small arms fire and soak each others 6+ underwear armor in gasoline.
So venturing to the large game store in the region, I did some general table chatting around the dice rollers. The general consensus was that if they had heard about 7E fell into two categories. The first was a strong "Uhm, no... this book isn't even 2 years old..." or "Meh, roll with the punches". The latter sounded a bit defeatist as in either too invested or this is the only game I play. I can relate having 3 armies worth of 40k.
The others were generally more along the lines of... "Wait, what? 7E? When, Who, Huh?" A few of the younger guys exclaimed they had just chipped in to get a rulebook and what not just a few months ago... they were a bit flustered, but resolute on probably continuing with 6E for the foreseeable future.
I cannot really recall a reaction that elicited general excitement on the notion. Everyone's now just in a holding pattern..
The five stages of grief they call it
The hardest part about the final stage is all the crap we're going to hear in the months to come about certain things being "written for 7th" which we all know will be total horsegak. I'm still trying to understand the difference between a dataslate and a datasheet.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
I'm just excited for more ork figures (Blood Angels wont be under appreciated either)
The game... well I've played less games than I can actually count on my fingers in 6th :/ so maybe 7th will be better for me hehehe
I'm acquiring secondhand figs for a BA army to round out my 40k collection and then that's pretty much it for me. Plastic Sisters of Battle would be the one thing I go all in for, other then that, no thanks.
Crimson wrote: So if Dark Eldar do not trust Dark Eldar, should the be allies of convenience with units from their own army too?
Almost. The rule is not fitted to accurately represent the lack of trust between different dark eldars. But yeah, representing the fact that the kabals, haemonculi covens, and wych cults do not share the same chain of command could be interesting. And having a rule to represent the different intrigues would be cool!
Crimson wrote: So if Dark Eldar do not trust Dark Eldar, should the be allies of convenience with units from their own army too?
Almost. The rule is not fitted to accurately represent the lack of trust between different dark eldars. But yeah, representing the fact that the kabals, haemonculi covens, and wych cults do not share the same chain of command could be interesting. And having a rule to represent the different intrigues would be cool!
No it wouldn't, it's a terrible idea, intrigue at court was tried in fantasy and annoyed alot of people, dark eldar do not need some silly rule to represent infighting.
Crimson wrote: So if Dark Eldar do not trust Dark Eldar, should the be allies of convenience with units from their own army too?
Almost. The rule is not fitted to accurately represent the lack of trust between different dark eldars. But yeah, representing the fact that the kabals, haemonculi covens, and wych cults do not share the same chain of command could be interesting. And having a rule to represent the different intrigues would be cool!
No it wouldn't, it's a terrible idea, intrigue at court was tried in fantasy and annoyed alot of people, dark eldar do not need some silly rule to represent infighting.
The closest I could see is somewhat similar to marks in chaos where you can't mix differently marked units together.
Formosa wrote: No it wouldn't, it's a terrible idea, intrigue at court was tried in fantasy and annoyed alot of people, dark eldar do not need some silly rule to represent infighting.
Well, it is not the only rule. There is also the rule about Commissar shooting their guardsmen that is quite similar .
Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.
Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.
Look, I don't know how much clearer GW needs to be- they hate Sisters and they hate people who play Sisters even more.
I, uh, feel like I should say just kidding, but then I don't think that's actually untrue.
Truth hurts man
Who knows GW did update Wood Elves...*lights a candle every night in hopes of an update*
Didnt Sisters get an update like 2 months ago? It might still take a while for the digital codex to become hardback though, given that GW is busy with the 7th ed release right now.
Sir Arun wrote: Didnt Sisters get an update like 2 months ago? It might still take a while for the digital codex to become hardback though, given that GW is busy with the 7th ed release right now.
The digital codex was released last October/ November. Sister players would rather have plastic models at this point than a hardback codex.
sennacherib wrote: What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. ... .
Sir Arun wrote: Didnt Sisters get an update like 2 months ago? It might still take a while for the digital codex to become hardback though, given that GW is busy with the 7th ed release right now.
The digital codex was released last October/ November. Sister players would rather have plastic models at this point than a hardback codex.
As a Sisters player, I really hope we don't get plastics. I think the Sisters metal sculpts are the best in the GW range at the moment. Not like they're that much more expensive than plastics these days anyway.
Sir Arun wrote: Didnt Sisters get an update like 2 months ago? It might still take a while for the digital codex to become hardback though, given that GW is busy with the 7th ed release right now.
The digital codex was never meant for print. It's a stop-gap replacement for Codex: Witch Hunters to tide everyone over until they get around to doing a proper codex update. Which, going by previous history for Sisters releases, will be 3 and a half minutes before a new edition is due to be released. My money is on 'just before 8th edition' at this point.
Sir Arun wrote: Didnt Sisters get an update like 2 months ago? It might still take a while for the digital codex to become hardback though, given that GW is busy with the 7th ed release right now.
The digital codex was never meant for print. It's a stop-gap replacement for Codex: Witch Hunters to tide everyone over until they get around to doing a proper codex update. Which, going by previous history for Sisters releases, will be 3 and a half minutes before a new edition is due to be released. My money is on 'just before 8th edition' at this point.
*insert "ridiculously short time frame" joke here*
Most folks, including non-Sisters players, would want plastic sisters given how GW is doing female models much better these days. I have a full army of SoB. Things like Repentia need redone badly, and we need more than, what... 4 poses for our standard troops? Having a special weapon girl cost $10 alone is absolutely nuts.
And yes, the SoB got a new book late last year. It continues the trend of each book getting weaker and weaker, though. Without allies, you have no answer to flying threats and are limited to using roughly 5 of the 8 units outside of the HQ slot effectively. Celestians are overpriced, Repentia are up there for worst unit in the game, and all I have to say about Penitent Engines is "melee-focused open topped rhino". Retributors are sort of useful, but given the faith nerf, they went from a much used unit to "probably just another Exorcist". Dominions went from highly flexible with twin-linked as their ability, to ignores cover. Ignores cover bolters are meh, ignores cover on flamers is wasted, and ignores cover melta guns are situation based at best (mainly wave serpent hunting).
Oh, and they deleted a special character for no reason.
But hey, we can spam potentially game-breaking priests! For more re-roll everything fun!
Our digital dex actually removed 2 units from the White Dwarf list making our small choices even smaller.
We only have a single non special character HQ and only have a single troop choice.
The least GW could have done was make all of the choices in the digital dex be viable. Instead they made 2 units that have always sucked even worse instead of fixing them.
Who knows Wood Elves finally got a proper update we could be next...in 2021
Sir Arun wrote: Didnt Sisters get an update like 2 months ago? It might still take a while for the digital codex to become hardback though, given that GW is busy with the 7th ed release right now.
The digital codex was never meant for print. It's a stop-gap replacement for Codex: Witch Hunters to tide everyone over until they get around to doing a proper codex update. Which, going by previous history for Sisters releases, will be 3 and a half minutes before a new edition is due to be released. My money is on 'just before 8th edition' at this point.
Wouldn't it technically be a stopgap replacement for the WD only Cruddace codex?
Not that that makes the situation any better for SoB armies... My poor girls...
Loopstah wrote: Got a postcard in a mail order today. 4 of 4.
Picture of a Chaos Marine with "There is only War" on the Aquila.
I'm assuming the other three will be the Commisar, Knight and Dark Angel or are they different from the posters?
Well, Mr. Fancy Pants... How did you get so special mate? Us Yanks aren't so lucky... you guys get FW right there in your backyard, seems you all play 30K... Yes I'm jealous, and you get fancy post cards...
I am looking forward to the more dynamic strategy, sounds really great! Looks the games will be moving more like a battle where things change constantly and the initial objectives become secondary perhaps.
This Dark Eldar plus Eldar alliance is ok with me, I could see the two factions using each other as they tend to use everything to meet their needs and wants. A little shady with the Librarians being able to summon demons and such but I'm open to it. As long as the Librarian gets munched on and the army who summoned it gets a chance to be munched on as well. I have some beasties I have used on the alien worlds terrain we play on, just like a pack of dino looking critters, that move randomly, causing a bit of a fuss with troops that get too close, tying them up for a turn or so. Would be cool if the demon works about the same, last ditch chance to kill the enemy yet it turns as soon as it meets its obligation, moves to nearest unit to kill them be it summoning army, or enemy.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.
TheKbob wrote: Most folks, including non-Sisters players, would want plastic sisters given how GW is doing female models much better these days. I have a full army of SoB. Things like Repentia need redone badly, and we need more than, what... 4 poses for our standard troops?
I think we have 7 poses, not that it matters because you seem to get the grenade chucking Sister and a couple other random ones in nearly every pack.
The metal models, while some of the best sculpts GW put out at that time, are not perfect. The faces are a bit wonky and suffer from a large case of "masculine chine syndrome", parts are honestly hard to paint due to the molds flowing one detail into the next with nearly no transition in places (hair to armoured collar, robes to legs, bolter to chest) and frankly the only REALLYgood models left (in terms of looks, in my horribly biased opinions) are Celestine and the Exorcist, and the first suffers from "2-dimensional pose syndrome" like the other old metal models do (as well as being so top-heavy GW eventually put a Terminator base in her kit) and the Exorcist is a nightmare to assemble and suffers from problems fitting together correctly due to how metal shrinks a bit when it cools (the worst of it being how it the baseplate for the pipes fits to the chassis of the Rhino).
So yeah, I love a lot about the army and how it looks but the models are holding it back. Give me plastics dang-it!
Back more to the thread as a whole: a friend at my FLGS pointed out that the new edition is being advertised with new "additional rules" which begs the question of they'll be optional extras or required core mechanics.
Kelly502 wrote: you guys get FW right there in your backyard, seems you all play 30K...
I wish...
It's taking a while but my 30k is coming along, the trick is to mix marks (for mk5 heresy armour) to make the most of your money, it's perfectly fine (and fluffy) to put mk7 (experimental at the time) legs on mk2/3/4 armour and mk6 of course, save alot of money.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.
Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?
People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.
This isn't some impossible dream, nearly every one of the larger competitors offers this. You're correct in that it hasn't ever been 40K's strong point, but it is getting worse, and more concerning, rather than showing signs of correcting this, the process seems to be accelerating.
I'm not one of those pulling their hair out, condemning the new edition before we have any substantial knowledge of the changes, but I am holding on to a healthy dose of cynicism nonetheless. All you "everything is wonderful, everything is great, 40K is awesome" Lalas are getting on my tits almost as much as the rage-quitters. 40K can still be fun in the right circumstances, but to try and make out that there aren't some serious cracks being papered over by some very thin wallpaper, and that for the first time sales seem to be reflecting this - so it isn't the "vocal minority on the Internet" so much anymore, and that the game as it stands couldn't be vastly improved as an experience for both "casual" and "competitive" alike seems so disconnected from reality as to lead me to question anyone posting in this manner's sanity.
So battle forged lists get bonuses and most tournaments will probably be using battle forged only. The question I have is, will these bonuses make the current tournament power houses even more powerful? Granted, we don't have the information to answer that one way or another yet, but it does make me wonder. If these bonuses are only granted when facing unbound lists then no problem.
If I can get 10 ork mega nobs in plastic for the some times ridiculously cheap price that DV terminators were going for on ebay! Awesome. I don't need anymore space marines, unless the scouts have sniper rifle options.
There'll be more Tues/Weds when people get WDW in hand, but for now, no, I'd say anyone in a position to leak info has done so. I'd regard 'new' stuff with healthy suspicion for the next few days.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.
Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?
People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.
This isn't some impossible dream, nearly every one of the larger competitors offers this. You're correct in that it hasn't ever been 40K's strong point, but it is getting worse, and more concerning, rather than showing signs of correcting this, the process seems to be accelerating.
I'm not one of those pulling their hair out, condemning the new edition before we have any substantial knowledge of the changes, but I am holding on to a healthy dose of cynicism nonetheless. All you "everything is wonderful, everything is great, 40K is awesome" Lalas are getting on my tits almost as much as the rage-quitters. 40K can still be fun in the right circumstances, but to try and make out that there aren't some serious cracks being papered over by some very thin wallpaper, and that for the first time sales seem to be reflecting this - so it isn't the "vocal minority on the Internet" so much anymore, and that the game as it stands couldn't be vastly improved as an experience for both "casual" and "competitive" alike seems so disconnected from reality as to lead me to question anyone posting in this manner's sanity.
Sure thing your absolutely right I'm crazy - mentally deficient even - thanks for the face palm you have evoked clarity for me and for my cooperating and discussing with my friends about our games...
Its no vocal minority, its the incessant contradiction and impossible conception of a thousand contrasting options clashing with the main common ground being disapproval that's finding unity and for some people, the less vocal minority, who would like to come and be interested without being told they are moronic, that also grows old very fast. Maybe if so many games do these things everyone holds dear so well they can play them for there reason and play 40k for its. As I said before everyone is entitled to there own tastes and opinions, and some times that means enjoying things for what they are and looking too others for theirs.
I'm really looking forward to the new allies matrix.
Me two, it difficulty to bring a fair gamey sense to the allies matrix and still hold the fluff strong, hopefully second times the charm, id hope for more use of strong alliance's among the imperium and then everyone else desperate paired with them bar obvious enemy's, the one off sides then use more a mix of fair alliance's across the board to balance up, tyranids will still need to be billy no mates tho lol
They were both great models in 1997 when the molds were new. Now the casts from them kind of suck, and it's time to retire them in favor of plastic. As for 7th, I'm ambivalent.
40k is plagued with a massive lack of internal and external balance which the design studio rabidly denies exists despite it being readily apparent within hours of a new release. We all knew Tau and Eldar and IG were good and we all knew Tyranids were bad the day the books dropped, and we all knew which parts of each were better than the rest.
I've loved the setting for 24 years, and the Black Library Money Printing Machine that is the HOrus Heresy series has only reinforced that despite James Swallow and Nick Kyme's literary vomit. I'll keep playing because I love "Forging the Narrative", but until the rules give narrative players the flexibility they crave and competitive ones the internal and external balance they need, I'm pretty much done buying models.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.
Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?
People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.
This isn't some impossible dream, nearly every one of the larger competitors offers this. You're correct in that it hasn't ever been 40K's strong point, but it is getting worse, and more concerning, rather than showing signs of correcting this, the process seems to be accelerating.
I'm not one of those pulling their hair out, condemning the new edition before we have any substantial knowledge of the changes, but I am holding on to a healthy dose of cynicism nonetheless. All you "everything is wonderful, everything is great, 40K is awesome" Lalas are getting on my tits almost as much as the rage-quitters. 40K can still be fun in the right circumstances, but to try and make out that there aren't some serious cracks being papered over by some very thin wallpaper, and that for the first time sales seem to be reflecting this - so it isn't the "vocal minority on the Internet" so much anymore, and that the game as it stands couldn't be vastly improved as an experience for both "casual" and "competitive" alike seems so disconnected from reality as to lead me to question anyone posting in this manner's sanity.
Sure thing your absolutely right I'm crazy - mentally deficient even - thanks for the face palm you have evoked clarity for me and for my cooperating and discussing with my friends about our games...
Its no vocal minority, its the incessant contradiction and impossible conception of a thousand contrasting options clashing with the main common ground being disapproval that's finding unity and for some people, the less vocal minority, who would like to come and be interested without being told they are moronic, that also grows old very fast. Maybe if so many games do these things everyone holds dear so well they can play them for there reason and play 40k for its. As I said before everyone is entitled to there own tastes and opinions, and some times that means enjoying things for what they are and looking too others for theirs.
I don't think that massive, ponderous, stream of consciousness post means what you think it does.
You're entitled to be interested, moron was your word, not mine.
If you're really not concerned for what a new edition a mere, and unprecedented, 2 years on from the last is going to do to the game in order to try and wring more cash out of the player base, then you're really not fully aware of the situation.
azreal13 wrote: If you're really not concerned for what a new edition a mere, and unprecedented, 2 years on from the last is going to do to the game in order to try and wring more cash out of the player base, then you're really not fully aware of the situation.
More than once I have seriously wondered if I am just really jaded and cynical or if other people just don't spend as much time as I do keeping up to day with all the goings on in the wargaming world...
Yes. I too hope that the allies matrix gets revamped. I can see imperial forces allying, chaos with daemons and IG, Nids with nobody. The rest seem like they are not likely to buddy up all that much with anyone.
I don't think that massive, ponderous, stream of consciousness post means what you think it does.
You're entitled to be interested, moron was your word, not mine.
If you're really not concerned for what a new edition a mere, and unprecedented, 2 years on from the last is going to do to the game in order to try and wring more cash out of the player base, then you're really not fully aware of the situation.
This is pointless off topic couldn't we have continued about the allies matrix, well I guess your welcome to spin your condescension how ever you feel fit but please I'm well aware of the for mentioned 'situation' I'm just not sure I feel the gravity well imploding upon me that apparently is the deep dark depths of GWs corporate depravity, seriously some people act like this isn't your average business... GW is no Pharmo/chemo/massmarket/sweatshop/fastfood/conglomo/corporate/conspiracy to drain/wreak/havok/money/hate on the customer till bankruptcy, seriously look out the window our happy little world of business is not the gallant western metropolis its supposed to be, if half the people on dakka turned the same tongue on the rest of their consumer purchasing power maybe the world would be a better place and there would be less GW's out there...
ps I live in devon too so after all the kafuffle has blown over maybe ill see you in a couple of months happy as lary playing 7th ed aih, (till then here's something your fond of)
What armies are coming in the boxed set?
What are we looking for in it for units?
What will the hardback look like, and for how much, $100.00? $200.00?
I think we could make some good guess's about blood angels if they indeed are in the box and after orks due to them not having many older kits or gaps. They have a vets kit and jump kit, a dred and tank, I guess with the new psychic phase a psychic character redo maybe a given? what holes in BA do we see likely being filled by kits, special assault termies? a basic flavour kit for jump infantry or tacs? or maybe a brand new kit/s? an assault rhino perhaps...
sennacherib wrote: Yes. I too hope that the allies matrix gets revamped. I can see imperial forces allying, chaos with daemons and IG, Nids with nobody. The rest seem like they are not likely to buddy up all that much with anyone.
If Orks get paid enough they will fight with almost anyone. And I'm pretty sure that anyone would ally against Tyranids.
I don't like the unbound thing not because I don't want to see crazy armies but because something like that should not be written in to a core rule. For the past 5 editions I've had no problems breaking the 40k rules as I see fit, really don't need to be told I'm allowed to break the rules.
For those of us that like our games to be actual structured games instead of "do whatever the hell you want, we don't care!", it's hard to be anything but pessimistic.
azreal13 wrote: I'm not entirely sure how discussion of favorite Sisters models even flirts with topic?
Perhaps better in a thread in 40K Discussion?
To be fair, it would be one of the shortest threads ever.
Grot 6 wrote: What armies are coming in the boxed set?
What are we looking for in it for units?
What will the hardback look like, and for how much, $100.00? $200.00?
I'd be utterly shocked if the new rulebook wasn't at least triple digits, or very close to it. Rulebooks have all been drastically increasing in price: 5th was like $50 when it came out, 6th was $75, so I think $100 would be the logical progression...most codexes were $20-25 at the start of 5th too, if I'm not mistaken, and they're double that now. And I don't think GW will start being generous just because of a short edition cycle, either.
Can't wait for $75 codexes and supplements, and likewise I'll be surprised if we don't start seeing that in a year or two.
i'm hopeful we may see a slight reprieve from prise increase for now. not that i'm basing that on much more than I thought the tree man was going to be more than it was lol
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: i'm hopeful we may see a slight reprieve from prise increase for now. not that i'm basing that on much more than I thought the tree man was going to be more than it was lol
GW has done an amazing job setting people's expectations on these things. I feel like a lot of people are doing this mental exercise where they go "okay, my absolute insane maximum price for this item is...[blank]." And then when it comes up a few dollars short of that they say "okay, that's fair." And then when ask to defend their rationale, the only answer is "hey, gotta fill the GW need."
I mean, I can't imagine how rationalizing a 25% increase in price on a rulebook (which is the apparent rumor, could be wrong though) for a product that lasted only half the time as the previous editions would go otherwise. Do we say "well hey, at least it wasn't only a year!"
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: i'm hopeful we may see a slight reprieve from prise increase for now. not that i'm basing that on much more than I thought the tree man was going to be more than it was lol
GW has done an amazing job setting people's expectations on these things. I feel like a lot of people are doing this mental exercise where they go "okay, my absolute insane maximum price for this item is...[blank]." And then when it comes up a few dollars short of that they say "okay, that's fair." And then when ask to defend their rationale, the only answer is "hey, gotta fill the GW need."
I mean, I can't imagine how rationalizing a 25% increase in price on a rulebook (which is the apparent rumor, could be wrong though) for a product that lasted only half the time as the previous editions would go otherwise. Do we say "well hey, at least it wasn't only a year!"
Truly quite impressive.
Pricing rumors have been as low as $80 USD and as high as $100 USD. I think it's all speculation at this point though and while I've got $100 set aside for the release that's for the rulebook AND objective cards (which if they're like GW's other decks of cards like the 40k Psychic Powers one or the Storms of Magic card set should be sub-$20).
didn't rationalise anything other than saying I expected, based on resent trends, a price increase didn't see one so hope that may continue that was all, seriously people put down the pitch forks...currently your extrapolation is the only thing I need rationalising?! Seriously i'm just going to stop replying to people miss quoting and people not discussing the game, good night dakka.
I know my local events are ramping up to get ready for 7th. There is going to be some crowd sourcing to get a bunch of questions answered before the tournament at the end of june.
Nothing planned here, would be fun though to hash out the new stuff over some games of it!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: didn't rationalise anything other than saying I expected, based on resent trends, a price increase didn't see one so hope that may continue that was all, seriously people put down the pitch forks...currently your extrapolation is the only thing I need rationalising?! Seriously i'm just going to stop replying to people miss quoting and people not discussing the game, good night dakka.
Don't let them bring you down man! Good posts BTW!
I for one am looking forward to seeing what the new rules bring.
Hopefully some of the rumors about the return of Melee are true. Wouldn't mind seeing mech get a bit of a buff since mech got nerfed pretty hard in the last edition.
The psychic phase…. well. Hopefully things don't go the way of fantasy and it just becomes a game of psyker on psyker and rolling ridiculous amounts of dice.
sennacherib wrote: I for one am looking forward to seeing what the new rules bring.
Hopefully some of the rumors about the return of Melee are true. Wouldn't mind seeing mech get a bit of a buff since mech got nerfed pretty hard in the last edition.
The psychic phase…. well. Hopefully things don't go the way of fantasy and it just becomes a game of psyker on psyker and rolling ridiculous amounts of dice.
D6+total combined Mastery Levels of all psykers from what the WD is saying worth of dice. That's more consistent than 8th edition Fantasy, but more random than 7th edition Fantasy.
Oh! I just had a speculative thought regarding Adamantium Will: free Deny the Witch die per unit with the rule. Either that or they'll each add +1 to your Deny the Witch rolls.
I'm just throwing out ideas, but it would go a long way for Sisters and Templars if either is true.
I would say +1 to deny the witch or I'm going to have a lot of vehicles with relic armor for adamantium will. (3pts a tank). Maybe they will FAQ it to add to the difficulty or something.
portugus wrote: I would say +1 to deny the witch or I'm going to have a lot of vehicles with relic armor for adamantium will. (3pts a tank). Maybe they will FAQ it to add to the difficulty or something.
A flat +1 for all Deny attempts just doesn't really make sense when they've put it on a fair number of models. I mean Templars and Sisters getting it as an army trait doesn't really pan out to me as a thing. But I'm just hypothesizing at this point.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.
Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?
People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.
You are getting a fair game. Instead of toning everything down, they're ramping everything up so that you have more opportunities to take a powerful list. If you want purely symetrical sides, well, that's Chess, and you can play it in that pen with all of the other people who don't grasp the fact that 40k has been an asymetrical game (where you can easily lose in the "Purchase Army Phase") for twenty years or so.
No riptides = autolose? News to me. I get your general point, in a "take whatever you want" environment those with the biggest and angriest toys are going to do best. The "perfect imbalance" idea doesn't really work in an unbound world because you just don't use the weak stuff in your codex. "10 Leman Russes" etc
Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.
Sigvatr wrote: Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.
"Grr! This thing that I only know part of the picture of is the worst thing ever!"
Just wait dude. Just wait.
Sigvatr wrote: Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.
40k existed before the FOC, and I'm sure there are ways to make it work, but what we know of it so far doesn't look promising.
Sigvatr wrote: Nothing works in an unbound world. Unbound is a joke and nothing more. Playing Unbound is not playing 40k, it's "Look, I can throw more money at GW!". Congratz to everyone winning that game.
40k existed before the FOC, and I'm sure there are ways to make it work, but what we know of it so far doesn't look promising.
Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.
Yeah, I meant there are probably ways for the rules designers to make it work, not "I'm sure there are ways to make "disregard the FOC" work as a competitive player", because, obviously
The unbound thing seems pretty silly to me, mind you i say that as someone who struggles ahead with csm, enduring loss after loss to riptides and knights. I suppose the flipside is i will literally be able to field and army of only heldrakes. Actually tell a lie, i will HAVE to field an army of heldrakes.
The problem with Unbound is that it's a trap. At first, it seems like it would open up a lot more army build possibilities.
That's not true, however. In the contrary, it's far more limiting as one would assume due to 40k's extremely poor balance. Good armies are good because of having a few good picks that really pull the army up. Since Unbound solely revolves around spamming those, the actual number of viable builds is extremely limited to what basically is "Spam your OP crap!".
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.
Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?
People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.
This isn't some impossible dream, nearly every one of the larger competitors offers this. You're correct in that it hasn't ever been 40K's strong point, but it is getting worse, and more concerning, rather than showing signs of correcting this, the process seems to be accelerating.
I'm not one of those pulling their hair out, condemning the new edition before we have any substantial knowledge of the changes, but I am holding on to a healthy dose of cynicism nonetheless. All you "everything is wonderful, everything is great, 40K is awesome" Lalas are getting on my tits almost as much as the rage-quitters. 40K can still be fun in the right circumstances, but to try and make out that there aren't some serious cracks being papered over by some very thin wallpaper, and that for the first time sales seem to be reflecting this - so it isn't the "vocal minority on the Internet" so much anymore, and that the game as it stands couldn't be vastly improved as an experience for both "casual" and "competitive" alike seems so disconnected from reality as to lead me to question anyone posting in this manner's sanity.
Agree that it could do with improvements, and for me unbound is an improvement. It lets me put more of the models I want to use on the table to make my army look like I want it to, which is much more important to me than balance. If I want balance I play something else. Maybe you should too?
Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound.
I'll ignore the vitriol and personal slights, you're clearly angry
Upset about being told you're insane, but quite happy to put forward this point
"Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound."
Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound.
I do think it will be made worse by unbound. The way it appears to be right now those players you mention will have more room within the rules to abuse stuff than they had before, so list-makers that were abusive before will only get more abusive after 7th edition while "normal" lists will stay more or less the same. The gap could potentially be much larger.
What it will likely come down to though is people having to go through more of an effort to decide beforehand what everybody brings to the table in casual games. If you create an unbound list that is thematic and clearly not intended to be abusive everything should indeed be fine. Players wanting to use abusive unbound lists will either end up playing eachother or they end up at home staring at their models because nobody wants to play against them.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I'm excited, love the idea of unbound armies, looking forward to 7th.
Agreed! 40k is about creativity, play and community, its not some super competitive teeth gritting chess game...never has been never will be. Shame faceless negativity rules the roost online, no offence to people taking a dislike to things everyone's entitled to there own opinions and tastes but it seems get way to out of hand around here at times.
Seriously, is there a holding pen where you lot get trained before being released to have the same conversation one after fething one?
People aren't after 40K becoming Chess, what people want is a fair game, where your choices of army, or those made in list building, don't render you liable to near certain defeat before a die is rolled, or susceptible to accusations of being TFG, for player input at table side to matter more than unit choice.
This isn't some impossible dream, nearly every one of the larger competitors offers this. You're correct in that it hasn't ever been 40K's strong point, but it is getting worse, and more concerning, rather than showing signs of correcting this, the process seems to be accelerating.
I'm not one of those pulling their hair out, condemning the new edition before we have any substantial knowledge of the changes, but I am holding on to a healthy dose of cynicism nonetheless. All you "everything is wonderful, everything is great, 40K is awesome" Lalas are getting on my tits almost as much as the rage-quitters. 40K can still be fun in the right circumstances, but to try and make out that there aren't some serious cracks being papered over by some very thin wallpaper, and that for the first time sales seem to be reflecting this - so it isn't the "vocal minority on the Internet" so much anymore, and that the game as it stands couldn't be vastly improved as an experience for both "casual" and "competitive" alike seems so disconnected from reality as to lead me to question anyone posting in this manner's sanity.
Agree that it could do with improvements, and for me unbound is an improvement. It lets me put more of the models I want to use on the table to make my army look like I want it to, which is much more important to me than balance. If I want balance I play something else. Maybe you should too?
Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound.
I'll ignore the vitriol and personal slights, you're clearly angry
Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you
Bull0 wrote: Upset about being told you're insane, but quite happy to put forward this point
"Problems are caused by the players who put their winning above everything else, including their opponent's enjoyment. That won't be made any worse by unbound."
Interesting.
Obviously I meant that there is a lot of room for abusive lists already. You can already take a 6 Heldrake, Typhus, Plague Zombie double FoC list at 2k points, or a 5 Riptide list. How will unbound make this worse? These people will still be around, but unbound gives greater opportunity for us fluffy list players to have more fun. Maybe I want to run a full Repentia Sisters army, or a Khorne list all in Landraiders. Now I can.
Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you
Actually what he said wasn't that well said at all and you could even say it is pretty ignorant.
What he said basically comes down to "if you don't agree with my personal opinion about what the rules of the game should be intended to be go play another game", which is funny because people disageeing with him could counter by saying the exact same thing and nobody would be "right" or "wrong".
Whether or not you want to call it balance or give it another name, to expect a game starting out with both sides being at an equal level of advantage, is a rather reasonable expectation.
Whether or not you want to call it balance or give it another name, to expect a game starting out with both sides being at an equal level of advantage, is a rather reasonable expectation.
Yes. And millions, if not billions of games already do just that.
There is also nothing reprehensible about a game trying something different once in a while.
It's an argument often brought up and it's an argument that cannot stand on its own feet.
First of all, if you wanted to build a fluffy list to play with friends in 6th - what stopped you from doing so? Communicate with your opponents before the game and ask if it's possible. Do you really need to buy a 100$ rulebook to tell you that this is possible?
Secondly: abuse has happened and will happen and with 7th, it's official. Clearly, Unbound is a joke mode, similar to what many MOBA games have, where everyone knows they're not playing a serious match.
Thirdly: Yes, you can bring a 5 Riptide list. With Unbound, you can bring 10. Or a game with one side bringing 300+ models. Fun, 1 hour per turn. It's a typical argumebt brought up in many other contexts as well - "we already got so many of the bad, why not bring in more of the bad, it doesn't matter!". It's a very naive attitude that easily falls apart when having a closer look.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.
Or those of us who want to make a funny, if stupid, army. Big Mek Conclave with 6 SAGs and loads of kans and dredds? Mad Max style army with everything mounted on either bikes or buggies? an army entirely composed of dreadnaughts? Not everyone likes the idea of unbound because it allows us to make a really broken list, some of use just like the ability to make thematic, if vaguely silly, lists that don't obey the traditional FOC.
I know you're concerned about the competetive scene being broken by unbound, but if it turns out to be too broken they'll probably just ban unbound lists in competitions.
Sigvatr wrote: The problem with Unbound is that it's a trap. At first, it seems like it would open up a lot more army build possibilities.
That's not true, however. In the contrary, it's far more limiting as one would assume due to 40k's extremely poor balance. Good armies are good because of having a few good picks that really pull the army up. Since Unbound solely revolves around spamming those, the actual number of viable builds is extremely limited to what basically is "Spam your OP crap!".
Exactly. No one is talking about spamming Tactical Marines or spamming Nephilim Jetfighters. Everyone's talking about spamming Riptides and Heldrakes.
The other issue is, what are you going to do with your flamers or your plasma when somebody shows up with 6 Land Raiders and nothing else? It just devolves into stupid rock-paper-scissors garbage.
First of all, if you wanted to build a fluffy list to play with friends in 6th - what stopped you from doing so? Communicate with your opponents before the game and ask if it's possible. Do you really need to buy a 100$ rulebook to tell you that this is possible?
The widespread fallacy in the community that the rules are to be adhered to at all times.
Thirdly: Yes, you can bring a 5 Riptide list. With Unbound, you can bring 10. Or a game with one side bringing 300+ models. Fun, 1 hour per turn. It's a typical argumebt brought up in many other contexts as well - "we already got so many of the bad, why not bring in more of the bad, it doesn't matter!". It's a very naive attitude that easily falls apart when having a closer look.
Both are reprehensible, if no pre-communication happens.
The problem isn't jerks bringing 10 Riptides in "unbound", the problem is jerks who think they are allowed to bring 2 or 3 or 5 Riptides now, without pre-communication, as if they had a "right" to play that and because they claim it is somehow "legal", as if rules would somehow take precedence over the mutual enjoyment or override the need to find a shared consensus for every game between two people.
People have abused the FOC thus far as a sort of "entitlement" that everything that does not violate the FOC is fair game. Removing FOC removes this false entitlement, which should've never have existed in the first place.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.
Or those of us who want to make a funny, if stupid, army. Big Mek Conclave with 6 SAGs and loads of kans and dredds? Mad Max style army with everything mounted on either bikes or buggies? an army entirely composed of dreadnaughts? Not everyone likes the idea of unbound because it allows us to make a really broken list, some of use just like the ability to make thematic, if vaguely silly, lists that don't obey the traditional FOC.
I know you're concerned about the competetive scene being broken by unbound, but if it turns out to be too broken they'll probably just ban unbound lists in competitions.
The competitive scene is of no concern. First of all, it's a joke right now anyway in 6th with its horrible balance, but even then, comp would ban Outbound right in the spot. I worry about all players playing PUGs with players playing Unbound lists claiming "DUUUH LOOK AT ZE RULEZ ITS LEGAL TO BRING 11 RIPTIDES! LOL noob haha you get bonusses for playing Bound vs. Unbound LOLOL L2P!". Those people ruin the game.
Exactly the same thing happened with allies. Everyone in favor of them said: "Hey, cool, finally I can play CSM and Daemons in one army!" and what happened? Taudar. Every. fething. Where.
Unbound is blatantly catering to bad sportsmen in order to increase sales. Period.
Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you
Actually what he said wasn't that well said at all and you could even say it is pretty ignorant.
What he said basically comes down to "if you don't agree with my personal opinion about what the rules of the game should be intended to be go play another game", which is funny because people disageeing with him could counter by saying the exact same thing and nobody would be "right" or "wrong".
Whether or not you want to call it balance or give it another name, to expect a game starting out with both sides being at an equal level of advantage, is a rather reasonable expectation.
Not my opinion about the rules of the game, it's the opinion of the games developers, and with unbound, opinion doesn't matter as it's the rules. Yes you can choose to ignore the rules, which is an interesting approach to TT wargaming. I wonder if those that have already stated they will refuse to play against an unbound list ignore the rules in all of the games they play, or just 40k?
What's more elitist, me suggesting that those who are unhappy play a different game, or those who are unhappy forcing others to play the game the way they want it to be played by refusing to accept rules changes or pretending the stuff they don't like doesn't exist?
Sorry 40k isn't going in the direction you want, but if you didn't know this was the way it was heading then you've been living in a cave. Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception. If this bothers you so much then there's lots of other options where balance is considered important [I've started playing X-Wing and have an Infinity starter set on the way, not because I particularly care about balance, but I fancy trying some other stuff].
The Division Of Joy wrote: Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you
If someone is getting PMs from Mods, it's because a response was inappropriate, not because someone disagreed with someone else's opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: How do you know it is the "right way", if nobody ever tried differently?
Uh, if a game is built to be unfair, it's kind of inherently not a fair game...
Sigvatr wrote: Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.
Or those of us who want to make a funny, if stupid, army. Big Mek Conclave with 6 SAGs and loads of kans and dredds? Mad Max style army with everything mounted on either bikes or buggies? an army entirely composed of dreadnaughts?
Not everyone likes the idea of unbound because it allows us to make a really broken list, some of use just like the ability to make thematic, if vaguely silly, lists that don't obey the traditional FOC.
I know you're concerned about the competetive scene being broken by unbound, but if it turns out to be too broken they'll probably just ban unbound lists in competitions.
The competitive scene is of no concern. First of all, it's a joke right now anyway in 6th with its horrible balance, but even then, comp would ban Outbound right in the spot. I worry about all players playing PUGs with players playing Unbound lists claiming "DUUUH LOOK AT ZE RULEZ ITS LEGAL TO BRING 11 RIPTIDES! LOL noob haha you get bonusses for playing Bound vs. Unbound LOLOL L2P!". Those people ruin the game.
Exactly the same thing happened with allies. Everyone in favor of them said: "Hey, cool, finally I can play CSM and Daemons in one army!" and what happened? Taudar. Every. fething. Where.
Unbound is blatantly catering to bad sportsmen in order to increase sales. Period.
I don't believe it is. I think it's assuming people are going to play with some sportsmanship and not just to win. It has nothing to do with catering to bad sportsmanship IMO. Playing games in stores or against people they don't know is very uncommon in the UK, so most of the designers will never have done it, or know people who have. The nearest we get is playing in clubs, where everyone is a member and has some investment in being a good sport and playing fairly. The TFGs and WAACs get a bad name and have problems getting a game. I think it's as simple as that. Pick up games have just not been thought about.
Uh, if a game is built to be unfair, it's kind of inherently not a fair game...
True.
Fairness and balance in a competitive sense are clearly not design goals 40K tries to achieve.
The whole idea of "fair" is already grounded in an "adversarial" logic of people playing against each other (with no "unfair" advantages or disadvantages), which is not applicable to 40K, where people are encouraged to play with each other to create narratives.
Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.
If that is how both you and your opponent enjoy it, great.
So, last night someone from The Overlords Podcast group on Facebook posted these tidbits. Hopefully they don't mind if they're posted elsewhere. There's some interesting things to chew on here.
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --
Pox Apostle wrote: So, last night someone from The Overlords Podcast group on Facebook posted these tidbits. Hopefully they don't mind if they're posted elsewhere. There's some interesting things to chew on here.
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --
Honestly I have found that the alternate missions in 6th really help balance out a lot of the issues.
What makes those broken armies broken is that they are able to exploit mission win parameters either by not playing the game or basically just being able to ignore the objectives.
Just by changing the win conditions minorly a crap ton of alternate armies can do quite well and a lot of the power builds start to fall apart.
I used to be in the broken camp, but now that I actually learned the rules and how to play, as well as trying these alternate missions it is a much better game and I am not having any problems with anything. There is no army that I dont feel like I could hold my own against and reasonably beat.
As long as I am not bringing a terrible list that is. Bad lists are
In competitive play there will be restrictions on what is allowed as there have been all edition. In casual play, just bring two lists. Bound and unbound, hell I always have 3-4 lists ready to go that I want to play. If you cant pre-arrange a game then show up ready to rumble. That is assuming that your club just don't make a gentleman's agreement. And I used to take two armies on the bus, it was a hassle but I made it work.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Not my opinion about the rules of the game, it's the opinion of the games developers, and with unbound, opinion doesn't matter as it's the rules. Yes you can choose to ignore the rules, which is an interesting approach to TT wargaming. I wonder if those that have already stated they will refuse to play against an unbound list ignore the rules in all of the games they play, or just 40k?
What's more elitist, me suggesting that those who are unhappy play a different game, or those who are unhappy forcing others to play the game the way they want it to be played by refusing to accept rules changes or pretending the stuff they don't like doesn't exist?
Sorry 40k isn't going in the direction you want, but if you didn't know this was the way it was heading then you've been living in a cave. Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception. If this bothers you so much then there's lots of other options where balance is considered important [I've started playing X-Wing and have an Infinity starter set on the way, not because I particularly care about balance, but I fancy trying some other stuff].
So you're saying that my choosing NOT to play against an unbound list is cheating? Lmao.
Let us go with this scenario: I show up at the FLGS, and a guy asks if I want a game. Instead of saying sure and throwing my army on the table, I instead ask "What are you playing?" "18 riptides and a squad of gretchin*." the douche says. Let's pretend that you're said douche**. When I look across the unsetup table at you, and decide that my time would be better spent doing anything else but catering to a feminine hygiene product, it is not in fact cheating. The only person cheated here would be me: as I was given the entirely false impression of the potential for an enjoyable game against an entertaining opponent***.
* These gretchin have been trained to the lofty standards of SM Techmarines, but are far cheaper to employ to maintain the Riptide Mengerie.
** This wouldn't actually happen, as you reside in England (and are probably not a douche) and I do not.
*** Feminine hygiene products do not make entertaining opponents. They're only good for removing unseemly smells and giving that "Fresh feeling".****
**** Not guaranteed.
I like the idea of splitting the book into separate rules and fluffart, so I can buy the rules by themselves. I have been asking for this for a couple of years. Hopefully the codexes may head down the same road.
I didnt realise 6e was only 2 years old. I thought it came out just about 3 years ago now and so was heading into its 4th year. If it really is only 2 years old that sucks even more going forward.
Also last night i had a dream about buying some dark elves and going back to fantasy which was wierd
Zweischneid wrote:
Fairness and balance in a competitive sense are clearly not design goals 40K tries to achieve.
The whole idea of "fair" is already grounded in an "adversarial" logic of people playing against each other (with no "unfair" advantages or disadvantages), which is not applicable to 40K, where people are encouraged to play with each other to create narratives.
Bullgak, This "forge a narrative" crap is a 6th ed only design concept that was instituted to promote sales. It broke the game by creating the contradictory philosophy of where a war game isn't supposed to have competing sides.
You allude to that the game is not supposed to be adversarial, yet the game from its beginning was supposed to be a futuristic "wargame".
Wargames by nature are adversarial.
I don't understand how some fail to realize that playing against someone competitively is still playing "with" the other person. It just requires the lost art of "sportsmanship".
One of the reasons why I got into 40k was that it was one of the last places where you could regularly get together with friends or strangers for a gentlemanly game.
Imo, the problem with current 40k is that GW sacrificed structure and stability in order to be a game of everything to everyone. That it has turned into a huge formless pile of .....rules... in a effort to create a system for each and every little "snowflake".
Now some might argue the role-playing aspect, at which I would point out that you already have Necromunda. Also, role-players will change/modify the system whenever they want to modify the story progression. So a detailed step by step ruleset catering to the "narrative forgers" is pretty much pointless.
You see, a ruleset is supposed to provide a solid support framework from which players can base their games. A solid framework does not stifle creativity, it just provides the starting point from which one can either build or jump off.
Playing a weak ruleset lacking structure is like building a skyscraper without a foundation or bungee jumping without anchoring your line.
40k is also suffering from rules bloat. GW in its efforts to micromanage how their product is played has simultaneously loaded more rules on the structure that they have been weakening.
I have been hoping for a streamlined system, sounds like GW is doubling down on the bloated mess that killed fantasy and has been killing 40k for the past 2 years.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in | unsurprising given rumours of Orks vs BA starter that assault would get a buff. I like that this is back. 2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game | seems fair - on that psyker or on any psyker I wonder? 3. Every unit including vehicles will now score | massive game changer, no reason to take troops other than for mandatory BFFOC, big vehicle buff 4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives | not going to be enough by itself, as the unbound cheese will be going for the table 5. Lords of war are in | of course, sell moar big shootas 6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now | meh 7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more. | moar vehicle buff 8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book. | 9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches | hmm... 10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly
1. Good - if overwatch also applies
2. Depends on how OP (or not) the "magic phase is and thats is not another way of shafting nids
3. Hmm, I liekd troops and specificed units actually being important - so bad
4. Huh?
5. Hmm, not sure.
6. Ok Stronghold is ok - Esculation has issues (as with most GW stuff) with points costs.
7. hmm, maybe ok - as long as they are not too hard to kill but then it might balance walkers in particular with the Monsterous Creatures better
8. ok
9. hmm ok, simplier I guess
10. I was fine for most as is...........
11. Could be ok - needs sorting out.
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --
If true, most of these make me a sad panda. Particularly #4 as it would allude to Unbound armies can in fact face off against Battle-Forged armies.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.
If that is how both you and your opponent enjoy it, great.
It was sarcasm -- sorry for the lack of smiley.
The implicit point is that in a game that has a winner, balance is important. If you just want to forge a narrative, there are hundreds of books out there telling you how to write stories. If I want to write a story, that's what I'll do; if I play a game, it's because I want to play a game.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.
If that is how both you and your opponent enjoy it, great.
It was sarcasm -- sorry for the lack of smiley.
The implicit point is that in a game that has a winner, balance is important. If you just want to forge a narrative, there are hundreds of books out there telling you how to write stories. If I want to write a story, that's what I'll do; if I play a game, it's because I want to play a game.
I know it was meant to be sarcasm. But the point remains. If both you and your opponent have fun that way, who gives a gak about the rest?
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --
number 1 makes me a very happy chappy indeed.
though if 2 is true it seems they are giving psychic powers a good thrashing with the nerfbat - serves those filthy witches right
quite happy for tougher vehicles (so long as they're not op) might make rhinos a bit more viable and less of a first blood throwaway.
I know it was meant to be sarcasm. But the point remains. If both you and your opponent have fun that way, who gives a gak about the rest?
My point remains that a balanced, well-written, easy to understand, easy to play game, with tactical and strategic depth, is best for having fun, for the most people. Because it's much easier to throw out the various restrictions that are in there for balance, if you want more of a narrative forgery, than it is to add a bunch of restrictions that try to balance a game that hasn't been designed with any particular purpose.
If our starting point is, "let's play a game", rather than just "let's play", then by definition, balanced rules help.
If our starting point is just "let's play", the rules are irrelevant.
Ian Sturrock wrote: . Because it's much easier to throw out the various restrictions that are in there for balance, if you want more of a narrative forgery, than it is to add a bunch of restrictions that try to balance a game that hasn't been designed with any particular purpose.
If our starting point is, "let's play a game", rather than just "let's play", then by definition, balanced rules help.
If our starting point is just "let's play", the rules are irrelevant.
If that were true, why has it been so difficult, historically, to get people to relax on the rules. Hell, on these very forums, people were scorned and scolded as "cheaters" or worse over minor banalities like a few points extra or an "illegal" weapon on a miniature.
Even with "unbound" revealed, plenty of people continue to agitate against unbound, now that it actually is in the rulebook. Imagine how much harder it was to do it before it was in the rulebook.
My experience remains the opposite. Adding restrictions is an infinitely easy task. It might take 5 minutes longer than "removing" restriction on the "mechanical" side of things, but literally years less in convincing people on the "social" side of things.
I don't think that massive, ponderous, stream of consciousness post means what you think it does.
You're entitled to be interested, moron was your word, not mine.
If you're really not concerned for what a new edition a mere, and unprecedented, 2 years on from the last is going to do to the game in order to try and wring more cash out of the player base, then you're really not fully aware of the situation.
This is pointless off topic couldn't we have continued about the allies matrix, well I guess your welcome to spin your condescension how ever you feel fit but please I'm well aware of the for mentioned 'situation' I'm just not sure I feel the gravity well imploding upon me that apparently is the deep dark depths of GWs corporate depravity, seriously some people act like this isn't your average business... GW is no Pharmo/chemo/massmarket/sweatshop/fastfood/conglomo/corporate/conspiracy to drain/wreak/havok/money/hate on the customer till bankruptcy, seriously look out the window our happy little world of business is not the gallant western metropolis its supposed to be, if half the people on dakka turned the same tongue on the rest of their consumer purchasing power maybe the world would be a better place and there would be less GW's out there...
Ah, I see you've taken delivery of the "use hyperbole in order to try and misrepresent other's arguments" module in this oh so predictable exchange.
Within the context of wargaming, GW is exactly the sort of large business you mention, with a large amount of power which, of not wielded responsibly, has the capacity to do damage outside of it's own limits. For many people, because of it's ubiquity, GW/40K IS wargaming, whether they like it or not, and actions they take can feel very personal if they are to the detriment of those affected by them.
In a global sense, GW and Dakka are both tiny, bordering in the insignificant, but we aren't talking about the global markets, we are talking, specifically, about the potential for a new edition to be very damaging to people's enjoyment of their hobby, and in that sense, both GW and Dakka garner a lot more significance.
ps I live in devon too so after all the kafuffle has blown over maybe ill see you in a couple of months happy as lary playing 7th ed aih, (till then here's something your fond of) .
Unlikely, because unless that's your way of telling me you know me IRL, I sure as hell won't be travelling too far to play games or participate in tournaments.
You're right in that I'll likely be playing 7th, unless GW feth it up beyond the worst nightmares of even the most negative poster, and I'll probably enjoy most games I play too, but that's largely down to the people who attend my local club and the social side of things, plus a generally good attitude when it comes to not abusing the worst excesses of the rules.
It won't mean I'll be blind to those excesses, and I won't have sympathy for those who aren't lucky enough to play in such an environment.
Ian Sturrock wrote: . Because it's much easier to throw out the various restrictions that are in there for balance, if you want more of a narrative forgery, than it is to add a bunch of restrictions that try to balance a game that hasn't been designed with any particular purpose.
If our starting point is, "let's play a game", rather than just "let's play", then by definition, balanced rules help.
If our starting point is just "let's play", the rules are irrelevant.
If that were true, why has it been so difficult, historically, to get people to relax on the rules. Hell, on these very forums, people were scorned and scolded as "cheaters" or worse over minor banalities like a few points extra or an "illegal" weapon on a miniature.
Even with "unbound" revealed, plenty of people continue to agitate against unbound, now that it actually is in the rulebook. Imagine how much harder it was to do it before it was in the rulebook.
My experience remains the opposite. Adding restrictions is an infinitely easy task. It might take 5 minutes longer than "removing" restriction on the "mechanical" side of things, but literally years less in convincing people on the "social" side of things.
I seem to remember, the last time you were banging your "balance is for wimps" drum in a thread over in 40K discussions (that's right folks, Zwei tries to drag any thread he can onto this topic) I asked you for, alongside a specific rebuttal for how a poor unit is actually good for the game, for a brief overview of how you play the game. As you seem quite adamant that those of us that try and stick within the rules as much as possible without our heads exploding are somehow doing it 'wrong,' I'm curious as to how you play the game 'right.'
You never did answer, which I'm sure was just an oversight on your part, because I'm sure you'd never dream of ignoring a question you didn't have a good answer to, or giving an answer that didn't in fact address the question asked.....
Ian Sturrock wrote: . Because it's much easier to throw out the various restrictions that are in there for balance, if you want more of a narrative forgery, than it is to add a bunch of restrictions that try to balance a game that hasn't been designed with any particular purpose.
If our starting point is, "let's play a game", rather than just "let's play", then by definition, balanced rules help.
If our starting point is just "let's play", the rules are irrelevant.
If that were true, why has it been so difficult, historically, to get people to relax on the rules. Hell, on these very forums, people were scorned and scolded as "cheaters" or worse over minor banalities like a few points extra or an "illegal" weapon on a miniature.
Even with "unbound" revealed, plenty of people continue to agitate against unbound, now that it actually is in the rulebook. Imagine how much harder it was to do it before it was in the rulebook.
My experience remains the opposite. Adding restrictions is an infinitely easy task. It might take 5 minutes longer than "removing" restriction on the "mechanical" side of things, but literally years less in convincing people on the "social" side of things.
And my experience is the opposite of yours.
It has never been hard to get people to play a "relaxed" game. You just had to get to know them and ask nicely. You know, use proper social skills.
Only people that had a hard time were those that insisted that their opponents "had" to play a "relaxed" game. You know, those who are not being considerate of the other persons reasons for playing or enjoying the game.
My experience has been that often, those who were wanting a game that required a "relaxing" of the rules were either the waac overcompetitive types looking to blast someone with their new power combo OR a fluffy bunny that has a scripted battle in mind that doesn't allow for outside input from either the dice or the other player.
Neither of these is fun for the player being asked to relax the rules. Imo, catering to this mindset is killing the playerbase.
GW needs to give us a solid, tight and streamlined ruleset. Then let those who "demand" a highly personalized game create house rules by which "they" and "their friends" play by.
I think the best argument against GWs current game philosophy is that since its implementation in 8th ed Fantasy and 6th ed 40k, the player base has voted with their wallets to not support this mess.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Not my opinion about the rules of the game, it's the opinion of the games developers, and with unbound, opinion doesn't matter as it's the rules. Yes you can choose to ignore the rules, which is an interesting approach to TT wargaming. I wonder if those that have already stated they will refuse to play against an unbound list ignore the rules in all of the games they play, or just 40k?
What's more elitist, me suggesting that those who are unhappy play a different game, or those who are unhappy forcing others to play the game the way they want it to be played by refusing to accept rules changes or pretending the stuff they don't like doesn't exist?
Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception.
It clearly is your opinion and it was stated as such, so don't suddenly pretend otherwise. Please show us a statement made by the games' delevoper saying it is the opinion of the games' developer to willfully not have a balanced game? As you damn well know there is no such thing. It is the interpretation you intentionally choose to give to it, and it is pretty ignorant.
GW fully presents 40K to have a core rules set theoretically leading to a game where both parties start at equal footing, and always has. They are just doing a very bad & lazy job at it and when in their mind it comes to opportunities to make more moneyz everything else takes a backseat. As bad as that may be it still isn't the same thing as intentionally having an unbalanced game system.
And yes, people can indeed choose to ignore certain rules, just like they can choose to ignore certain intentionally ignorant people btw. That is a quite lovely freedom we all have. If GW put a rule in their book saying that instead of rolling a dice both players can make a turd on the floor next to the gaming table and the biggest most steamy one wins then I guess "Tyrannosaurus, the indoctrinator of youths" will be the first one dropping his pants on the ground. Because opinion doesn't matter and it is in the rules, right? God forbid that someone who is invested in a game has an opinion about the quality and continuity of said game. We should all kneel to whatever they concoct next without question. Either that or we should simply play another game. You are exactly the sheeple Tom Kirby is looking for
So to answer your question, it is you who is being more elitist, although I am not sure if that is the best word to describe the attitude being displayed.
I think the best argument against GWs current game philosophy is that since its implementation in 8th ed Fantasy and 6th ed 40k, the player base has voted with their wallets to not support this mess.
Than let it be so.
I for one came back to 6th (well, late 5th) because I enjoyed it more the previous editions, which have mostly left me cold since 3rd Edition tried to unnecessarily formalize the game (IMO).
If the players who like and applaud GW's current direction are indeed a minority too small to support the game, than so be it. For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, more than any other game out there, and many other players do to. I look forward to them dropping the FoC (partly). And if it works, I hope they'll drop point values and similar things in future editions too.
TBD wrote: If GW put a rule in their book saying that instead of rolling a dice both players can make a turd on the floor next to the gaming table and the biggest most steamy one wins then I guess "Tyrannosaurus, the indoctrinator of youths" will be the first one dropping his pants on the ground.
Well, that will certainly shake the game up and take it in an interesting direction...
Zweischneid wrote: I know it was meant to be sarcasm. But the point remains. If both you and your opponent have fun that way, who gives a gak about the rest?
If that's how you have fun who gives a gak about rules in the first place? How would their enjoyment be changed by having a different rule set?
Zweischneid wrote: I know it was meant to be sarcasm. But the point remains. If both you and your opponent have fun that way, who gives a gak about the rest?
If that's how you have fun who gives a gak about rules in the first place? How would their enjoyment be changed by having a different rule set?
How would their enjoyment be impaired by opening up the rules for new options that they won't use anyhow (though other people might)?
Nobody is denying them their style of gaming. But they are denying other people the ability to game in ways they personally don't enjoy, which seems unnecessarily egocentric to me.
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in - A rumor that's come up before. Not impossible but I don't know how true it is either.
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game - I assume this doesn't apply to powers you fail to manifest because they're denied, and only applies to the powers you fail to manifest because you roll too low. Sounds kind of harsh honestly.
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score -This feels like a step back to me, assuming it's true. One of the great points about 6th was how it made troops more important to the army by making them scoring.
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives So the table approach is their only way to win in Eternal War missions? I dunno...this seems off to me.
5. Lords of war are in Wouldn't surprise me
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now I don't see reasons for them to change, especially since they're still selling the book
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more. Hull points, not the chart is what makes vehicles so easy to kill
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book. We've gotten this rumor before actually. It's one of the few I hope is true
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches For charging or just movement in general?
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how. That happens every edition though, so I'm not sure if this is a "rumor" or just a safe guess
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --I hope they use the Heresy alternate rules instead. Making them Roll to Wound would be great
Bullgak, This "forge a narrative" crap is a 6th ed only design concept that was instituted to promote sales. It broke the game by creating the contradictory philosophy of where a war game isn't supposed to have competing sides.
Exactly. Just like "unbound" is nothing more than what many consider the latest cheap ploy to sell more models at the expense of the quality of the game.
I think the best argument against GWs current game philosophy is that since its implementation in 8th ed Fantasy and 6th ed 40k, the player base has voted with their wallets to not support this mess.
Than let it be so.
I for one came back to 6th (well, late 5th) because I enjoyed it more the previous editions, which have mostly left me cold since 3rd Edition tried to unnecessarily formalize the game (IMO).
If the players who like and applaud GW's current direction are indeed a minority too small to support the game, than so be it. For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, more than any other game out there, and many other players do to.
So better the game dies because of what you and a few want rather than accepting or compromising with what most players are looking for. Brilliant,
You realize, that you are providing proof of my anecdotal experiences with the "must play relaxed rules " players.
Also, there are many games with great narratives. You might want to qualify the GWs "worlds best narrative" with an "in your opinion".
That is because, imo, there are many non-competitive games with superior narratives. See how that works.
Imo, the best stories are not spoon fed to you by some corporation, they are the ones you and your mates create together(either role-playing or in real life. )
Now if "you" feel that 40k has the best narrative because it is a story "you" and "your" friends have developed, then it is "you" who have created what "you" feel is the best narrative...not GW.
Zweischneid wrote: For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, more than any other game out there, and many other players do to. I look forward to them dropping the FoC (partly).
Lol, no. 40k is NOT a good narrative game. GW have just performed a miracle of marketing and convinced you that "poor game design" means "better at narrative play", even when the game's flaws directly interfere with having a good narrative game. People like you are so stubbornly afraid of being one of those evil "competitive" players that you've completely lost sight of the fact that a good narrative game is more than just a game that is bad for competitive play.
And if it works, I hope they'll drop point values and similar things in future editions too.
Yeah, wouldn't that be great. We could get rid of any pretense of having a game that you can just sit down and play, and have "narrative" battles where one side slaughters the other without any chance of failure because nobody knows how to figure out two balanced forces without point values. In fact, why not remove the rules entirely? Just buy a bunch of Games™ Workshop™ Products™ and talk to your opponent about how awesome your Citadel™ Space™ Marines™ are. And then buy more stuff, because that's the best part of the Hobby™.
Please show us a statement made by the games' delevoper saying it is the opinion of the games' developer to willfully not have a balanced game? As you damn well know there is no such thing. It is the interpretation you intentionally choose to give to it, and it is pretty ignorant.
GW fully presents 40K to have a core rules set theoretically leading to a game where both parties start at equal footing, and always has. They are just doing a very bad & lazy job at it and when in their mind it comes to opportunities to make more moneyz everything else takes a backseat. As bad as that may be it still isn't the same thing as intentionally having an unbalanced game system.
actually the game was originally developed to basically need a referee to run, with no real thought about balance, and with players playing to 'have fun' and sit down to chat about who had actually won at the end (so no cut and dried results)
although since it began 40K has moved more towards a balanced, win/loose style game but it certainly has never got their completely, and now it seems to be swinging back towards it's roots
this will cause problems for the more 'tournament' and 'pickup game with strangers' players (which are probably the minority of players, but the majority of the strongly active users of 40K websites like Dakka)
but should actually improve things for those playing with people they know in a very casual way
It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.
Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
Secondly, if they try to play games with such OP spamming, they'll find few others with the same mindset - while the majority will want to play Battle-forged armies or thematic Unbound ones. Within months, Unbound armies spamming OP models will dwindle and remain isolated in this or that FLGS.
Thirdly, you can simply say you're not interested in playing Unbound/Unbound OP-spam games. People will flock to Battle-forged, because it's a. similar to how the game was played in 6th, b. it will have bonuses and c. it has some shadow of balance.
All this doomsaying about Unbound has little value until we see the rules as they are. Quitting the game because you think there will be HUNDREDS of players spamming OP models is quite naive.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Not my opinion about the rules of the game, it's the opinion of the games developers, and with unbound, opinion doesn't matter as it's the rules. Yes you can choose to ignore the rules, which is an interesting approach to TT wargaming. I wonder if those that have already stated they will refuse to play against an unbound list ignore the rules in all of the games they play, or just 40k?
What's more elitist, me suggesting that those who are unhappy play a different game, or those who are unhappy forcing others to play the game the way they want it to be played by refusing to accept rules changes or pretending the stuff they don't like doesn't exist?
Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception.
It clearly is your opinion and it was stated as such, so don't suddenly pretend otherwise. Please show us a statement made by the games' delevoper saying it is the opinion of the games' developer to willfully not have a balanced game? As you damn well know there is no such thing. It is the interpretation you intentionally choose to give to it, and it is pretty ignorant.
GW fully presents 40K to have a core rules set theoretically leading to a game where both parties start at equal footing, and always has. They are just doing a very bad & lazy job at it and when in their mind it comes to opportunities to make more moneyz everything else takes a backseat. As bad as that may be it still isn't the same thing as intentionally having an unbalanced game system.
And yes, people can indeed choose to ignore certain rules, just like they can choose to ignore certain intentionally ignorant people btw. That is a quite lovely freedom we all have. If GW put a rule in their book saying that instead of rolling a dice both players can make a turd on the floor next to the gaming table and the biggest most steamy one wins then I guess "Tyrannosaurus, the indoctrinator of youths" will be the first one dropping his pants on the ground. Because opinion doesn't matter and it is in the rules, right? God forbid that someone who is invested in a game has an opinion about the quality and continuity of said game. We should all kneel to whatever they concoct next without question. Either that or we should simply play another game. You are exactly the sheeple Tom Kirby is looking for
So to answer your question, it is you who is being more elitist, although I am not sure if that is the best word to describe the attitude being displayed.
You want me to provide evidence that GW games developers aren't interested in balance? I thought this was glaringly obvious, but I'll indulge you.The fact that they are allowing unbound armies, all of the batreps in White Dwarf that ignore the FoC, numerous comments made by senior GW games developers such as Jervis Johnson, the 'Forge the Narrative' boxes in the BRB, Escalation supplement, Imperial Knights, most of the codexes, numerous random tables etc. etc. etc. I'm in favour of the majority of this.
I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion, even though you seem unable to make it without personal attacks. Interesting that again you call me ignorant despite you being the one that feels it is appropriate to ignore rules, refuses to accept the facts about the direction the game is heading in, and seems to have limited knowledge of the history of a game that has never been balanced.
Again, if you are so unhappy with the game, move along.
Vector Strike wrote: It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.
Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
Secondly, if they try to play games with such OP spamming, they'll find few others with the same mindset - while the majority will want to play Battle-forged armies or thematic Unbound ones. Within months, Unbound armies spamming OP models will dwindle and remain isolated in this or that FLGS.
Thirdly, you can simply say you're not interested in playing Unbound/Unbound OP-spam games. People will flock to Battle-forged, because it's a. similar to how the game was played in 6th, b. it will have bonuses and c. it has some shadow of balance.
All this doomsaying about Unbound has little value until we see the rules as they are. Quitting the game because you think there will be HUNDREDS of players spamming OP models is quite naive.
I think you've nailed it there, this has been the general consensus around my group too.
Spoletta wrote: Sorry for the ignorance but i w4asn't around at the time. How did you consolidate in 4ed?
You could use your consolidation move to lock an enemy unit into close combat. Therefore saving your unit from a turn of shooting.
Remember that with my IG army used to absolutely hate it, as soon as the Nids got into combat that was it - would just roll up my line chomping as they went, and you'd end up with all of your miniatures squashed into one corner desperately trying to stay out of charge range
I guess nowadays I would just plonk 3 Riptides down.
Pacific wrote: Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.
I suspect people feel entitled to get a good game because they've invested hundreds to thousands of dollars into the minis. While there was never any "fun balanced game" guarantee sold along with the minis, it was a reasonable expectation on the part of fans and a good business practice on the part of a tabletop game manufacturer. I have around 20,000pts of fully painted and based 40k minis so just switching to another game and translating all that is a hassle. So is selling it off. I absolutely have a vested interest in GW not putting out an unbalanced Apoc wannabe mess as the "default" game I encounter in my monthly FLGS trip. If you break it, people will use it. Saying that people won't spam a broken unit due to cost is ridiculous as not everyone's primary limiting factor is money. The vendetta was undercosted last edition (as well as a really cool model) and plenty of people spammed a half dozen of that $60 kit simply because they could both locally and in the wider 40k hobby judging from tourny army pics during 5th edition.
Spoletta wrote: Sorry for the ignorance but i w4asn't around at the time. How did you consolidate in 4ed?
You could use your consolidation move to lock an enemy unit into close combat. Therefore saving your unit from a turn of shooting.
This seems quite invaluable and a massive change. Hope it happens.
I hated this rule. Please no...
I think something needs to be (re)introduced to protect assault units from being gunned down once they've already run the gauntlet to make it into combat though.
Only a couple of weeks ago, I found myself trying to not win a combat with a Bloodthirster (through division of attacks, not smashing etc) so as to not have it receive the full firepower of three Waveserpents in the face the next turn.
Shandara wrote: It's pretty narrative to blast a Bloodthirster that's just slaughtered your friends though. Hit it while it's on the ground!
But it isn't very narrative for a Bloodthirster to try not to break his opponents "too much," nor is it narrative for the living incarnation of the God of War to fly 6ft up the table, we were playing lengthways, hit a squad of Dire Avengers and their transport, and just stop with all their friends within easy reach.
Being a Guard player I also hated this rule, I've got bad memories of Baharoth eating his way through half of my Guard army more or less by himself on more than one occasion. That said, with blob squads and a few other things I think the Guard has rather less to fear from this rule than it did back then.
its something that has always bugged me about assault, where if you wipe out a unit then charge towards the next squad in the consolidation phase, but having to make sure you stop just in front of that squad, as if it say. no please take a shot at my face old chap. obviously the squad being charged would get to make its overwatch - as again its fluffy and make sense.
The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.
Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.
Was 5th Edition balanced? Was 4th? I've got 20 year old White Dwarfs where Eldar were winning every tournament. In one WD the Chinese winner of the 40k world tournament [whatever it was called then] smashed up Phil Kelly with a spammy Eldar list. In a batrep from another WD of that time they played a game where an Edlar psyker turned into a deamon prince if it was killed, and any Eldar units went into ongoing reserves.
This loose attitude to balance and the ability to write OP lists if you want to has always been around, so I don't think it can be described as 'suddenly'.
If it's that bad, then models can be used with different rulesets, or there's Ebay. But complaining about lack of balance in 40k is as silly as me going onto Infinity or Warmachine forums and saying that they need to introduce giant robots with weapons that ignore cover and destroy everything on a 2 or more. Different games for different approaches, and to me, variety is a good thing.
azreal13 wrote:Really, Captain Avatar, just leave it.
This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"
You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n
Agreed
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
actually the game was originally developed to basically need a referee to run, with no real thought about balance, and with players playing to 'have fun' and sit down to chat about who had actually won at the end (so no cut and dried results).
I feel that you are either not really being fully forthright here or are not asking yourself why 1st ed was this way.
In the beginning, GW used the playerbase as a development tool for creating the 40k universe. Players created custom campaign/story arcs, played games to add narrative, recorded the results(wrote a battle report), submitted said report to White Dwarf or GW in hopes of being mentioned.
Some of said battle reports helped to form what is now the history of the 40k universe.
Since the end of 2nd ed, GW has not really looked to use these home made campaigns as a source for background material. Hence why GW moved to a more balanced game system in editions 3, 4 and 5.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:although since it began 40K has moved more towards a balanced, win/loose style game but it certainly has never got their completely, and now it seems to be swinging back towards it's roots
this will cause problems for the more 'tournament' and 'pickup game with strangers' players (which are probably the minority of players, but the majority of the strongly active users of 40K websites like Dakka)
Careful, your British is showing. I find it amusing that the cultural gap caused by America being an ocean away not only limits the world view of americans, but all you english as well.
You see, America is a major source of revenue for GW.
American is "not" a rather small island nation with country wide mass transit and a games store on every corner.
America is very much the home of pick-up games.
and
Americans are very much into fair "competitive" play.
So, pick up games and competitive games may truly be a minority in england,....in the U.S. They are much more the norm.
The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.
Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.
Was 5th Edition balanced? Was 4th? I've got 20 year old White Dwarfs where Eldar were winning every tournament. In one WD the Chinese winner of the 40k world tournament [whatever it was called then] smashed up Phil Kelly with a spammy Eldar list. In a batrep from another WD of that time they played a game where an Edlar psyker turned into a deamon prince if it was killed, and any Eldar units went into ongoing reserves.
This loose attitude to balance and the ability to write OP lists if you want to has always been around, so I don't think it can be described as 'suddenly'.
If it's that bad, then models can be used with different rulesets, or there's Ebay. But complaining about lack of balance in 40k is as silly as me going onto Infinity or Warmachine forums and saying that they need to introduce giant robots with weapons that ignore cover and destroy everything on a 2 or more. Different games for different approaches, and to me, variety is a good thing.
It isn't that it was ever good, it is the fact that it is getting worse, and, even more concerning, it seems deliberate.
Being a Guard player I also hated this rule, I've got bad memories of Baharoth eating his way through half of my Guard army more or less by himself on more than one occasion. That said, with blob squads and a few other things I think the Guard has rather less to fear from this rule than it did back then.
So space your units out more than 6" ?
Personally I hope its true. With 6th Edition favouring shooting armies, with Overwatch, Tau, Eldar and Imperial Guard, it'll be nice if Assault themed armies actually had a leg up again. My Raven Guard army of shotgun Scouts, Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans will certainly need it.
This would be bad, it would completely eliminate the purpose of troops (not to mention all those special rules/characters that turns something into troops/scoring.)
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in - A rumor that's come up before. Not impossible but I don't know how true it is either.
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game - I assume this doesn't apply to powers you fail to manifest because they're denied, and only applies to the powers you fail to manifest because you roll too low. Sounds kind of harsh honestly.
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score -This feels like a step back to me, assuming it's true. One of the great points about 6th was how it made troops more important to the army by making them scoring.
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives So the table approach is their only way to win in Eternal War missions? I dunno...this seems off to me.
5. Lords of war are in Wouldn't surprise me
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now I don't see reasons for them to change, especially since they're still selling the book
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more. Hull points, not the chart is what makes vehicles so easy to kill
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book. We've gotten this rumor before actually. It's one of the few I hope is true
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches For charging or just movement in general?
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how. That happens every edition though, so I'm not sure if this is a "rumor" or just a safe guess
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --I hope they use the Heresy alternate rules instead. Making them Roll to Wound would be great
Responses in yellow.
(only now I saw this) I agree with your opinions, Zion. The one I like the most is the change to vehicles' table - still not the fix they need, but helps nonetheless.
Hope the psyker stuff does not include Force Weapons.
The book being separated in 3... don't think so. They'd sell a lot of rules and very few of the others.
I think the actual Wound allocation is nice enough.
I like Heresy-era D weapons optional rule as well.
Again, if you are so unhappy with the game, move along.
The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.
Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.
Pacific- could you please edit this post to show who said this. The way you edited it makes it seem like I am saying to move along if someone doesn't like it.
Consolidating into another combat... well, my army is a shooty one with one prominent CC element (Chaos Termies), so I'm not really keen on that change. Still, with proper unit placement and Overwatch this shouldn't be game-breaking.
Making all units scoring is asinine. I really hope that won't happen.
Anyway, at this point these all are only rumours (as opposed to the WD stuff).
Crimson wrote: This would be bad, it would completely eliminate the purpose of troops (not to mention all those special rules/characters that turns something into troops/scoring.)
This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"
You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n
This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.
And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.
Allow me to lay out 7th edition.
1) GW makes Unbound a thing.
2) The ballsiest, most sociopathic players will build their 8 Riptide armies.
3) They will then get told to sod off in many of the LGS' excluding GW's and more extreme LGS', either because of an unbound ban or game refusals, or being told they're not welcome. People will migrate to the LGS' that suit them.
4) Many tournaments will ban unbound, or place more crippling restrictions on such armies.
5) Just like the proven untrue idea that Escalation/Stronghold assault was going to ruin everything for everyone and add two mandatory books to everyone's need to buy lists, there will be no massive issue.
Minor rumor. Take this with a grain of salt, the source is an independent stockist.
Source tells me the cost of the new book is right around $100. There's some special edition stuff that will be available to FLGS retailers - dice, cards, templates, etc. Limited edition variants of the book are web-only.
He has a large inventory of existing 6th edition books. He was told the new book will make up for his losses. It sells for more than 6th edition and claims players will need new copies, the existing books are obsolete.
As for the new rumors about "sweeping changes," very doubtful about these for a few reasons.
1) Allowing every unit to score means people will buy fewer infantry models. GW makes most of it's money off the sale of infantry models.
2) Making vehicles harder to kill involves more than adjusting the vehicle damage table. The table itself makes it harder to kill vehicles than it was in 5th edition, hull points are the problem.
3) Consolidating into combat would benefit CSMs, Orks and Tyranids. GW never does anything with the rules to help these armies.
Fairly easy for a Space Marine army, not so easy for 120 Guardsmen, especially if you're using a decent amount of terrain. I had a guy tell me that once back in 4th so we did a test to see if it was possible. Using 25% terrain I was able to get half of my units 6" away from each other by being entirely in base to base, which wasn't really a feasible way to play either.
That said, those were 4th edition problems. The Guard codex has had a lot of changes that mitigate those problems, particularly vets being troops and platoons being able to blob up, as well as Priests and power weapons making those blobs something that a 5 man tac squad isn't going to kill and run down like it would have a similarly sized (and costed) conscript squad back in 4th. I really don't think it would be nearly as much as issue nowadays as it was back then but I certainly understand why people would be leery of it at first glance.
This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"
You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n
This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.
And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.
Wow.
Just.... wow.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.
3) Consolidating into combat would benefit CSMs, Orks and Tyranids. GW never does anything with the rules to help these armies.
Maybe they've realized those 3 factions are hugely underpowered and are adding such a rule precisely because it would benefit them.
I doubt it. GW sells it's expensive plastic toys mostly to mothers at the urging of their teenage sons. GW is going to sell a lot less product if CSMs, Orks and Tyranids are on every table.
3) Consolidating into combat would benefit CSMs, Orks and Tyranids. GW never does anything with the rules to help these armies.
Maybe they've realized those 3 factions are hugely underpowered and are adding such a rule precisely because it would benefit them.
I doubt it. GW sells it's expensive plastic toys mostly to mothers at the urging of their teenage sons. GW is going to sell a lot less product if CSMs, Orks and Tyranids are on every table.
Well Orks and Tyranids contain a lot of models in each army (Heck, they are the definitive horde armies) so technically they'd be selling a huge amount of product if they became highly competitive.
There really is no need to be quite so cynical. 7th edition was brought about because the writers were unhappy with 6th after all- clearly this is being done out of some desire to improve things.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.
Why can you not accept diversity of opinions? Nobody is asking you to agree with me (and others who disagree with you).
All people want is that you stop denigrating people who don't happen to share your particular take on what is good or bad about a game (to which you are certainly entitled)?
I love how people are arguing with eachother over a rulebook that hasn't even been released yet. Many people are raging because it's so soon or because it is going to ruin the game.
It's not like we know how the rules are going to work... And SO many of the same people were complaining about 6th edition being broken/unbalanced/unfair.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.
Why can you not accept diversity of opinions? Nobody is asking you to agree with me (and others who disagree with you).
All people want is that you stop denigrating people who don't happen to share your particular take on what is good or bad about a game (to which you are certainly entitled)?
He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing it in dozens of threads.
He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing in dozens of threads.
Sure. If people stop whining about how they dislike the current direction of 40K, I will stop saying that I actually like the direction it is going?
Crimson wrote: This would be bad, it would completely eliminate the purpose of troops (not to mention all those special rules/characters that turns something into troops/scoring.)
That's a really good point.
Not to mention remove any reason to purchase troops which means selling less models....yeah, not buying it; sure GW wants you to buy the expensive big gribblies but they also want you to buy 60 Dark Eldar warriors and 150 guardsmen.
He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing in dozens of threads.
Sure. If people stop whining about how they dislike the current direction of 40K, I will stop saying that I actually like the direction it is going?
Deal?
Deal!
With two caveats..
Explain how you play the game 'right' and stop manipulating threads with barely OT posts so you can start banging your drum.
This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"
You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n
This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.
And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.
Wow.
Just.... wow.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.
and for me and i mean this politely and to the pair of you.
shush. i am sick of whenever zwei posts the damn gestapo comes out and trash talks him, dont like what he is saying ignore it, if he keeps going report it half threads filled with OT comments like this are tedious and boring, your not the only one that does it, just the latest and its tedious to read. zwei i know you want your oppinion and you have it, great, but the ramming down throats gets annoying.
OT: some of those rumoured changes seems decent/logical, but i do not foresee the rulebooke split into 3. scoring vehicles, my fleet will be thrilled. consolidating into combat, if you can overwatch ill understand it (just having 6" of space between everything... tricky and totally neuters any for of gunline, esp those behind adl) unbound, thats gonna be a thing so no scoring for them though, unlikely esp saying everything your opponent has will score, thats a bit much.
mmmm overall they seem ok but... i have reservations
This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"
You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n
This is not only rude and insulting, but also nauseating to read that you're prepared to be sneering with contempt towards someone that is trying to resolve the arguing. Especially given you're not even addressing him directly.
And please don't pull the Escape Hatch "lock thread", because that's also the sort of habit that makes bile rise in my throat.
Wow.
Just.... wow.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the pages and pages (and pages) of various threads littered all over the forum that have been spent on this particular topic with this particular user, much of which involving me, that solicited that comment, and careful you don't hurt yourself when you ultimately climb down off that very, very high horse you're currently sat astride.
Don't let it get you down azreal13! Mr. O called me a cretin once. I've been called worse by better people.
I really can't understand the collapse of the 40k community on Dakka over rumors. I say keep your powder dry until you know
what you have to be up in arms about, totally. I admit I don't like some of what I'm seeing so far, but I also haven't seen the whole
picture.
He does accept diversity of opinions, his problem is that you harp on the same subject to point where even if it was valid most people are tired of it. Hell I have my own opinion of the game, but you don't see me arguing in dozens of threads.
Sure. If people stop whining about how they dislike the current direction of 40K, I will stop saying that I actually like the direction it is going?
Deal?
Deal!
With two caveats..
Explain how you play the game 'right' and stop manipulating threads with barely OT posts so you can start banging your drum.
I sadly play constrained by rules like the FoC, point values,mission objectives, etc.., more often than not, because it is "expected" and in the community not well regarded to ignore them.
And I am not manipulating any thread. I simply response to false statements where people - manipulatively - present their personal, usually negative opinion about the game as an allegeldy objective fact with stupid sentences like "everyone would benefit from more balance".
Assuming "everyone" is everyone, that is a misrepresentation of an awful lot of people.
Just say "I personally would prefer the game to be more balanced", and we're golden.
That's really quite enough. Let's move the topic back to 40K rumors rather than the personalities that post on Dakka. Any further issues within this thread will have this warning weighted into the length of a Dakka break a user may receive.
(edited) Absoloutely. I wish more people used this common sense when posting.
Anyway, more to the point. I'm actually looking forward to seeing the new changes so I can formulate my opinion based on the facts. And I think I might just have to start collecting blood angels if the new box set is going that way.
Vector Strike wrote: It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.
Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
...
that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.
Fairly easy for a Space Marine army, not so easy for 120 Guardsmen, especially if you're using a decent amount of terrain. I had a guy tell me that once back in 4th so we did a test to see if it was possible. Using 25% terrain I was able to get half of my units 6" away from each other by being entirely in base to base, which wasn't really a feasible way to play either.
That said, those were 4th edition problems. The Guard codex has had a lot of changes that mitigate those problems, particularly vets being troops and platoons being able to blob up, as well as Priests and power weapons making those blobs something that a 5 man tac squad isn't going to kill and run down like it would have a similarly sized (and costed) conscript squad back in 4th. I really don't think it would be nearly as much as issue nowadays as it was back then but I certainly understand why people would be leery of it at first glance.
They're leery of it because its something that would disadvantage their shooty army. Just as they like Overwatch because it benefits their shooty army.
They really ought to get over themselves. Shooty Armies get Overwatch. Assault Armies should have Consolidate into Combat, to compensate them for all their losses running the gauntlet of Shooting and Overwatch. And even if they do get it, they'll probably just get shot up a 2nd time by Overwatch as they consolidate into another enemy unit.
I'm not in favour of it because I'm biased towards Assault, I'm in favour of it because I think it would help bring back a balance between Shooting and Assault. My Raven Guard armies tend to be split 50/50 between shooting and Assault. My favourite units include Assault Marines, Vanguard Veterans and CC/Shotgun Scouts. But I also like to use Scout Snipers, Devestators, Sternguard Veterans and Tactical Squads.
Besides, isn't Consolidate a D6" move? Theres always a chance that the Consolidate roll won't be high enough to make a 2nd Assault.
If its really considered overpowered, I think the Consolidation Assault could be easily balanced by:
-Consolidation Assaults ("Overrun Assault?") can only be made in a turn when an Attacking Unit charges and wipes out their target in the same turn. -Combats that drag on for more than one Turn do not allow the Victors to charge again, to represent their momentum and stamina being spent after getting bogged down in a long melee.
-If a unit Assaults and wipes out its target in the same turn, they may make a D6" Consolidation move. If this is high enough to contact another enemy unit, then a 2nd combat begins. -No Assault Bonuses apply to the 2nd combat after an Overrun Assault (Furious Charge, bonus attack etc), to represent that their momentum and stamina was spent on the first combat.
-Certain units may have special rules that remove this No Assault Bonus penalty (e.g. Khorne Bezerkers, Genestealers, Vanguard Veterans).
This would offer the Attacking player a dilemma. Do you make the Overrun Assault at decreased effectiveness (no Furious Charge, no extra attacking for charging a 2nd time) and risk losing your weakened unit in the 2nd Assault, or do you choose not to Overrun Assault and risk the unit being shot to pieces?
Also, players who use massive blobs of hundreds of infantry in continuous battle lines deserve to have their flanks rolled up by Consolidation Assaults. It would hardly be fair for the Attacking player to weather numerous rounds of shooting and Overwatch before finally carrying out an Assault and instantly wiping out the soft squishy Imperial Guardsmen only to have to stop his troops 1" away from the next squad of squishy Guardsmen.
Can you imagine Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers doing that? Doesn't really fit the "Narrative" does it?
Vector Strike wrote: It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.
Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
...
that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.
can you field them as riptides? are they big enough? cant just put down a marine and call it a terminator. etc etc....
this will be the problem with unbound. and to be honest i wouldnt allow it anyway, if you want to field this kind of thing better make intense effort with your "proxy" OR have the real thing, same goes with the escalation units. fairs fair, want to abuse the rules please abuse your wallet.
Spoletta wrote: Sorry for the ignorance but i w4asn't around at the time. How did you consolidate in 4ed?
You could use your consolidation move to lock an enemy unit into close combat. Therefore saving your unit from a turn of shooting.
You could actually "slingshot" from one enemy unit to another, defeating them without any danger of being shot at or if your troops were tough enough, being counter-charged.
The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.
Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.
Was 5th Edition balanced? Was 4th? ...
...
...
No, but they were less unbalanced than 6th edition. In 3rd/4th/5th the unbalance was largely due to faulty codex design. In 6th edition it is more to do with bad game design as well as faulty codex design.
Vector Strike wrote: It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.
Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
...
that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.
Am I the only one amused by Kilkrazy posting a Mod Lock image after the last couple of pages?
I'm still not mad keen on the idea of EVERY model being scoring, but I guess it's a wait and see.
that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.
Well, proxying is a matter in itself. I do proxy to test new rules before buying minis and such. But I don't think many will agree to play against 12 proxied Riptides!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: They're leery of it because its something that would disadvantage their shooty army. Just as they like Overwatch because it benefits their shooty army.
They really ought to get over themselves. Shooty Armies get Overwatch. Assault Armies should have Consolidate into Combat, to compensate them for all their losses running the gauntlet of Shooting and Overwatch. And even if they do get it, they'll probably just get shot up a 2nd time by Overwatch as they consolidate into another enemy unit.
I'm not in favour of it because I'm biased towards Assault, I'm in favour of it because I think it would help bring back a balance between Shooting and Assault. My Raven Guard armies tend to be split 50/50 between shooting and Assault. My favourite units include Assault Marines, Vanguard Veterans and CC/Shotgun Scouts. But I also like to use Scout Snipers, Devestators, Sternguard Veterans and Tactical Squads.
Besides, isn't Consolidate a D6" move? Theres always a chance that the Consolidate roll won't be high enough to make a 2nd Assault.
If its really considered overpowered, I think the Consolidation Assault could be easily balanced by:
-Consolidation Assaults ("Overrun Assault?") can only be made in a turn when an Attacking Unit charges and wipes out their target in the same turn. -Combats that drag on for more than one Turn do not allow the Victors to charge again, to represent their momentum and stamina being spent after getting bogged down in a long melee.
-If a unit Assaults and wipes out its target in the same turn, they may make a D6" Consolidation move. If this is high enough to contact another enemy unit, then a 2nd combat begins. -No Assault Bonuses apply to the 2nd combat after an Overrun Assault (Furious Charge, bonus attack etc), to represent that their momentum and stamina was spent on the first combat.
-Certain units may have special rules that remove this No Assault Bonus penalty (e.g. Khorne Bezerkers, Genestealers, Vanguard Veterans).
This would offer the Attacking player a dilemma. Do you make the Overrun Assault at decreased effectiveness (no Furious Charge, no extra attacking for charging a 2nd time) and risk losing your weakened unit in the 2nd Assault, or do you choose not to Overrun Assault and risk the unit being shot to pieces?
Also, players who use massive blobs of hundreds of infantry in continuous battle lines deserve to have their flanks rolled up by Consolidation Assaults. It would hardly be fair for the Attacking player to weather numerous rounds of shooting and Overwatch before finally carrying out an Assault and instantly wiping out the soft squishy Imperial Guardsmen only to have to stop his troops 1" away from the next squad of squishy Guardsmen.
Can you imagine Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers doing that? Doesn't really fit the "Narrative" does it?
I know it's tempting to think everyone is a cynical manchild (this is Dakka, after all) who could only be against a rules change because it benefits their army but a lot of people are against the idea entirely because of bad memories from 4th. It's the same reason some people still don't like special characters, 99% of them nowadays are fine but people still have bad memories of getting rolled by some of the more ridiculous ones from back then.
I don't really think you need all of that to make consolidation fair. It was too much in 4th given how assault results were calculated and given how certain codexes were set up back then. I'd assume it would count as a disordered charge as you didn't get charging bonuses back then but the combination of main rules and codexes now would make it perfectly fine. As for narrative concerns Overwatch completely fulfills that.
Using massive blobs of hundreds of infantry was pretty much the only way for Guard to play in 4th, non-skimmers were made of cardboard and your only hope was to kill off the enemy army with lascannons and plasma guns before any of them got into assault or else your whole line would get rolled up by anything scarier than a grot. Things aren't like that anymore and even if someone was running with 120 Guardsmen (which I do regularly), consolidating through a bunch of modern blob squads is an entirely different affair than consolidating through a bunch of 10 man squads from the 4th edition book.
that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.
Well, proxying is a matter in itself. I do proxy to test new rules before buying minis and such. But I don't think many will agree to play against 12 proxied Riptides!
if the model is roughly the same size as the riptide I'd have no objection playing against it
Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.
1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.
2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.
I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.
I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.
ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.
Being a Guard player I also hated this rule, I've got bad memories of Baharoth eating his way through half of my Guard army more or less by himself on more than one occasion. That said, with blob squads and a few other things I think the Guard has rather less to fear from this rule than it did back then.
So space your units out more than 6" ?
Personally I hope its true. With 6th Edition favouring shooting armies, with Overwatch, Tau, Eldar and Imperial Guard, it'll be nice if Assault themed armies actually had a leg up again. My Raven Guard army of shotgun Scouts, Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans will certainly need it.
If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.
Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.
The idea of forcing armies to spread out more than 6" to prevent from being consolidated into creates and interesting risk/reward situation for Tau: namely that they can't get their combined Overwatch if they spread out, but if they don't spread out they could get nailed by consolidations.
sennacherib wrote: Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.
1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.
2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.
I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.
I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.
ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.
so what your saying is, cos assualt sucks in 6th, lets make it UBER in 7th? to be fair thats a terrible idea. so once you have crossed 24" of board space your invincible to shooting, i can think of nothing worse. and saying move away from that assault, if you have an ongoing combat on your left, and something coming up on the right.. wisdom would normally say move away from the inc attacks and like 4th you end up boxed into a corner.
i would like a middle ground please. that would be very nice. as much as i want assault buffed, i really dont want it to be the "be all and end all" of oh look you are whacking on me, game over...
Davor wrote: If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.
Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.
Riptides =/= Titans
Actually on that note, Knights aren't Titans either. They are Superheavies, but officially Titans start at the Warhound and go up from there.
Davor wrote: If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.
Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.
Riptides =/= Titans
same deal with them both, you want to spam the $100 models go spend the coin. ironically, 10 riptides is still about the price of 1 titan. much sadness struck me as i realise this
ClockworkZion wrote: The idea of forcing armies to spread out more than 6" to prevent from being consolidated into creates and interesting risk/reward situation for Tau: namely that they can't get their combined Overwatch if they spread out, but if they don't spread out they could get nailed by consolidations.
I don't think this will be a major concern. You need to be within 6" of the unit that's getting assaulted, before pile in, to get the Support Fire overwatch. You can be well away from 6" away from the actual assault units. One guy actually made the mistake of assaulting a few Kroot only to notice the conga line going right up to a Riptide and several Crisis suits.
sennacherib wrote: Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.
1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.
2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.
I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.
I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.
ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.
so what your saying is, cos assualt sucks in 6th, lets make it UBER in 7th? to be fair thats a terrible idea. so once you have crossed 24" of board space your invincible to shooting, i can think of nothing worse. and saying move away from that assault, if you have an ongoing combat on your left, and something coming up on the right.. wisdom would normally say move away from the inc attacks and like 4th you end up boxed into a corner.
i would like a middle ground please. that would be very nice. as much as i want assault buffed, i really dont want it to be the "be all and end all" of oh look you are whacking on me, game over...
But it doesn't make Assault "uber" at all. Thats just silly hyperbole.
A D6" consolidation means that there is a risk that the assaulting unit will fail to reach a second unit.
if they successfully consolidate into combat, they will get Overwatched a 2nd time.
And if you make it a Disordered Charge (remove Assault bonuses?) then the strength of the Assaulting unit's 2nd assault will be severely weakened. They may also have had their numbers depleted after the first combat.
ClockworkZion wrote: The idea of forcing armies to spread out more than 6" to prevent from being consolidated into creates and interesting risk/reward situation for Tau: namely that they can't get their combined Overwatch if they spread out, but if they don't spread out they could get nailed by consolidations.
I don't think this will be a major concern. You need to be within 6" of the unit that's getting assaulted, before pile in, to get the Support Fire overwatch. You can be well away from 6" away from the actual assault units. One guy actually made the mistake of assaulting a few Kroot only to notice the conga line going right up to a Riptide and several Crisis suits.
I think it could have an effect on placement, and discourage castling.
Davor wrote: If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.
Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.
Riptides =/= Titans
Actually on that note, Knights aren't Titans either. They are Superheavies, but officially Titans start at the Warhound and go up from there.
I know Riptiedes are not Titans.
Someone said they were saying they were going to field more than one Warhound. If you are going to do that, find, field them but don't use "counts as" for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sennacherib wrote: C
ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.
What is the fun that nobody will play you? That type of person will have the pride of being so good that people are "scared" to play him and he is that good. Or at least in his own world.
Some people actually have to win with plastic toy soldiers.
Yeah, I hated Consolidation-conga as much as anyone in 4th with a squishy army, but I think it would actually be quite reasonable now given other factors like Overwatch fire and removing casualties from the front.
It's actually a fairly elegant way of boosting assault armies without making them ridiculous. So that means either GW will further nerf assault units, or pendulum back and combine the granting of Consolidation assaults with the removal of Overwatch
Not to mention, it would add a layer of finesse into deployment, movement and dispersal. Plus units such as Rippers, Nurglings etc would gain extra utility as cheap screens to act as shields between valuable units. (Well, Rippers and Nurglings are bad examples, as Nids and CDs won't be getting assaulted that often, but you get my point.)
azreal13 wrote: Not to mention, it would add a layer of finesse into deployment, movement and dispersal. Plus units such as Rippers, Nurglings etc would gain extra utility as cheap screens to act as shields between valuable units. (Well, Rippers and Nurglings are bad examples, as Nids and CDs won't be getting assaulted that often, but you get my point.)
sennacherib wrote: Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.
1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.
2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.
I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.
I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.
ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.
so what your saying is, cos assualt sucks in 6th, lets make it UBER in 7th? to be fair thats a terrible idea. so once you have crossed 24" of board space your invincible to shooting, i can think of nothing worse. and saying move away from that assault, if you have an ongoing combat on your left, and something coming up on the right.. wisdom would normally say move away from the inc attacks and like 4th you end up boxed into a corner.
i would like a middle ground please. that would be very nice. as much as i want assault buffed, i really dont want it to be the "be all and end all" of oh look you are whacking on me, game over...
To start with, I don't believe the rumors about assault. This sounds like wish fulfillment.
That said, consolidating into combat was never incredibly overpowered in previous editions. You could consolidate up to d6 inches, which was no sure thing. The counter to it was moving back a couple inches, which was not that hard.
In 6th edition, firepower has been dominant because of the rules around hull points and changes to assault rules. On the one hand, there are few reliable transports in any army that cannot be glanced to death. On the other hand, assault is no sure thing now with random charge ranges. When your assault does not work out, your troops are very exposed.
Even more importantly, the idea of assault vehicles combines both drawbacks into a single, steaming pile to have to deal with. Your transports don't make it to the opponent, and your assault troops can't do anything the turn they disembark. This was a gamebreaker in terms of mechanics that left many players unable to craft effective strategies for their armies. I just bought 2 Chaos armies because their owners never saw themselves wanting to play again.
It would make sense, actually, to introduce consolidating into combat as a counterbalance to the 6th edition assault rules. At least that way, if you get there, you have a chance of doing something more than hitting a single unit. If the rumors about vehicles being tougher to kill prove to be true, combined, this would make some armies a lot more useful. It might even provide more balance to the game.
Which is why I know it's a false rumor. GW would never make a thoughtful, effective decision like that, in recognition of a major defect that screws up the mechanics of the game. That sort of thing does not happen in the grimdark of little plastic space soldiers.
More than anything, consolidating into new combats is something I really don't want to see back again, and that was back when armies would typically get stuck in turns 3 and 4, not turn 2 or even sometimes turn 1. Locking an enemy unit in combat is one of the most powerful things in this game (negating movement, shooting, and often special rules/abilities), and if done successfully largely is basically an auto-unit-kill a turn if your units outmatch them in CC. CC has it's problems in 6E, but a return to consolidating into new combats is not the fix.
Zweischneid wrote: For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, ...
Pathfinder?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ack, do you guys see my double post or is it just something weird happening on my end?
It's a glitch that the forum software throws up sometimes. If you just leave it alone, the forum catches up after a couple of minutes and removes the duplicate post.
Vector Strike wrote: It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.
Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
No more so than buying and assembling anything else that they want to put in their army...
The issue I see with the Unbound concept is that it's not just about spamming the truly OP stuff. Taking, say, Space Marines as an example - in this new system, what reason do players have for ever fielding Tactical Marines now? Assault Marines are better at assault. Devastators are better at shooting. Everybody scores. So what reason is left to field Tactical Marines?
The rules previously have required players to field basic troops because GW found way, way back in 2nd edition that left to their own devices people will just field the 'special' stuff and leave the boring basic units on the shelf.
So the result I see from introducing Unbound armies to the game is that the vast majority of armies will wind up being made up entirely of elite units and/or big stompy stuff... because those are the units that people get excited about.
I don't think consolidating into combat can be a balanced mechanic with the current state of the game. Fast moving Death Stars are already a huge problem.
I think consolidating into combat sounds like a great idea. As previously stated, sometimes you're hoping that you don't kill all of a unit in CC in your own turn so that your unit won't be out in the open to be shot, which is silly.
This would make a lot of units viable again. Even Repentia wouldn't be too bad if you could actually get them there. Really hope that assaulting from stationary vehicles is brought back too.
It would also shake up the Tau/Guard gunline lists.
Consolidating into combat would not be terrible as long as the defender gets to overwatch again, including Tau supporting fire. This would also make the gravity drones worth taking.
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --
If this lot is true, it's a mixed bag for me...
Consolidating into combat is something I would definitely like to see back, so long as the enemy unit still gets to overwatch. Likewise, vehicles returning to usefulness is a good thing (and somewhat expected, given GW's previous see-saw history with vehicles) and more sensible wound allocation would be great. Toning down D-weapons would go some way towards removing the issue with super-heavies in the game. And the multiple rulebook formats is something that people have been asking for for years and multiple editions now.
The rest of it, not so fond of. And Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives is just downright weird. Curious to see the explanation for that.
insaniak wrote: So the result I see from introducing Unbound armies to the game is that the vast majority of armies will wind up being made up entirely of elite units and/or big stompy stuff... because those are the units that people get excited about.
But that is said assuming everyone will play Unbound armies for all the 7th lifespan, which it's very hard to believe. In the beginning there will be many games with such army styçe (as it is a novelty), but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. Is it a way to get more money? Of course. Will it destroy 40k? Doubtely so. Unbound armies will be restricted to friends' games in the medium-long run.
-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.
1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --
If this lot is true, it's a mixed bag for me...
Consolidating into combat is something I would definitely like to see back, so long as the enemy unit still gets to overwatch. Likewise, vehicles returning to usefulness is a good thing (and somewhat expected, given GW's previous see-saw history with vehicles) and more sensible wound allocation would be great. Toning down D-weapons would go some way towards removing the issue with super-heavies in the game. And the multiple rulebook formats is something that people have been asking for for years and multiple editions now.
The rest of it, not so fond of. And Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives is just downright weird. Curious to see the explanation for that.
I missed that somehow. Some of these awful. Failing a psychic test for a power means not being able to use it again? Stupid. Allowing *all* units to score further weakens the value of troops, which are already being taken in minimum-sized squads in most armies. Allowing vehicles to score while making them more durable is just asking for the return of parking lots.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I think consolidating into combat sounds like a great idea. As previously stated, sometimes you're hoping that you don't kill all of a unit in CC in your own turn so that your unit won't be out in the open to be shot, which is silly.
This would make a lot of units viable again. Even Repentia wouldn't be too bad if you could actually get them there. Really hope that assaulting from stationary vehicles is brought back too.
It would also shake up the Tau/Guard gunline lists.
If you remember back several editions, this single mechanic made such armies completely nonviable. Now, there are some problems with assaults in 6th, but units have long average charge distances and more mobility in general barring issues with transports. Units can get into CC earlier than they could when consolidating was allowed. If you bring that back, you're going to get a lot of games where stuff gets stuck in turn 2 and nobody ever gets a chance to shoot at it again. It happened in 3rd and 4th, and they removed it for good reason. It was a bad mechanic. Unless units are either going to be able to voluntarily leave CC or get to fire overwatch at full BS, you're going to see fast Deathstar units running roughshod over this game.
agnosto wrote: Consolidating into combat would not be terrible as long as the defender gets to overwatch again, including Tau supporting fire. This would also make the gravity drones worth taking.
Unless they're armed with template weapons or are a Tau army with tons of overwatch supporting mechanics, Overwatch isn't likely to do squat in most cases.
insaniak wrote: in this new system, what reason do players have for ever fielding Tactical Marines now?
Because you bought a box of tactical marines and would never dare to use them as anything other than tactical marines. Remember, the point of the game is to buy Games™ Workshop™ Products™ and have rules to use them. Buying a unit specifically because of its superior rules is blasphemy against the Hobby™.
Consolidating into combat is something I would definitely like to see back, so long as the enemy unit still gets to overwatch. Likewise, vehicles returning to usefulness is a good thing (and somewhat expected, given GW's previous see-saw history with vehicles) and more sensible wound allocation would be great. Toning down D-weapons would go some way towards removing the issue with super-heavies in the game. And the multiple rulebook formats is something that people have been asking for for years and multiple editions now.
The rest of it, not so fond of. And Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives is just downright weird. Curious to see the explanation for that.
What's so weird about Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives? Wouldn't it be safe to say that Unbound is incredibly powerful and would require some nerfs to even out gameplay? Consider this, an army unable to contest objectives really wouldn't be able to hold on to them either, as a Battle forged army could jump onto their objectives and score.
Thokt wrote: What's so weird about Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives? Wouldn't it be safe to say that Unbound is incredibly powerful and would require some nerfs to even out gameplay? Consider this, an army unable to contest objectives really wouldn't be able to hold on to them either, as a Battle forged army could jump onto their objectives and score.
It makes no sense because they can score objectives. I have no idea how that works fluff-wise, a unit can claim whatever vital thing the objective is, but if someone else is claiming it they just stand around uselessly.
Objective points game-wise are already an odd/abstract concept in terms of fluff. In gameplay they make sense to me though, and so does negating the ability of Unbound armies to contest.
Fluff not lining up with rules is nothing new or weird.
agnosto wrote: Consolidating into combat would not be terrible as long as the defender gets to overwatch again, including Tau supporting fire. This would also make the gravity drones worth taking.
Sooo...basically ennemy can shoot 2 or 3 times per turn, for oly one CC per turn if we follow your opinion?..., yeah thats balance rigth there...
No fething Overwatch, you overwatch when you get assault, not when you get consolidated in, it would be more of an incitive to NOT consolidate towards ennemy units.
I dunno if you noticed that CC units and armies has much more trouble then straitgh shooting units/armies, why?, because you have to get close, and thats 2 turns of taking fire while you do...nothing else.
Then assault, but oh wait!, there's more!, you get once again shot in the face, and if you have any models left and manage to win, you would still take another shot in the face?
If my Zerkers get shot 3 times per turn, then i will attack a second time in CC once i've consolidated, think about this.
What's so weird about Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives? .
It's weird because our doesn't make any sense. What exactly about not following an arbitrary organisational structure would render a unit incapable of contesting an objective?
Why would armies obey an arbitrary organizational structure in the first place? In the framework of 40k we're already bound to all sorts of abstractions like this, what's weird about it? It's part and parcel to the norm. Why can some units score and others not in the first place? Why must both armies deploy in the same manner?
Vector Strike wrote: ... but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. .
How?
Because troops are the only scoring units (some SC notwithstanding) normally available. In a normal game, without troops you can only win if you kill your enemy's troops and/or table him, while getting the seconday objectives. The tactics regarding Unbound armies will mostly regard despatching the enemy from the table, while in Battle-forged games thinking tactically is more important than simply killing all your enemies. So, as most people like tactical games (at least as seen here in Dakka and other forums), Battle-forged armies will probably have many more games than Unbound, once its 'novelty factor' is gone.
Vector Strike wrote: ... but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. .
How?
Because troops are the only scoring units (some SC notwithstanding) normally available. In a normal game, without troops you can only win if you kill your enemy's troops and/or table him, while getting the seconday objectives. The tactics regarding Unbound armies will mostly regard despatching the enemy from the table, while in Battle-forged games thinking tactically is more important than simply killing all your enemies. So, as most people like tactical games (at least as seen here in Dakka and other forums), Battle-forged armies will probably have many more games than Unbound, once its 'novelty factor' is gone.
With the exception of Big Guns Never Tire, Purge, and Scouring. So half the time what you say holds true. Not to mention there's an entire new set of missions in 7th, as well as cards which change the course of the game as it's played.
Vector Strike wrote: Because troops are the only scoring units (some SC notwithstanding) normally available. In a normal game, without troops you can only win if you kill your enemy's troops and/or table him, while getting the seconday objectives. The tactics regarding Unbound armies will mostly regard despatching the enemy from the table, while in Battle-forged games thinking tactically is more important than simply killing all your enemies. So, as most people like tactical games (at least as seen here in Dakka and other forums), Battle-forged armies will probably have many more games than Unbound, once its 'novelty factor' is gone.
1) The game already favors "kill them and worry about objectives later" armies with limited scoring ability that just wipe you off the table and maybe grab a token objective with one of their mandatory troops units at the end of the game. This "tactical" (a ridiculous label for that, btw) game you're imagining doesn't really exist.
2) Unbound armies are still allowed to take troops, and will almost certainly have some scoring ability, whether it's troops or all units score or whatever. They'll still be able to claim objectives, they just won't be limited at all in what they do with the rest of their points.
BlaxicanX wrote: Why do people think that overwatch balances out consolidating into combat? Unless you're Tau, overwatch is a single unit hitting on 6's.
That's not going to do gak to anything.
Don't forget template weapons.
In addition, the overwatch is on top of the assaulting unit already absorbing fire for crossing the table, taking overwatch fire from the first unit, taking casualties for fighting the assault, winning the assault, rolling a sufficient distance to reach the next unit AND that unit being close enough in the first place.
That's an awful lot of stuff going against the assaulting unit, just to avoid one shooting phase.
Maybe consolidating into combat is not a great idea but they need SOMETHING to help out the cc armies in 6th. If they just left it at assault from deepstrike, i would be happy.
Allow consolidation, but don't fight until the next assault phase.
Plus, wasn't there a rumour about charge reactions? Allowing a unit to try and fall back from being caught in a consolidation, with some appropriate risk/reward mechanic, could synergise nicely, potentially leaving the assaulting unit even MORE vulnerable.
BlaxicanX wrote: Why do people think that overwatch balances out consolidating into combat? Unless you're Tau, overwatch is a single unit hitting on 6's.
That's not going to do gak to anything.
Don't forget template weapons.
In addition, the overwatch is on top of the assaulting unit already absorbing fire for crossing the table, taking overwatch fire from the first unit, taking casualties for fighting the assault, winning the assault, rolling a sufficient distance to reach the next unit AND that unit being close enough in the first place.
That's an awful lot of stuff going against the assaulting unit, just to avoid one shooting phase.
It really isn't. That's why consolidating was done away with to begin with.
You're also making a lot of assumptions that make no sense within the current meta. Any unit worth assaulting with is going to be either super fast or super durable, or a death star. Meaning that it won't have taken nearly as many casualties getting there as you think.
So, of the units you're talking about are so resistant to shooting, how much of a difference is a shooting phase extra going to make?
Death Stars are an issue that need addressing separately, not something that the whole fabric of the game needs to be contorted around because they exist.
The fall back from consolidators thing might contribute to making leadership valuable, penalize those poor fearless troops who thought they had a good rule, and maybe balance out the strength of the consolidation.
azreal13 wrote: So, of the units you're talking about are so resistant to shooting, how much of a difference is a shooting phase extra going to make?
A turn of one or more units firing at full BS is going to do a lot more to these units than a single unit firing at BS1. This should be obvious.
Death Stars are an issue that need addressing separately, not something that the whole fabric of the game needs to be contorted around because they exist.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they're here. Death Stars are apart of the game, and if current rumors about Unbound and everything being able to score are true, they're only going to become more powerful.
So like it or not, they're impact on the game needs to be considered.
Running across an open battlefield to hit someone with your sword is stupid and the fething loonies (Berserkers, Orks etc..) should be punished with unrelenting fire, Close quarter combat should be reserved for building to building and trench warfare only.
I remember 4th quite well, I had a guard army and a World eaters army and playing either against there opposite (guard vs CC, WE vs Shooting) was not fun at all. I've not played 40k properly since then apart from dipping my toe in now and again as there are far superior rules out there to play. But I look for excuses to get back in and have been disappointed so far (yes im looking at you Sisters and Inquisition) so my expectations are not great but I still have hope.
TheKbob wrote: I know the one thing everyone would love to have come back...
FEARLESS WOUNDS!
Oh that would be brilliant! Lets also bring back IC 's not giving fearless to units. Used to love how my draigo paladin unit was "escorted" outside the table.
azreal13 wrote: So, of the units you're talking about are so resistant to shooting, how much of a difference is a shooting phase extra going to make?
A turn of one or more units firing at full BS is going to do a lot more to these units than a single unit firing at BS1. This should be obvious.
Death Stars are an issue that need addressing separately, not something that the whole fabric of the game needs to be contorted around because they exist.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they're here. Death Stars are apart of the game, and if current rumors about Unbound and everything being able to score are true, they're only going to become more powerful.
So like it or not, they're impact on the game needs to be considered.
Bear in mind that if you use overwatch fire then you could kill enough models to stop them consolidating into another unit. If the 2nd unit is 4"+ away then you probably don't need to kill many models to stop them reaching you.
overtyrant wrote: Running across an open battlefield to hit someone with your sword is stupid and the fething loonies (Berserkers, Orks etc..) should be punished with unrelenting fire, Close quarter combat should be reserved for building to building and trench warfare only.
You are correct, in the case of realistic, real-world fighting.
...But this is 40k. A specific element of the background is the claim that assaulting is an effective tactic. Assault Marines and Terminators are often described in the fluff as getting into the middle of an enemy force and wreaking havoc while the ranged units and support advance. In other cases, Orks are described as weathering an incredible amount of fire but still being deadly enough when they arrive to overrun an Imperial Guard position.
It follows, then, that the rules should reflect the apparently equal power/efficacy between ranged and melee combat - after all, if the game does not allow players to forge a narrative within the universe GW has created, then what's the point of having background at all? That this does not happen is why people are frustrated with the domination of shooting-based armies.
Think of it this way: How frustrating would it be if your IG's Basilisk artillery was only S3 AP-, Small Blast 1? Of course it would be terrible, because you would never be able to use the unit the way it is presented in the lore. So how do you think players who field assault armies feel when their entire force cannot function in the way the background says they should?
azreal13 wrote: So, of the units you're talking about are so resistant to shooting, how much of a difference is a shooting phase extra going to make?
A turn of one or more units firing at full BS is going to do a lot more to these units than a single unit firing at BS1. This should be obvious.
Death Stars are an issue that need addressing separately, not something that the whole fabric of the game needs to be contorted around because they exist.
Mathematically, of course it will. Meaningfully? Not so much. Scoring two wounds is 200% more effective than no wounds! but makes no functional difference to the efficacy of the deathstar.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they're here. Death Stars are apart of the game, and if current rumors about Unbound and everything being able to score are true, they're only going to become more powerful.
So like it or not, they're impact on the game needs to be considered.
GW clearly either is not aware or does not care that they exist, but they are at least something that can be voluntarily withheld from the game by the player. While TFG syndrome must be borne in mind to a degree, I'd much rather a ruleset that favoured a wider range of players and units than one that existed purely to put the kibosh on a sub set of a sub set.
In short, I believe consolidation, implemented correctly, has a much larger positive impact on overall game balance and will only make a few certain broken things mildly more broken than they already are.
Honestly, I wonder what sort of horrifically bad dice-rolling luck people have had against overwatch to think that it's anymore than a minor nuisance.
Double-tapping firewarriors are going to kill 3 charging guardsmen on average in overwatch. GUARDSMEN. They don't even get a save. We're not talking about space marines or something, just regular old guardsmen.
I wouldn't bank on overwatch to do gak against anything unless I had a Tau gunline set-up with markerlights to maximize support-fire shenanigans. Otherwise it's borderline useless.
I've lost Greater Daemons and Princes to Overwatch.
Orks run at 50% efficiency when using OW, Tau have tricks to support OW, Eldar have copious ways of t/l stuff, other armies have their mainstay troops rocking rapid fire weapons, so at least are throwing down handfuls of dice.
Charge a unit of 9 Flamers of Tzeentch with anything short of an MEQ statline and tell me overwatch is a nuisance.
azreal13 wrote: Mathematically, of course it will. Meaningfully? Not so much. Scoring two wounds is 200% more effective than no wounds! but makes no functional difference to the efficacy of the deathstar.
Multiple units pouring fire into a Death Star is going to do more than "2 wounds" compared to a single unit firing at BS1. With many of these types of units, wittling them down with sustained fire is the only way to bring them down. Allowing them to "hide" in combat for most of the game is going to nullify the one thing that can really counter them.
Besides, even if it was "just 2 wounds", 2 wounds could be the difference between a dead GUO and a GUO massacring another squad.
GW clearly either is not aware or does not care that they exist, but they are at least something that can be voluntarily withheld from the game by the player.
If we're going to use casual play as a metric here, then there's no point in having this conversation. There is no such thing as imbalance in casual 40K. Assault units are perfectly useful and balanced in casual 40K. You can voluntarily withhold a Death Star in casual play, you can also voluntarily not consolidate into combat, or turbo-boost onto objectives turn 5, or use data-slates, or spam doom-scythes, or play gunlines, or use any other number of broken mechanics, in casual 40K.
I don't care about casual 40K. I'm talking about competitive 40K, where balance actually matters and you can't just house-rule away things that you don't like about the game like death-stars or melee units pin-balling around the table with consolidation rules.
When discussing "balance", you need to consider the broken mechanics. You can't just hand-wave them away.
So I re-iterate, there are many units that are either very fast or are very durable and the only way to kill them is to whittle them down over multiple turns of shooting. When dealing with those units, yes, there is a world of difference in effectiveness between focusing them down with shooting, and a single unit getting to snap-fire at them before getting crushed under their assaulting boot.
azreal13 wrote: I've lost Greater Daemons and Princes to Overwatch.
I've assaulted a squad of flamers with seekers and taken zero casualties.
It was a combination of mechanics in the old editions that made consolidation a pain.
Assaulting out of reserves, outflanks etc meant you basically had to castle in the middle of your table to have any chance. In addition being able to assault out of vehicles made it much more likely to happen.
So just by itself consolidating into new combats with the current rules would not be that big a deal.
I would like transports to go back to the sit still and still be able to assault but we will see.
Outflank didn't exist last time you could consolidate into new combats, and it was still horrific. Units have only gotten faster and tougher since then.
azreal13 wrote: I've lost Greater Daemons and Princes to Overwatch.
Yeah, and I once charged 3 broadsides with a unit of 6 gargoyles and won. Whats your point? This is a game played with dice, you're going to get some crappy (or excellent in my case) roles every once in a while. Unless you've been losing DPs CONSISTENTLY to overwatch, that sill doesn't change the fact that unless they have divination and/or Corteaz, overwatch is at worst an inconvenience, and nowhere near as detrimental to assault as the random charge distance is.
BlaxicanX wrote: If we're going to use casual play as a metric here, then there's no point in having this conversation. There is no such thing as imbalance in casual 40K. Assault units are perfectly useful and balanced in casual 40K. You can voluntarily withhold a Death Star in casual play, you can also voluntarily not consolidate into combat, or turbo-boost onto objectives turn 5, or use data-slates, or spam doom-scythes, or play gunlines, or use any other number of broken mechanics, in casual 40K.
I don't care about casual 40K. I'm talking about competitive 40K, where balance actually matters and you can't just house-rule away things that you don't like about the game like death-stars or melee units pin-balling around the table with consolidation rules.
When discussing "balance", you need to consider the broken mechanics. You can't just hand-wave them away.
Emphasis mine.
You are right, there's no point in having any sort of conversation, because the two points I've bolded show you don't really have a grasp of the fundamentals of the issues lack of balance brings to the game in general.
I don't care about competitive 40K, because anyone seriously trying to pursue that particular fools errand in this environment needs their head read, we can hope for a better, tighter ruleset in 7th, but of you're still trying to play 40K as a competitive exercise, you have my sympathies.
My point in yellow I picked up on because if we're taking "balance" and a serious effort to achieve it, why would there be any broken mechanics?
azreal13 wrote: I've lost Greater Daemons and Princes to Overwatch.
Yeah, and I once charged 3 broadsides with a unit of 6 gargoyles and won. Whats your point? This is a game played with dice, you're going to get some crappy (or excellent in my case) roles every once in a while. Unless you've been losing DPs CONSISTENTLY to overwatch, that sill doesn't change the fact that unless they have divination and/or Corteaz, overwatch is at worst an inconvenience, and nowhere near as detrimental to assault as the random charge distance is.
My point is, and remains, that if you're rolling dice, there's always a chance that hints can happen, and no matter how statistically small one incidence occurring might be, the sheer volume of unlikely incidences that are given the opportunity to occur over the course of a game means that some will have a meaningful impacts.
I agree random charge is also an issue, and I'd also like to see D6 + I as a charge range (with perhaps a cap to prevent stupid ranges) but we're not talking about that here.
Zarrath wrote: Rumors stay rumors. According to my local GW store: Hampton Village, Michigan, USA: GW will continue to beselling 6th edition and there are NO new plans for updating the rules, nor is there a need too. With that said, no 7th edition will be made. However, GW will be making a rules amendment and slight change to several rules. Just like with what they did with death from the skies. It`ll just be another book for sell comprising of several small changes, to the rules. Besidea that 7th edition would instantly all of GWs product line, making astra militarum a flop. My 2 cents.
Never listen to the clowns at your GW store again. Its embarrassing...
My point in yellow I picked up on because if we're taking "balance" and a serious effort to achieve it, why would there be any broken mechanics?
There wouldn't be but the fact is there are some at the moment. And the point they were making is that you can't address and fix those broken mechanics if you pretend they don't exist.
Zarrath wrote: Rumors stay rumors. According to my local GW store: Hampton Village, Michigan, USA: GW will continue to beselling 6th edition and there are NO new plans for updating the rules, nor is there a need too. With that said, no 7th edition will be made. However, GW will be making a rules amendment and slight change to several rules. Just like with what they did with death from the skies. It`ll just be another book for sell comprising of several small changes, to the rules. Besidea that 7th edition would instantly all of GWs product line, making astra militarum a flop. My 2 cents.
Never listen to the clowns at your GW store again. Its embarrassing...
I learned a long time ago that the only people more clueless about 40k than GW's executives are GW's store employees.
Also people that are opposed to consolidation are forgetting that there are now allies. It's easy to draft in counter-charge units to protect your squishy shooties. Seems like everyone can ally with the Inquisition. Trust me, a Hammerhand, rad grenade Inquisitor with Priest giving re-rolls to hit and wound in a unit of Death Cult Assassins is going to eat anything that isn't in terminator armour, and will do a fair bit of damage to them too.
My point in yellow I picked up on because if we're taking "balance" and a serious effort to achieve it, why would there be any broken mechanics?
There wouldn't be but the fact is there are some at the moment. And the point they were making is that you can't address and fix those broken mechanics if you pretend they don't exist.
I'm not.
The discussion, or at least the one I thought I was having, was if overwatch, perhaps with a mechanic to allow falling back, was sufficient to balance out the advantages of consolidating into combat sufficiently to avoid a return to the mistakes of old, while leaving enough of a buff to make assault armies/units more viable.
Deathstar units are an entirely separate issue, but as this whole discussion is hypothetical, I'm hypothetically assuming they've been fixed too.
If people want to discuss what actions they'd like to see to help balance out deathstars, as long as that's not too off topic, I'm sure that's a worthy topic of discussion too.
why are there so many units made for assault that get chewed up so easily then. Bezerkers, warp talons, mutilators, vanilla possessed. Okay so maybe thats just csm. But still. I dont like how there are so many units (in other codices as well) that are designed for cc but thanks to the 6th mechanics never make it.
I was thinking about the unbound list nonsense where people are planning on bringing X amount of riptides and all unit being scoring and had an idea.
What if an unbound list was like the WHF percentages say x% in HQ X% in troops and then X% used on elites fast attack and heavy support! that way people are still taking troops for scoring but could use the last of their points in specialising there force to have more heavy support, fast attack or elites than a usual force.
People could build those iron warrior forces that they have always wanted to play without some WAAC guy pulling out 20 riptides.
why are there so many units made for assault that get chewed up so easily then. Bezerkers, warp talons, mutilators, vanilla possessed. Okay so maybe thats just csm. But still. I dont like how there are so many units (in other codices as well) that are designed for cc but thanks to the 6th mechanics never make it.
No, man, you see. It's 100% ok for shooting units to gun down CC units turn 1 but once a CC unit gets into CC with a shooty unit on turn 3 and after taking 50% casualties, it really shows how OP the CC unit is and why it should be nerfed even more. Those 4 rounds of shooting, turns 1, 2, 3, and Over Watch, that the CC unit had to go through, yea, forget about that being the balancing factor. Yea, forget that the shooty unit negates the CC unit's armor save. Also, forget that the shooty unit is in terrain so the CC unit strikes after the shooty unit for a total of 5 separate damage phases in a row before the CC unit can even attempt to hit the shooty unit. Did I mention how OPCC units are?
Shooting is almost stupidly OP in 6e and then you factor in all the CC nerfs that wen't along with it, it makes playing CC units un-enjoyable. It absolutely amazes me that players have the gall to say that the ability to consolidate into a new CC is game braking or OP. What game are you playing that CC consolidation would be OP because it's not 40k. It's a d6 consolidation. Spread out your units. You don't need a second overwatch phase, you shouldn't have gotten overwatch at all after consolidation into CC was removed. With any luck, the hay day of shooting is over and the game will take a step towards balance because this standing 1 inch away from the enemy so they can shot up again for a 4th turn in a row got old in 5e 6 years ago. Now put your big-boy pants on and say how happy you are that units with no shooting ability might get a slight bump to their overall effectiveness. While, at the same time, making 40k more enjoyable for the armies that struggle at shooting. All without nerfing shooting in 40k at all. This is literally what they call a 'win-win situation.'
Honestly, I wonder what sort of horrifically bad dice-rolling luck people have had against overwatch to think that it's anymore than a minor nuisance.
Double-tapping firewarriors are going to kill 3 charging guardsmen on average in overwatch. GUARDSMEN. They don't even get a save. We're not talking about space marines or something, just regular old guardsmen.
I wouldn't bank on overwatch to do gak against anything unless I had a Tau gunline set-up with markerlights to maximize support-fire shenanigans. Otherwise it's borderline useless.
As someone who played a very assault heavy Ork list in 5th, and stopped playing orks in 6th i will tell you the reason my army dosen't work any more.
Removeing casualties from the front.
If your spreading your orks out to their full 2" spaceing to defend from blast weapons, by shooting off the 1st rank of of orks, you effectivly lost 3" of movement from your last movement phase.
(The 1" ork base plus the 2" spaceing.)
Now if your running green tide the problem is even worse, since due to space when deploying you have to make your ranks shorter for space. If you end up rolling "Hammer and Anvil" deployment you bassicly are forced to have only 5 orks per "rank" in the hoard.
So by killing 10 orks, i lose 6" of movement from my hoard. All assault based armies suffer from this lose of movement to some degree or the other, but I think orks are the example of it at it's worse.
Bassicly 6th ed wound allocation punishes you for playing a assault army, and rewards people for playing shooting armies. Stuff like Overwatch on it's own isn't the problem, it's that over watch is takeing the problems with 6th ed wound allocation and makeing them WORSE.
6th then also felt content to take away the few tricks assault armies had to keep competive with shooting armies in 5th, like assaulting out of outflanks and a few other minor details. 6th ed killed the assault army.
Vaktathi wrote: Outflank didn't exist last time you could consolidate into new combats, and it was still horrific. Units have only gotten faster and tougher since then.
There were things like wolf scouts that could come in and assault since third. But my point is that many of the mechanics that made consolidate so deadly was the consistancy that people would reach assaults. However with current mechanics the amount of times someone makes it into assault is pretty limited so it is not as big of a deal if it came back. In addition there are many leadership mechanics that prevent a lot of people from falling back. Guard and many other armies have ways to prevent the fall back.
However we dont know enough to say for sure since we dont know anything about the context of the changes.
Thokt wrote: Why would armies obey an arbitrary organizational structure in the first place? In the framework of 40k we're already bound to all sorts of abstractions like this, what's weird about it? It's part and parcel to the norm. Why can some units score and others not in the first place? Why must both armies deploy in the same manner?
The organisational structure is there to create a (theoretically) fair game for both players, and to encourage people to build armies that utilise a reasonable mix of different unit types rather than just cherry-picking the best units.
The fact that only certain unit types can score is one of the things I disliked about 6th edition. The ability to hold an objective should be based on the unit's ability to defend that objective, not on where on the FOC it happens to be placed. Thankfully, it sounds like 7th ed is removing this issue...
However, the idea that a unit would be unable to contest an objective because the player chose to not follow the FOC, while an identical unit from a Battle Forged army can contest is just taking the abstraction to far. It's a limitation that's put in there to balance out the effectiveness of Unbound armies, yes... but it's a nonsensical one.
Vector Strike wrote: ... but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. .
How?
Because troops are the only scoring units (some SC notwithstanding) normally available. .
The rumours we have currently are suggesting that everyone scores in 7th ed. As I mentioned in the post that you were responding to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: Why do people think that overwatch balances out consolidating into combat? Unless you're Tau, overwatch is a single unit hitting on 6's..
Wasn't there a rumour that Overwatch was getting a boost? Or at least that Snap-firing was getting boosted, which would have a carry-on effect to Overwatch.
And again since BlaxicanX seemed to ignore it; you don't need to kill the entire unit on overwatch to stop the consolidation, you just need to kill enough to stop them from reaching combat.
Assuming that the consolidate move hasn't changed at all, it's only D6". That's an average of 3.5 inches, which is unlikely to be more than 2-3 models worth of casualties at most. It's the same issue as random charges and removing casualties from the front. It's not just the random charge that's an issue, it's that when overwatch removes the front couple of models then the unit is often out of range, unless you're right down the enemies throat.
If the combination of overwatch, removing casualties from the front and only a D6" consolidate is not stopping consolidating then maybe, just maybe you're packing your units too close together.
azreal13 wrote: I've lost Greater Daemons and Princes to Overwatch.
I've assaulted a squad of flamers with seekers and taken zero casualties.
No one cares about anecdotes.
A point to make is that extremes can happen, and will happen occasionally and inevitably, changing fate,hence making anecdotes on Overwatch potential a more logical piece of evidence, not merely a desirable piece of evidence. This is because the game works by allowing massive extremes to happen, like 2 Guardsmen roll 8 sixes in a row in overwatch with Lasguns, and a Hive Tyrant fails all of his saves. Not an overwhelmingly strong point, but it is one nonetheless.
Not seriously, its Sod's Law. Seriously, before Christmas I went to a pair of tournaments one after another, and I had draws/losses in 3 games out of 6 because of unforeseen last ditch rolls. Its a flaw of 40k in itself that games are won on opportunity dice so often now.
Spoiler:
I lost a game of the Relic against DE due to a Gunboat Kabalite Squad managing to draw a bead on my CCS first turn, kill 2 men and rout it off the board, giving 2 VP, later he won because half my army failed to kill his last remaining model, an Archon with Shadowfield.
I had a draw against Eldar because a single Warp Spider jumped just marginally over the limit needed to put him in my deployment zone and grab line breaker.
I had a game where an Al'Rahem infantry blob of 30 was routed off an objective by an almost dead tank-shocking Whirlwind. I went from a VP advantage and victory to a loss as a result.
As a considerably stronger point on the topic of overwatch, even less than a handful of kills can considerably reduce the chance of a charge going off, as the distance is determined after overwatch. I don't think killing 2 Marines or so in overwatch is that remarkable of an event with your average infantry unit, and yet those 2 Marines could easily be 1.5~'' worth of distance gained.
I may be the only one but as an ork player I have a real problem with challenges. I take ork boyz in huge numbers just to take a nob who gets destroyed in combat before he ever gets a chance to strike. The boyz are almost useless in CC these days and nobs for the squad are even worse because the accomplish nothing when they do get there. I understand that when, Well really if, my unit of boyz make it into cc they will be weakened but to have my units of boyz so consistently crushed by fire warriors of the same numbers or marines with less than half their numbers or anything really that can challenge my main damage dealer and completely gimp my unit really sucks.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Also people that are opposed to consolidation are forgetting that there are now allies. It's easy to draft in counter-charge units to protect your squishy shooties. Seems like everyone can ally with the Inquisition. Trust me, a Hammerhand, rad grenade Inquisitor with Priest giving re-rolls to hit and wound in a unit of Death Cult Assassins is going to eat anything that isn't in terminator armour, and will do a fair bit of damage to them too.
Sounds like a sell job by GW for the Bullgryns and the like.
Kwosge wrote: No, man, you see. It's 100% ok for shooting units to gun down CC units turn 1 but once a CC unit gets into CC with a shooty unit on turn 3 and after taking 50% casualties, it really shows how OP the CC unit is and why it should be nerfed even more. Those 4 rounds of shooting, turns 1, 2, 3, and Over Watch, that the CC unit had to go through, yea, forget about that being the balancing factor. Yea, forget that the shooty unit negates the CC unit's armor save. Also, forget that the shooty unit is in terrain so the CC unit strikes after the shooty unit for a total of 5 separate damage phases in a row before the CC unit can even attempt to hit the shooty unit. Did I mention how OPCC units are?
Good assault units don't take four turns to reach their target. You're grossly overstating the plight of assault units.
Kwosge wrote: No, man, you see. It's 100% ok for shooting units to gun down CC units turn 1 but once a CC unit gets into CC with a shooty unit on turn 3 and after taking 50% casualties, it really shows how OP the CC unit is and why it should be nerfed even more. Those 4 rounds of shooting, turns 1, 2, 3, and Over Watch, that the CC unit had to go through, yea, forget about that being the balancing factor. Yea, forget that the shooty unit negates the CC unit's armor save. Also, forget that the shooty unit is in terrain so the CC unit strikes after the shooty unit for a total of 5 separate damage phases in a row before the CC unit can even attempt to hit the shooty unit. Did I mention how OPCC units are?
Good assault units don't take four turns to reach their target. You're grossly overstating the plight of assault units.
And the good units are:
-LoC -Fleshounds
-Wraiths
-Winged super kitted out Princes
-Beasts
-Ork bikers?
-Daemonettes of Slaanesh
-Seekers of Slaanesh
-Maybe the bloodcrusher
Some that can do it well:
-Deathstars by absurd toughness.
In other words, super mobile units that can reach the enemy early. For the most part, CC armies have a couple fast picks but they do largely suck. Heck vanguard still really aren't that good despite still being somewhat fast. It seems far more CC specialized units aren't built to be all that fast which means charges will usually occur from turn 3-5 averaging at turn 4. There's a reason you don't see most CC units besides the really fast monasters or at least ones with godly transports (and even then you won't see banshees)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thokt wrote: Why would armies obey an arbitrary organizational structure in the first place? In the framework of 40k we're already bound to all sorts of abstractions like this, what's weird about it? It's part and parcel to the norm. Why can some units score and others not in the first place? Why must both armies deploy in the same manner?
Same reason we get equal points
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: Why do people think that overwatch balances out consolidating into combat? Unless you're Tau, overwatch is a single unit hitting on 6's.
That's not going to do gak to anything.
Late but just wanted to say is a d6 consolidation even that great for a charge? I mean, that's a pretty close range to get off and really only bad if you clump up everybody.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
overtyrant wrote: Running across an open battlefield to hit someone with your sword is stupid and the fething loonies (Berserkers, Orks etc..) should be punished with unrelenting fire, Close quarter combat should be reserved for building to building and trench warfare only.
I remember 4th quite well, I had a guard army and a World eaters army and playing either against there opposite (guard vs CC, WE vs Shooting) was not fun at all. I've not played 40k properly since then apart from dipping my toe in now and again as there are far superior rules out there to play. But I look for excuses to get back in and have been disappointed so far (yes im looking at you Sisters and Inquisition) so my expectations are not great but I still have hope.
Wise tip. 40k was and always was fantasy in space. A place where daemons stood, where heroes duked it out with fist to claw to blade to scythe. A place where silly over the top things go and mages to magical stuff. In short, don't use realism when observing the world.
.
(Blood Angels wont be under appreciated either)
YES FETHING PLEASE! My Orks would love to see this back.
