Honestly, requiring troops to score doesn't seem to be resulting in people taking significant number of troops. Instead of 2 bare minimum squads, we see... 3 or 4 bare minimum squads, ideally ones that can hide in the corners until the last turn, and then scoot out onto objectives. If they went to 'all infantry score' or some such.. great. Makes perfect sense to me.
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.
No one cares about anecdotes.
Just going to say casual is not balanced in the slightest. Hell, it's more balanced in competitive because at least there you have generally similar armies duking it out. Down here in the casual and/or narrative gaming cycle we have Riptides versus Pyrovores
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mantle wrote: 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.
I'm going to have to be cynical on this. First of all, that isn't all that unbound. Second of all, if you read what they were saying you'll notice it doesn't work. The Tau player wants to field 4 riptides and tons of broadsides. That's probably a bit more than a certain percentage of the army. That and we can add how Radio, a rather reliable source, said it wasn't a thing.
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.
I'll agree here. This killed a lot of armies in some way, shape, or form. Overwatch is just the icing on the top.
Slayer le boucher wrote: Sooo...basically ennemy can shoot 2 or 3 times per turn, for oly one CC per turn if we follow your opinion?...,
Yes, a unit could potentially shoot twice in a game turn, 3 times if they win combat in the first player turn and then get charged in the second. However, the assault unit gets to fight twice in the game turn, since they fight in both player turns. In most cases, if they charged then they also got a round of shooting before hand. And they get extra movement from charging and from piling in.
...it would be more of an incitive to NOT consolidate towards ennemy units.
If it's currently your turn, then not consolidating into anothe rcombat means you're standing around to be shot at and/or charged on your opponent's next turn.
If its currently your opponent's turn, then not consolidating means you're free to charge next turn and be hit with Overwatch... which would have the exact same effect as if you had consolidated.
So no, it would not be an incentive to not consolidate into another unit. That would almost always be a positive thing for an assault unit if they're intending to continue assaulting rather than running away into cover.
I dunno if you noticed that CC units and armies has much more trouble then straitgh shooting units/armies, why?,
Random charge range, no assaulting from vehicles, and removing casualties from the front.
With the exception of Tau, Overwatch by itself really hasn't hurt assault armies that much... If wound allocation is (as rumoured) being overhauled, and the end result is no longer having to remove the closest model first, I can see assault armies doing just fine again, and being able to consolidate straight into another combat, even with having to face Overwatch, can only help that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lansirill wrote: Honestly, requiring troops to score doesn't seem to be resulting in people taking significant number of troops
That's because there is no real incentive in the current game to play to the mission. Most players from my experience just try to wipe their opponent out, and worry about capturing objectives at the last minute if it's actually necessary.
I think it was the random charge range that hurt assault units the most. Followed by the loss of assaulting out of stationary transports.
Other than that I think the balance between close combat and ranged combat is thee closest it has ever been. I believe that it is the other rules that have hindered it's effectiveness.
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.
Because I remember playing games where I had one effective shooting phase? Because I remember playing games where the game was effectively over on turn 2 or 3 once my assault units got stuck in and I could just consolidate up a line without a care in the world?
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.
This was the refrain then. It's not always possible, especially if you're playing a horde army.
CC consolidation is tremendously powerful. You lock your opponent's ability to move, shoot, and use abilities and choose their own assaults, and can potentially have one unit wipe another unit every single assault phase.
It was removed for a very good reason. With the hilarious deathstars that now exist and the speed units have now relative to what they had in 3E and 4E it'd be even worse.
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.
Because I remember playing games where I had one effective shooting phase? Because I remember playing games where the game was effectively over on turn 2 or 3 once my assault units got stuck in and I could just consolidate up a line without a care in the world?
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.
This was the refrain then. It's not always possible, especially if you're playing a horde army.
CC consolidation is tremendously powerful. You lock your opponent's ability to move, shoot, and use abilities and choose their own assaults, and can potentially have one unit wipe another unit every single assault phase.
It was removed for a very good reason. With the hilarious deathstars that now exist and the speed units have now relative to what they had in 3E and 4E it'd be even worse.
3rd turn? That was the last time CC was broken to no end.
And I wouldn't say CC consolidation is powerful. It's still a d6 charge only. That coupled with all the other rules make it questionable at best. Plus, distance your unit 3.5 inches and you have about a 50% chance of them failing at all without even worrying about overwatch.
That said, good gosh the deathstars. There really needs to be a rule to pull them back (and can we get some edits on vehicle damage? I'm sorry but I always found it silly my barely made the charge to the front of a tank blew it up from behind)
StarTrotter wrote: That said, good gosh the deathstars. There really needs to be a rule to pull them back (and can we get some edits on vehicle damage? I'm sorry but I always found it silly my barely made the charge to the front of a tank blew it up from behind)
You didn't blow it up from behind. The idea behind infantry always striking rear armour is they find weak points - open hatches, viewing slits, gun barrels, etc to throw their krak grenades into. So they strike the rear armour, which is always a 40k vehicles weakest value.
StarTrotter wrote: That said, good gosh the deathstars. There really needs to be a rule to pull them back (and can we get some edits on vehicle damage? I'm sorry but I always found it silly my barely made the charge to the front of a tank blew it up from behind)
You didn't blow it up from behind. The idea behind infantry always striking rear armour is they find weak points - open hatches, viewing slits, gun barrels, etc to throw their krak grenades into. So they strike the rear armour, which is always a 40k vehicles weakest value.
Ah, sorry then! I haven't been able to play a game in almost a year thanks to college. Some of that stuff slips eventually.
I find myself agreeing with everything that Vaktathi has said about the advantages of assault. Close combat is absolutely the most deadly thing in 40K. The inability to move or shoot, no cover saves, duking it out during BOTH player turns, and the utter lethality of sweeping advances are all amazing perks for assault units. It's for these reasons that I feel that assault SHOULD be difficult to conduct, because the rewards are so great. I've always felt it should be a way to finish off a squad after softening it up with shooting, because that makes a lot of sense to me.
This is not to say I have no sympathy for the plight of assault armies. I believe the pendulum swung too far in 6th edition, but I still think assault is something which should be difficult for the reasons mentioned above.
Seriously think about it, without the nerd rage. Noob comes into the store and has a mix match of models. Though they all equal 1k. Bam! He can play without having to worry about getting a full 2k force. Which admit it, can be very intimidating when entering the hobby. Unbound lists seem to be meant for lower point games. To allow new comers into the hobby a way to play from the get go. I think everything will be alright
creeping-deth87 wrote: I find myself agreeing with everything that Vaktathi has said about the advantages of assault. Close combat is absolutely the most deadly thing in 40K. The inability to move or shoot, no cover saves, duking it out during BOTH player turns, and the utter lethality of sweeping advances are all amazing perks for assault units. It's for these reasons that I feel that assault SHOULD be difficult to conduct, because the rewards are so great. I've always felt it should be a way to finish off a squad after softening it up with shooting, because that makes a lot of sense to me.
This is not to say I have no sympathy for the plight of assault armies. I believe the pendulum swung too far in 6th edition, but I still think assault is something which should be difficult for the reasons mentioned above.
I don't really think it should. then again, I come into this from a Chaos Daemon viewpoint where our shooting is minimal to almost nonexistant. Then again I would rather it be easier to make it into CC but perhaps not have the lethal sweeping advance. At least not as it is now. Odd I know but it's that hard question of how to keep the pendulum at center. At this point it's just not worth fielding most assault units because they can't make it in time to really matter or just get blown back. Sure, they get to duke it out on both turns, but they also risk standing open right in front of the enemy to get blasted, to fail right in the enemie's face, they have to wade through turn upon turn of fire oftentimes before they can even duke it out, even when they finally battle they will often get injured in the process, they often lack any worthwhile shooting or it comes at a drawback to them (shooting before assaulting isn't quite what they say it is), and shooting also ignores cover much more regularly nowadays and it hurts many armies. As per CC units, I guess you could say the randomness is the cover save an entire deny the witch
As per sweeping, it's a bit less efficient than one would say. Considering how common fearless and ATSKNF is with high leaderships elsewhere, it's not quite that simple. At the same time it's humorous that armies with this are perhaps better for CC armies to fight because it means they are more likely to not have to worry about being shot to bits in the enemy turn whilst Tau or IG being swept is quite often far more inconvenient for the assault army.
jspyd3rx wrote: Seriously think about it, without the nerd rage. Noob comes into the store and has a mix match of models. Though they all equal 1k. Bam! He can play without having to worry about getting a full 2k force. Which admit it, can be very intimidating when entering the hobby. Unbound lists seem to be meant for lower point games. To allow new comers into the hobby a way to play from the get go. I think everything will be alright
New comers can game from the get go currently.
If someone is daunted by the fact that they need an HQ and two troops for a legal army, maybe tabletop gaming isn't for them.
Blacksails wrote: If someone is daunted by the fact that they need an HQ and two troops for a legal army, maybe tabletop gaming isn't for them.
But let's be honest, who is playing games with only the mandatory HQ and troops? That's what, a 500 point game, when most people play 1500-2000 points? Realistically you need the mandatory minimums and a few other units. The unbound rule would seem to remove this obstacle and allow you to play those three formerly-mandatory units and then throw in some stuff from the rest of your collection to meet the normal point limits. It definitely removes a barrier to entry for new players, the problem is that it does so in a way that encourages overpowered lists for everyone else.
Blacksails wrote: If someone is daunted by the fact that they need an HQ and two troops for a legal army, maybe tabletop gaming isn't for them.
But let's be honest, who is playing games with only the mandatory HQ and troops? That's what, a 500 point game, when most people play 1500-2000 points? Realistically you need the mandatory minimums and a few other units. The unbound rule would seem to remove this obstacle and allow you to play those three formerly-mandatory units and then throw in some stuff from the rest of your collection to meet the normal point limits. It definitely removes a barrier to entry for new players, the problem is that it does so in a way that encourages overpowered lists for everyone else.
Right, but going off the example I was responding to, if a player bought 1000pts of 40k without doing any research to ensure that 1000pts contained the minimum HQ and troops, that's not the game's fault. I'd also hardly call that a barrier to entry any more than GW's pricing model is regardless of what selections are mandatory and what aren't.
Regardless, Unbound is hardly the solution to anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gigasnail wrote: They really should have pushed the killteams rules for that.
Also this.
That would be a solid way to introduce people in a cheap, effective manner that rules out some of the more lesser balanced issues of the game.
Blacksails wrote: If someone is daunted by the fact that they need an HQ and two troops for a legal army, maybe tabletop gaming isn't for them.
But let's be honest, who is playing games with only the mandatory HQ and troops? That's what, a 500 point game, when most people play 1500-2000 points? Realistically you need the mandatory minimums and a few other units. The unbound rule would seem to remove this obstacle and allow you to play those three formerly-mandatory units and then throw in some stuff from the rest of your collection to meet the normal point limits. It definitely removes a barrier to entry for new players, the problem is that it does so in a way that encourages overpowered lists for everyone else.
Right, but going off the example I was responding to, if a player bought 1000pts of 40k without doing any research to ensure that 1000pts contained the minimum HQ and troops, that's not the game's fault. I'd also hardly call that a barrier to entry any more than GW's pricing model is regardless of what selections are mandatory and what aren't.
Regardless, Unbound is hardly the solution to anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gigasnail wrote: They really should have pushed the killteams rules for that.
Also this.
That would be a solid way to introduce people in a cheap, effective manner that rules out some of the more lesser balanced issues of the game.
Its a solution to unbind wallets.
To bad its a gakky idea and no one currently enjoys playing janky bs armies, I don't see how making it jankier and bullshitier is going to suddenly make people line up to face off against 10 riptides at 1850.
Blacksails wrote: Right, but going off the example I was responding to, if a player bought 1000pts of 40k without doing any research to ensure that 1000pts contained the minimum HQ and troops, that's not the game's fault. I'd also hardly call that a barrier to entry any more than GW's pricing model is regardless of what selections are mandatory and what aren't.
But that's not what I said. The newbie has the minimum troops and HQ, they just don't have enough other stuff to play a single-codex army at 1500-2000 points. Let's say the newbie gets a tactical squad, and then gets some cheap stuff from a friend who is cleaning out their unused stuff: another tactical squad, a captain, a crisis suit, a LRBT, a couple squads of starter set orks, etc. They can use the two tactical squads and the captain to make a legal army, but it won't be enough points to play a real game with anyone and so there's no point in showing up to 40k night until they buy a lot more space marine stuff. And of course none of the other stuff makes a complete 1500-2000 point army either. With an unbound army. on the other hand, they can take the whole pile of stuff at once and have 1500-2000 points, even if it's a very poorly optimized 1500-2000 points. Now instead of being stuck with a useless 500 point "army" until they invest another $500 they can start playing right away.
gigasnail wrote: They really should have pushed the killteams rules for that.
Also this.
That would be a solid way to introduce people in a cheap, effective manner that rules out some of the more lesser balanced issues of the game.
Killteams is great, but it's not really the same game. You can't just show up to 40k night and expect to find someone interested in playing it, since they've probably brought their standard army to play a normal 1500-2000 point game.
Yeah, I refuse to believe someone spent money on 1,000 points worth of models, and not only never bought the requisite troops and HQ choices, but is now so daunted by the thought of spending another $50-70 to get them that the hobby is now ruined for them. Not to mention that I don't think GW really cares if you buy that much product and then never play the game or buy another model again...after that first big sale, the 1,000 points that player already bought, you're dead to them, and it doesn't matter if you spend another penny because they got all they ever planned on getting from you. Churn and burn, it's what makes GW's financial reports look so good!
So no, I don't think unbound is designed to be "noob friendly"...if the prospect of building a "traditional" army is intimidating then how is building an army of $85-$140 robots any different? Or $60 tanks? Or $80 flyers? If you want something noob-friendly that lets you play with whatever you have, then putting Kill Team back into the core rules would have been a more logical choice. All you have to do is paint one, maybe two squads of guys and you can start playing games of 40k even if you're missing units. But then they wouldn't sell as many of those big, expensive tanks and robots now, would they?
And while I was typing my post I was beaten to the punch, lol. But yeah...
Blacksails wrote: Right, but going off the example I was responding to, if a player bought 1000pts of 40k without doing any research to ensure that 1000pts contained the minimum HQ and troops, that's not the game's fault. I'd also hardly call that a barrier to entry any more than GW's pricing model is regardless of what selections are mandatory and what aren't.
But that's not what I said. The newbie has the minimum troops and HQ, they just don't have enough other stuff to play a single-codex army at 1500-2000 points. Let's say the newbie gets a tactical squad, and then gets some cheap stuff from a friend who is cleaning out their unused stuff: another tactical squad, a captain, a crisis suit, a LRBT, a couple squads of starter set orks, etc. They can use the two tactical squads and the captain to make a legal army, but it won't be enough points to play a real game with anyone and so there's no point in showing up to 40k night until they buy a lot more space marine stuff. And of course none of the other stuff makes a complete 1500-2000 point army either. With an unbound army. on the other hand, they can take the whole pile of stuff at once and have 1500-2000 points, even if it's a very poorly optimized 1500-2000 points. Now instead of being stuck with a useless 500 point "army" until they invest another $500 they can start playing right away.
Do we know if unbound really lets you play literally anything, like a giant blob of crap from half a dozen different books? I was under the assumption you still used a parent codex and maybe a supplement or allies like normal, but just didn't have an FOC to obey.
Peregrine wrote: Let's say the newbie gets a tactical squad, and then gets some cheap stuff from a friend who is cleaning out their unused stuff: another tactical squad, a captain, a crisis suit, a LRBT, a couple squads of starter set orks, etc. They can use the two tactical squads and the captain to make a legal army, but it won't be enough points to play a real game with anyone and so there's no point in showing up to 40k night until they buy a lot more space marine stuff.
Two tactical squads and a captain is plenty of stuff to get in a game for a beginner without bogging them down in special rules.
But even ignoring that, yes, if you buy a whole bunch of unrelated stuff you don't wind up with a playable army. Just liek if I buy a whole bunch of assorted car parts off eBay, I probably won't wind up with a functional car. I'm not really seeing a problem that needs fixing there.
You can't just show up to 40k night and expect to find someone interested in playing it, since they've probably brought their standard army to play a normal 1500-2000 point game.
If someone has a 1500 point army with them, it's not difficult for them to throw together 500 points from what they have to give the new guy a go. I've done that before, on occasion.
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, I refuse to believe someone spent money on 1,000 points worth of models, and not only never bought the requisite troops and HQ choices, but is now so daunted by the thought of spending another $50-70 to get them that the hobby is now ruined for them.
The issue isn't the cost of the troops + HQ, it's the cost of getting a 1500-2000 point army to play normal games. Unbound is a huge help to newer players who can only make a 1500-2000 point army by throwing a bunch of random stuff together.
if the prospect of building a "traditional" army is intimidating then how is building an army of $85-$140 robots any different? Or $60 tanks? Or $80 flyers?
Because new players often either switch quickly between impulse-buy "armies" before settling on what they really want to play and accumulate a bunch of random units, or buy an entire collection of random stuff cheaply on ebay or from a friend.
If you want something noob-friendly that lets you play with whatever you have, then putting Kill Team back into the core rules would have been a more logical choice. All you have to do is paint one, maybe two squads of guys and you can start playing games of 40k even if you're missing units.
But, as I said, kill team is only great if other people want to play kill team instead of normal games.
Do we know if unbound really lets you play literally anything, like a giant blob of crap from half a dozen different books? I was under the assumption you still used a parent codex and maybe a supplement or allies like normal, but just didn't have an FOC to obey.
It seems to be "take whatever you want, within the rules of the allies matrix". So if you're willing to put up with AoC and desperate allies you'll probably be able to bring pretty much anything you want, unless the allies matrix gets some major changes.
In my opinion GW's new box design doesn't do anyone any favors as far as that goes. It's not so easy to tell at a glance anymore what belongs to what army when everything has the same black box design, unlike when everything had a themed background tying the products in a line together.
In some cases it's obvious, like those Tyranid warriors and Tempestus Scions probably don't go together, but the Scions and Space Marines? If you're a new player it might be confusing, and I doubt GW staff, who are all desperate to make any sale they can because GW will fire them in a month if they don't hit their goal, are going to go through any hoops to correct the budding player's mistake.
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, I refuse to believe someone spent money on 1,000 points worth of models, and not only never bought the requisite troops and HQ choices, but is now so daunted by the thought of spending another $50-70 to get them that the hobby is now ruined for them.
Sigh. Would you please read my post before commenting on it?
I finished typing mine after you posted yours. Sorry.
insaniak wrote: Two tactical squads and a captain is plenty of stuff to get in a game for a beginner without bogging them down in special rules.
Sure, for one teaching game. Now how many "captain and tactical squads" games do you think the newbie is going to get when they keep coming back every week with the same models? A stripped-down teaching game is fine for a player's first game, but there's a long period where the new player knows the rules and wants to play real games but doesn't necessarily have a full single-codex army.
But even ignoring that, yes, if you buy a whole bunch of unrelated stuff you don't wind up with a playable army. Just liek if I buy a whole bunch of assorted car parts off eBay, I probably won't wind up with a functional car. I'm not really seeing a problem that needs fixing there.
The problem is that's often how new players get into the game. Someone they know sells them a bunch of random stuff they aren't using anymore in exchange for beer money, they start the game and someone they know says "hey, I remember that, want my old models", etc. Even just being able to use both halves of the two-player starter set at once is a big help.
If someone has a 1500 point army with them, it's not difficult for them to throw together 500 points from what they have to give the new guy a go. I've done that before, on occasion.
Yes, but that assumes that they want to play a 500 point game. If I've brought my tank-heavy IG to play a normal game then I don't have any interest in playing a 500 point game with whatever random guardsmen I can scavenge out of my boxes. The newbie is either going to have a full army available (which unbound makes a lot easier), or they're going to sit and watch while I play someone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: I finished typing mine after you posted yours. Sorry.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, for one teaching game. Now how many "captain and tactical squads" games do you think the newbie is going to get when they keep coming back every week with the same models? A stripped-down teaching game is fine for a player's first game, but there's a long period where the new player knows the rules and wants to play real games but doesn't necessarily have a full single-codex army.
Well, there's a long period if they're not buying more stuff to put into their army...
The problem is that's often how new players get into the game. Someone they know sells them a bunch of random stuff they aren't using anymore in exchange for beer money, they start the game and someone they know says "hey, I remember that, want my old models", etc. Even just being able to use both halves of the two-player starter set at once is a big help.
As is buying stuff that actually makes a coherent army. Again, not seeing a problem here.
Yes, but that assumes that they want to play a 500 point game. If I've brought my tank-heavy IG to play a normal game then I don't have any interest in playing a 500 point game with whatever random guardsmen I can scavenge out of my boxes. The newbie is either going to have a full army available (which unbound makes a lot easier), or they're going to sit and watch while I play someone else.
...or they're going to play against someone else who is willing to throw a force together. Or they're going to play a team game with a more experienced player. Or they're going to talk about army design and tactics, or painting, or Star Wars, or whatever with other guys, and then go home and feel more inspired to work on their army.
Can you imagine a world without hypothetical situations?
"Unbound" as presented in WD is not a bad thing because it lets a player assemble a scratch force for informal games. People have always done that sort of thing without GW's justification.
It is a bad thing because it implicitly allows and encourages players to assemble a scratch force for formal games against "Bound" armies.
The "rule" may tend to institutionalise the same kind of divide as exists between painted army and un-painted army players, which in part arose from the Ard Boyz tournament rules.
Just saw that GW put a video on their website that informs about the new edition, especially about the new ways to build your force.
Did GW informed us about a release which is not even on preorder yet? A strange world indeed.
I liked that Video, gave as a quick insight on what to expect and was enough to hype me a little more. I am actually really looking forward playing with the new rules!
Oh, and it looks like they're now going for "REPLAY the narrative" instead of "FORGE the narrative"
So one of the benefits of a not unbound army is rerolling the warlord trait...
I know I've been out of the loop a while but I don't see how that will help me and an army of Night Lords using only jump troops not get tabled by turn 4 against the 2+ helldrake/2+ ripetide/2+ wraithknight/screamerstar meta that already exists in my area (and knowing the players will jump up to 5+ with unbound)....
That was actually informative. Also, 'Objective Secured' special rule for Battleforged Troops means that there is still a point having Troops, so I'm pleased. (Now if they remember to FAQ Pedro Kantor giving 'Objective Secured' to Sternguard, I'm content with these scoring changes.)
The objective secured rule seems interesting. It says that a unit with this rule can capture objectives even if it is within firing range of an enemy. Sounds like you can now suppress an enemy objective taker, especially if that enemy is in an unbound army.
jonolikespie wrote: So one of the benefits of a not unbound army is rerolling the warlord trait...
I know I've been out of the loop a while but I don't see how that will help me and an army of Night Lords using only jump troops not get tabled by turn 4 against the 2+ helldrake/2+ ripetide/2+ wraithknight/screamerstar meta that already exists in my area (and knowing the players will jump up to 5+ with unbound)....
Everything in your army will be able to score and contest even vehicles or flyers. Nothing in an unbound army can contest. That won't make night lord jump spam any more competitive, but unbound will get curbstomped by regular tournament level armies.
jonolikespie wrote: So one of the benefits of a not unbound army is rerolling the warlord trait...
I know I've been out of the loop a while but I don't see how that will help me and an army of Night Lords using only jump troops not get tabled by turn 4 against the 2+ helldrake/2+ ripetide/2+ wraithknight/screamerstar meta that already exists in my area (and knowing the players will jump up to 5+ with unbound)....
Everything in your army will be able to score and contest even vehicles or flyers. Nothing in an unbound army can contest. That won't make night lord jump spam any more competitive, but unbound will get curbstomped by regular tournament level armies.
This makes me sad.
I still have a half a dozen army ideas I'd be happy to drop hundreds on if only I wasn't forced to bastardize them to make them competitive or accept that I'll lose 9 out of 10 games.
Objective secured means enemy units can't contest the objective unless they also have objective secured. All troops in a regular bound list are super scoring like skyblight gargoyles.
So to sum things up everything scores but there are 3 tiers.
Tier 1 Objective secured which is on bound troops.
Tier 2 Units from a bound list
Tier 3 Units from an unbound list
So everything can score but only troops can score without the enemy being able to contest in a Battleforged army. Guess this gives troops a use still.
Also noticed the Lord of War present on the Combined Arms detachment list so no more crying that you can't take a superheavy because Escalation is an expansion.
From what I'm hearing on the video there are actually 3 types of forces:
Warforged - Following the normal Force Org Chart. which still seems to be as silly as the current Force Org Chart, and you get bonuses for this.
Normal - Same faction, but no force org limits
Unbound - doesn't even need to be the same faction. Nids allied with Grey Knights and Chaos Daemons.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I'm just excited I can finally use my Great Unclean One (hopefully) with the Daemonology.
Hell, I bought the thing when Greater Daemons would have to first possess a Champion with Daemonic Chains!
I bought my Keeper of Secrets back when I had to build up Slaaneshi Summoning Points by forcing leadership checks on the enemy, could possess any model with the Mark of Slaanesh (including Noisemarines) and all my daemons would vanish if I had no models with the Mark of Slaanesh left on the field...
But yes, I am intrigued by this Daemonology lore also.
Trasvi wrote: From what I'm hearing on the video there are actually 3 types of forces:
Warforged - Following the normal Force Org Chart. which still seems to be as silly as the current Force Org Chart, and you get bonuses for this.
Normal - Same faction, but no force org limits
Unbound - doesn't even need to be the same faction. Nids allied with Grey Knights and Chaos Daemons.
Is that what other people are hearing also?
No. You have the first one, Battle forged/war forged - Using the normal force org chart.
Then Unbound.
The 3rd thing he mentioned was Formations.
There's no middle ground.
ascended_mike wrote: The unbound stuff gives an interesting twist - Take tournaments out of the equation for a moment.
Against friends, how fun will it be for your Battleforged army to take on waves and waves of Carnifexes and stuff.
...and WIN!
I like that idea! (And my friends wouldn't be 'that guy'...)
Why on earth would you need permission from GW in the form of an official rule to do that? Really, what was stopping people from doing this before?
The idea of GW creating a way to Balance it out pleases me. The fact troops with "objective secured" can't be contested by anyone that doesn't have this rule, is a pretty cool change. I'm sure there's more to come.
I'm liking what I've seen in that video, and I'm also kind of interested to see what happens with Formations going forward. Will we get a Kult of Speed formation in the new Orks book? I'd say that Orks lend themselves well to formations, as the clans fluff does lend itself to taking an army with two or three different contingents in it.
Combined Arms Detachments and Allied Detachments are 'Core Detachments' which can be included in 'any battle-forged army'. Presumably this means that there are other types of detachment available?
There seem to be some references to units with 'no faction'. Does that just mean things like fortifications? Presumably 'faction' is equivalent to 'codex' or 'army list', because allied detachments seem to have a requirement that they are from a different faction to the primary detachment.
It seems that an allied detachment can not be the primary detachment, but the primary detachment doesn't have to be a combined arms detachment. I guess that's so you can have inquisition or knight forces as your primary detachment. I guess they don't get the objective secured rule, which makes them a little less nasty.
Battle Forged = a formal force, set up by a commander, with an aim on the battle field, a mission to complete and strong command structures in place.
Unbound = A bunch of guys without that. The troops that have been left trapped away from command by a advancing enemy, the guys in an outpost not expecting any trouble that suddenly finds itself attacked by a strike force, raiders or rebels running amok with no overall command, and all the other types of irregular forces that are common on the modern battlefield.
Interesting, and hopefully will help us get away from the current idea of two lines of troops facing each other and slugging away.
Why on earth would you need permission from GW in the form of an official rule to do that? Really, what was stopping people from doing this before?
The idea of GW creating a way to Balance it out pleases me. The fact troops with "objective secured" can't be contested by anyone that doesn't have this rule, is a pretty cool change. I'm sure there's more to come.
Relax mate.
Relax? I am relaxed. I don't appreciate the sarcasm.
And you still havn't answered my question. If people playing with their friends want to ignore FOC rules and just throw waves of models at each other, what was stopping them beforehand from making up houserules? Why do people need to be spoonfed by GW?
What dose it matter that they have added these rules? It means people are given rules in which to do it. If people don't like it they can just not use the unbound rules, as per the video.
Steve steveson wrote: What dose it matter that they have added these rules? It means people are given rules in which to do it. If people don't like it they can just not use the unbound rules, as per the video.
Battle Forged = a formal force, set up by a commander, with an aim on the battle field, a mission to complete and strong command structures in place.
Unbound = A bunch of guys without that. The troops that have been left trapped away from command by a advancing enemy, the guys in an outpost not expecting any trouble that suddenly finds itself attacked by a strike force, raiders or rebels running amok with no overall command, and all the other types of irregular forces that are common on the modern battlefield.
Interesting, and hopefully will help us get away from the current idea of two lines of troops facing each other and slugging away.
Alternatively your organised force of troops with their commander stumble ontop of a hive/tombworld that unleashes everything it has nearby in a mass swarm of death! Little organisation, but equally deadly!
I like it.
And to answer those people with their WAAC armies, I just won't play people like that. :]
Seems like an interesting change to have all Battle-forged models outscore Unbound options. No idea how it will play out competitively (will 5+ Riptides/Heldrakes worry about scoring?) but it appears to be a fair enough counter, assuming most missons are still objective-based.
Re-rolling the Warlord trait is fairly inconsequential, but one game in a dozen it might do something.
I'm not sure I like the idea of all units scoring, though. Making sure you have enough scoring potential was an important part of list-building, now it will be less so.
Why on earth would you need permission from GW in the form of an official rule to do that? Really, what was stopping people from doing this before?
The idea of GW creating a way to Balance it out pleases me. The fact troops with "objective secured" can't be contested by anyone that doesn't have this rule, is a pretty cool change. I'm sure there's more to come.
Relax mate.
Relax? I am relaxed. I don't appreciate the sarcasm.
And you still havn't answered my question. If people playing with their friends want to ignore FOC rules and just throw waves of models at each other, what was stopping them beforehand from making up houserules? Why do people need to be spoonfed by GW?
Sarcasm? I'm not being sarcastic at all. I'm telling you to relax because you're jumping down my throat for saying I like a change they've made. There's nothing sarcastic there at all. With regards to house ruling... You could say the same about anything rule they implement!
What's to stop you and your friends from making a 6th/7th edition Ork codex as play it using house rules? Nothing. A lot of people moan about GW's latest 6th editio, It's nice to see GW implementing stuff so it doesn't have to be house ruled. I for one like the changes.
Are you just sour because you don't like it? If you don't like it, Don't play with or against people using unbound lists. Simple as that.
I don't understand the problem.
You can just 'house rule' that Unbound doesn't exist
Why on earth would you need permission from GW in the form of an official rule to do that? Really, what was stopping people from doing this before?
The idea of GW creating a way to Balance it out pleases me. The fact troops with "objective secured" can't be contested by anyone that doesn't have this rule, is a pretty cool change. I'm sure there's more to come.
Relax mate.
Relax? I am relaxed. I don't appreciate the sarcasm.
And you still havn't answered my question. If people playing with their friends want to ignore FOC rules and just throw waves of models at each other, what was stopping them beforehand from making up houserules? Why do people need to be spoonfed by GW?
Sarcasm? I'm not being sarcastic at all. I'm telling you to relax because you're jumping down my throat for saying I like a change they've made. There's nothing sarcastic there at all. With regards to house ruling... You could say the same about anything rule they implement!
I'm not jumping down your throat. I'm asking you to explain something that you said that I find mind boggling.
If people playing friendly games with their friends wanted to do something, why would they wait for years until a new Edition from GW said they could do it?
What's to stop you and your friends from making a 6th/7th edition Ork codex as play it using house rules? Nothing. A lot of people moan about GW's latest 6th editio, It's nice to see GW implementing stuff so it doesn't have to be house ruled. I for one like the changes.
What was stopping you and your friends making houserules in 6th Ed to ignore the FOC?
Are you just sour because you don't like it? If you don't like it, Don't play with or against people using unbound lists. Simple as that.
I don't understand the problem.
You can just 'house rule' that Unbound doesn't exist
Wow reading these comments is like listening to a madman. Removing the force org. would be fun? interesting? exciting? It's the last bit of balance this game is holding onto and its going by the way side.
Why on earth would you need permission from GW in the form of an official rule to do that? Really, what was stopping people from doing this before?
The idea of GW creating a way to Balance it out pleases me. The fact troops with "objective secured" can't be contested by anyone that doesn't have this rule, is a pretty cool change. I'm sure there's more to come.
Relax mate.
Relax? I am relaxed. I don't appreciate the sarcasm.
And you still havn't answered my question. If people playing with their friends want to ignore FOC rules and just throw waves of models at each other, what was stopping them beforehand from making up houserules? Why do people need to be spoonfed by GW?
Sarcasm? I'm not being sarcastic at all. I'm telling you to relax because you're jumping down my throat for saying I like a change they've made. There's nothing sarcastic there at all. With regards to house ruling... You could say the same about anything rule they implement!
I'm not jumping down your throat. I'm asking you to explain something that you said that I find mind boggling.
If people playing friendly games with their friends wanted to do something, why would they wait for years until a new Edition from GW said they could do it?
What's to stop you and your friends from making a 6th/7th edition Ork codex as play it using house rules? Nothing. A lot of people moan about GW's latest 6th editio, It's nice to see GW implementing stuff so it doesn't have to be house ruled. I for one like the changes.
What was stopping you and your friends making houserules in 6th Ed to ignore the FOC?
Are you just sour because you don't like it? If you don't like it, Don't play with or against people using unbound lists. Simple as that.
I don't understand the problem.
You can just 'house rule' that Unbound doesn't exist
STILL not answering the question.
We could be here all day at this, There is nothing stopping anyone from house ruling anything. Your question has been answered by way of example. What did you not understand about that? How does that impact what I said at all? It doesn't.
I like the idea of having an official rule set for such games. Is that a bad thing? Can't see how it is.
In fact.. What you're coming out with is Mind Boggling...
Steve steveson wrote: What dose it matter that they have added these rules? It means people are given rules in which to do it. If people don't like it they can just not use the unbound rules, as per the video.
The idea of GW creating a way to Balance it out pleases me. The fact troops with "objective secured" can't be contested by anyone that doesn't have this rule, is a pretty cool change. I'm sure there's more to come.
Both of those look like answers to me. What was stopping people? Nothing, but it is nice to have rules.
If only GW did this kind of video every time they launched new rules...
Looks promising. The Combined Army benefits are interesting - re-rolling WT is meh but useful, while Objective Secured is awesome
Oh, and Troops inside Formations can totally score - no need for heated discussions
Puscifer wrote: So from what I've gathered from the video and other stuff...
Troops and things with a certain rule can contest and claim objectives, but nothing else can?
That sort of turns Unbound on its head to a point as you will need Troops.
It looks like Unbound troops can't contest an objective from Battle forged troops, so not only do you need troops to score but you also have to wipe out the enemy troops before you can score at all.
I think the Warlord re-roll might be good for an AM tank commander as you have more chance of getting the outflank trait which is one of the more useful ones.
That video has successfully waylaid my fears about the Unbound stuff. It was literally the only thing keeping me back about being excited about this edition.
I think GW did a great job by releasing that video.
Puscifer wrote: So from what I've gathered from the video and other stuff...
Troops and things with a certain rule can contest and claim objectives, but nothing else can?
That sort of turns Unbound on its head to a point as you will need Troops.
It looks like Unbound troops can't contest an objective from Battle forged troops, so not only do you need troops to score but you also have to wipe out the enemy troops before you can score at all.
I think the Warlord re-roll might be good for an AM tank commander as you have more chance of getting the outflank trait which is one of the more useful ones.
So unbound... Isn't strictly unbound as you need some common sense to build the army in the first place.
That balances things out a lot and turns unbound on its head.
Cheexsta wrote: That video has successfully waylaid my fears about the Unbound stuff. It was literally the only thing keeping me back about being excited about this edition.
I think GW did a great job by releasing that video.
Ye, I honestly think GW are changing there ways to some extent. Now, if this 7th dose turn out to still be quite close to 6th with just an errata and they do some FAQs it will be very good.
Jervis has been unleashed! My name's Jervis and I work for Games Workshop! Been laughing at this all morning.
For some strange reason, when I watched this video, I was reminded of what the Lady Galadriel said in The Two Towers:
Kirby will use his puppet, Johnson, to destroy the free peoples of Dakka. 7th edition has been unleashed!
For 130+ pages, most people have lamented the death of 40k. Now, after 3 minutes of video, 40k is the best thing since sliced bread!
It's often been said that women are a mystery and no man will ever understand them. Substitute women for dakka members...unless of course these dakka members posting are female 40k fans, which would explain a lot of things!
Personally, I think 7th will be the final nail in the coffin for 40k. I hope not.
Cheexsta wrote: That video has successfully waylaid my fears about the Unbound stuff. It was literally the only thing keeping me back about being excited about this edition.
I think GW did a great job by releasing that video.
Ye, I honestly think GW are changing there ways to some extent. Now, if this 7th dose turn out to still be quite close to 6th with just an errata and they do some FAQs it will be very good.
As long as it doesn't invalidate the Space Marine codex I just bought last december...
As long as it doesn't invalidate the Space Marine codex I just bought last december...
It wont. New editions never invalidate a Codex, look at Orks they haven't had a new one for a couple of editions.
Except when they do.....3rd edition would like a word with you.
Can't see it happening. To invalidate a series of codex they only just released would be a major turn off for the consumer base. They seem to be trying to tailor things to their players now. Something we've been waiting for, for a LONG time.
For 130+ pages, most people have lamented the death of 40k. Now, after 3 minutes of video, 40k is the best thing since sliced bread!
.
Without going through 130 pages I'm going to guess that
these are different posters with new ones jumping into the
conversation after the video dropped.
For 130+ pages, most people have lamented the death of 40k. Now, after 3 minutes of video, 40k is the best thing since sliced bread!
.
Without going through 130 pages I'm going to guess that
these are different posters with new ones jumping into the
conversation after the video dropped.
There has been a noticeable shift. The smug is strong with those of us who poked fun at the early melodramatics
I think it is nice that they made the video and actually explained some things. That might be counted as an first attempt to communicate with the fanbase...
Do you really think GW would do stuff to invalidate space marines, GWs poster boys and their bread and butter products. I think we can probably feel quite safe about that.
I'm looking forward to 7th, sounds like ti will be quite interesting
Kosake wrote: I think it is nice that they made the video and actually explained some things. That might be counted as an first attempt to communicate with the fanbase...
Na...True communication would be two way, and involve actually listening to what the fans/customers have to say bout your products.
I'm tgoing o reserve judgement until people get their hands on the new rulebooks and can do a detailed review and analysis. I'm hopeful that they'll fix the various issues, but I have absolutely no faith that they will do so.
For 130+ pages, most people have lamented the death of 40k. Now, after 3 minutes of video, 40k is the best thing since sliced bread!
.
Without going through 130 pages I'm going to guess that
these are different posters with new ones jumping into the
conversation after the video dropped.
Or they could be GW plants, sleepers like in the Manchurian candidate. I know somebody that visited Warhammer world a few years back...they've never been the same since!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: Very true. I'll wait and see and hope that we don't see a rapid release of dataslates that update armies to 7th at another $50 per.
I thought you'd be happy with people having to shell out more? Don't you have shares in GW? I'm pretty sure that you once said to people on dakka, for a joke, "to shut their pieholes and buy more GW stuff and make me richer!" or words to that effect
For 130+ pages, most people have lamented the death of 40k. Now, after 3 minutes of video, 40k is the best thing since sliced bread!
.
Without going through 130 pages I'm going to guess that
these are different posters with new ones jumping into the
conversation after the video dropped.
There has been a noticeable shift. The smug is strong with those of us who poked fun at the early melodramatics
It ain't over yet!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back OT
Is there any indication that 7th will fix the problem that has dogged 40k for as long as I can remember: i.e does it want to be a small scale, RPG, or does it want to be get as many models on the table as possible. In other words, epic in 28mm scale. Until this is addressed, any new edition is doomed to fail, in my view.
I must say I like the idea of giving "balanced" armies the objective secured rule, and other bonuses while "unbound" armies receive none.
I do also like that it appears as if there are at least 2 if not more "Battle Forged" FOC charts a player can choose to follow to gain bonuses. It has been hinted at that there would be army specific bonuses, I would like to see a FOC for every faction with that in mind. Either way, good deal.
However -- the negative: People will spam and ruin Unbound forces in a competitive setting. There is no doubt of this - competitive players will find the most efficient point units in any setting, Unbound is just opening the abuse floodgates. So, while casual games are good for an Unbound narrative, I predict the tournament scene will remain Battle-Forged army lists only. So no harm there, in the long run.
The WD article says check back every day for more content - i hope we do get a video each day while we wait for this release.
I thought I was going to give up on 40K. Now I think while I may never game again with other people, this will interest my son, and we will be having great battles once again.
Kosake wrote: I think it is nice that they made the video and actually explained some things. That might be counted as an first attempt to communicate with the fanbase...
Na...True communication would be two way, and involve actually listening to what the fans/customers have to say bout your products.
I'm tgoing o reserve judgement until people get their hands on the new rulebooks and can do a detailed review and analysis. I'm hopeful that they'll fix the various issues, but I have absolutely no faith that they will do so.
Can you not see the contradictions in your own reply?
There is a glitch in the matrix. It happens once in a while. If you leave your post alone for 5 minutes or so and post elsewhere, it usually fixes itself.
BlackTemplar1 wrote: Well, GW sure did find a way to sell more than three riptides/terminator squads/overpowered unit limited to three, didn't they?
No worries. You'll get to reroll your warlord result! So that way your warlord's unit can be fearless. That should totally counter the spammed min/maxed unbound army you're facing even after they annihilate all your super scoring troops by turn 2.
Boogie wrote: Have you noticed that on the video there is a sentence under FOC that says:
"All units chosen must have the same faction (or no faction)" ??
No faction?? "Codex: Aliena Auxilia" someone?
BlackTemplar1 wrote: Well, GW sure did find a way to sell more than three riptides/terminator squads/overpowered unit limited to three, didn't they?
No worries. You'll get to reroll your warlord result! So that way your warlord's unit can be fearless. That should totally counter the spammed min/maxed unbound army you're facing even after they annihilate all your super scoring troops by turn 2.
That is pretty cool. Instead of having automatically a useless Warlord trait on Celestine, and I can reroll it… and automatically get the same trait a second time .
Boogie wrote: Have you noticed that on the video there is a sentence under FOC that says:
"All units chosen must have the same faction (or no faction)" ??
No faction?? "Codex: Aliena Auxilia" someone?
This makes me think they're cleaning up the allies table by putting similar codexes under a single group (such as treating Inquisition and Knight codexes as an 'Imperial' faction).
No Faction could be for dataslate stuff like Cypher.
Well, first off it is a good thing that they put out this (the first of a few) videos with Jervis detailing what the FOC changes will mean to 40k. It gives me a little hope that there could be some forethought to this release. If it ends up being the case that the 6th edition rule book is still valid and these changes can be cataloged in a couple of pages of errata, my general tone towards this release will be much more positive.
With the rules Jervis mentioned, I wonder if the "objective secured" stuff is going to push Unbound armies entirely into the realm of "Tabling" forces. Contesting objectives seems like it would be prohibitively difficult (and unwise) when using an Unbound list, so I feel like this would provide support for a player who wants to run insane lists (i.e. "Look, I need to run this Riptide/Farseer/Lone Wolf list, how else could I win?")
In comparison, the new players (or others playing what ever units they own) will get decimated consistently since being Unbound gives them disadvantages in addition to a perhaps less-than-competitive force. Perhaps the message for them is "Look, you can play the game, just don't expect to win. But then again, you're just here for 'narrative,' aren't you?"
Kosake wrote: I think it is nice that they made the video and actually explained some things. That might be counted as an first attempt to communicate with the fanbase...
Na...True communication would be two way, and involve actually listening to what the fans/customers have to say bout your products.
I'm tgoing o reserve judgement until people get their hands on the new rulebooks and can do a detailed review and analysis. I'm hopeful that they'll fix the various issues, but I have absolutely no faith that they will do so.
Can you not see the contradictions in your own reply?
What contradictions?
GW don't allow comments on their youtube videos. They closed their Facebook page and official forums. They took deliberate steps to cut themselves off from customer feedback and opinion and isolate themselves. A video discussing the changes to rules in their new Edition released to promote their new product, but with comments disabled does not amount to "communication with the fanbase". Granted, its possible they've been covertly monitoring forums and have considered the common complains made about the game when writing the new edition, but we won't know whether they have been listening covertly until people can get their hands on it and do an in depth analysis.
And if you're referring to my statements "I'm reserving judgement until someone posts a detailed review" and "I'm hopeful but have no faith" I meant that I'm on the fence over whether I'll be buying this Edition. I have posted my opinions on the various rumours but those have not been confirmed, or have only been glimpsed in a brief clip, and I will be waiting until release to decide.
Like I said, I'm hopeful but I don't have faith that they will listen based on past behaviour.
If I wasn't reserving my judgement, I'd have already sold my army and moved on to another game altogether.
alphaecho wrote: I'd be happy if Unbound will let you take armies based on BL novels where the protagonists do not necessarily fit the FOC.
For example Talos and a veteran Night Lords squad with 30+ Bleeding Eye Raptors.
Might be hoop on the table and achieve nothing but could be fun to play!
Isn't Talos, two veteran Night Lords squads, and 30+ Bleeding Eye Raptors already legal? Does that single 5 man chaos marine squad make all the difference in you forging that narrative?
Kosake wrote: I think it is nice that they made the video and actually explained some things. That might be counted as an first attempt to communicate with the fanbase...
Na...True communication would be two way, and involve actually listening to what the fans/customers have to say bout your products.
I'm tgoing o reserve judgement until people get their hands on the new rulebooks and can do a detailed review and analysis. I'm hopeful that they'll fix the various issues, but I have absolutely no faith that they will do so.
Can you not see the contradictions in your own reply?
What contradictions?
GW don't allow comments on their youtube videos. They closed their Facebook page and official forums. They took deliberate steps to cut themselves off from customer feedback and opinion and isolate themselves. A video discussing the changes to rules in their new Edition released to promote their new product, but with comments disabled does not amount to "communication with the fanbase". Granted, its possible they've been covertly monitoring forums and have considered the common complains made about the game when writing the new edition, but we won't know whether they have been listening covertly until people can get their hands on it and do an in depth analysis.
And if you're referring to my statements "I'm reserving judgement until someone posts a detailed review" and "I'm hopeful but have no faith" I meant that I'm on the fence over whether I'll be buying this Edition. I have posted my opinions on the various rumours but those have not been confirmed, or have only been glimpsed in a brief clip, and I will be waiting until release to decide.
Like I said, I'm hopeful but I don't have faith that they will listen based on past behaviour.
If I wasn't reserving my judgement, I'd have already sold my army and moved on to another game altogether.
Good lord, all of you stop. Worse than my 2 yo and 4 yo.
Must say, I'm pumped. There are few gamers more jaded than I... but I think I've made that fatal mistake of actually hoping GW might pull off a better edition than the one before here (and I still think 6th is the best yet... just about 4 units, 2 rules, and 1 design philosophy away from a solid edition).
Thimn wrote: So going off that screen grab. A tactical squad with a rhino if they combat squad is 3 scoring units. Awesome
Unless vehicles have a blanket "don't count as scoring" rule like they've had for the past two editions elsewhere in the book. One screen grab =/= complete understanding.
Well it looks as if the sky is not falling after all and we may have a fun edition on our hands. I am all for people playing unbound armies, a Leman Russ tank contingent comes to mind right away as a fluffy fun way to spend an afternoon. Campaigns are going to be great fun because of this I think.
It also looks as if competitive play will not be broken either. Unbound armies will be required to table pretty much every army they come up against, something that may happen to me, but will not happen to most players out there.
Just when I think I'm going to get out of this silly game, GW sucks me right back in...
Thimn wrote: So going off that screen grab. A tactical squad with a rhino if they combat squad is 3 scoring units. Awesome
We don't yet have confirmation that all units are scoring. Just shaky rumors. Personally I won't believe any "rumors" until we are about a week away from release and/or someone posts a picture of the rulebook in hand.
As it is, I don't think *everything* in 7th will be scoring - most likely it will be just the way it is now, with the added kerfluffle of "Objective Secured" units in Battle-forged lists (and skyblight tyranids)
Grey Knight Luke wrote: Well it looks as if the sky is not falling after all and we may have a fun edition on our hands. I am all for people playing unbound armies, a Leman Russ tank contingent comes to mind right away as a fluffy fun way to spend an afternoon. Campaigns are going to be great fun because of this I think.
It also looks as if competitive play will not be broken either. Unbound armies will be required to table pretty much every army they come up against, something that may happen to me, but will not happen to most players out there.
Just when I think I'm going to get out of this silly game, GW sucks me right back in...
Campaigns have never been restricted by the FOC and didn't need a "take anything" army construction rule as a standard option. As for competitive play, I suspect we'll see a blanket ban on unbound armies in most tournies except for the (apparently unpopular judging from Adepticon) formats that specifically advertised in the past taking everything. This just enables TFGs to try and screw over pickup game opponents as part of the standard rules via "but the rules say I can take all riptides!" argument. Your ability to get a fearless warlord and have super scoring troops doesn't matter if your opponent kills every troop by turn 2 and tables you by turn 4 because they've cherry picked the most broken units from 15 different sources.
Grey Knight Luke wrote: Well it looks as if the sky is not falling after all and we may have a fun edition on our hands. I am all for people playing unbound armies, a Leman Russ tank contingent comes to mind right away as a fluffy fun way to spend an afternoon. Campaigns are going to be great fun because of this I think.
It also looks as if competitive play will not be broken either. Unbound armies will be required to table pretty much every army they come up against, something that may happen to me, but will not happen to most players out there.
Just when I think I'm going to get out of this silly game, GW sucks me right back in...
Campaigns have never been restricted by the FOC and didn't need a "take anything" army construction rule as a standard option. As for competitive play, I suspect we'll see a blanket ban on unbound armies in most tournies except for the (apparently unpopular judging from Adepticon) formats that specifically advertised in the past taking everything. This just enables TFGs to try and screw over pickup game opponents as part of the standard rules via "but the rules say I can take all riptides!" argument. Your ability to get a fearless warlord and have super scoring troops doesn't matter if your opponent kills every troop by turn 2 and tables you by turn 4 because they've cherry picked the most broken units from 15 different sources.
Even Unbound armies are limited by the (new) Allies chart. So you're still won't face someone who "cherry picked the most broken units from 15 different sources".
I was going to add "you're supposed to discuss restrictions with your opponents before games", but from the way PUG players keep posting, it sounds like actually talking to your opponent beyong "1500 points?" doesn't actually happen.
I'm pretty sure that the "everything and their grandmother is scoring" thingy is a dubious rumour rather than something from the WD article or the video. Time will tell, obviously.
Realy unbound force organisation not the issue, it's weather the game itself can support it as a option.
Can GW make players want to take and use all there options with the rules, missions and objectives.
And can they create a game that both and all players can enjoy with there rules without huge amount of work.
A lot of other games can do this with limited restrictions so there isn't realy any reason GW cannot other than willful failure.
Grey Knight Luke wrote: Well it looks as if the sky is not falling after all and we may have a fun edition on our hands. I am all for people playing unbound armies, a Leman Russ tank contingent comes to mind right away as a fluffy fun way to spend an afternoon. Campaigns are going to be great fun because of this I think.
It also looks as if competitive play will not be broken either. Unbound armies will be required to table pretty much every army they come up against, something that may happen to me, but will not happen to most players out there.
Just when I think I'm going to get out of this silly game, GW sucks me right back in...
Campaigns have never been restricted by the FOC and didn't need a "take anything" army construction rule as a standard option. As for competitive play, I suspect we'll see a blanket ban on unbound armies in most tournies except for the (apparently unpopular judging from Adepticon) formats that specifically advertised in the past taking everything. This just enables TFGs to try and screw over pickup game opponents as part of the standard rules via "but the rules say I can take all riptides!" argument. Your ability to get a fearless warlord and have super scoring troops doesn't matter if your opponent kills every troop by turn 2 and tables you by turn 4 because they've cherry picked the most broken units from 15 different sources.
Even Unbound armies are limited by the (new) Allies chart. So you're still won't face someone who "cherry picked the most broken units from 15 different sources".
I was going to add "you're supposed to discuss restrictions with your opponents before games", but from the way PUG players keep posting, it sounds like actually talking to your opponent beyong "1500 points?" doesn't actually happen.
Seriously, when you take a list that you have played with more than 5 times and actually put thought into, how often have you gotten tabled? For me it hasn't happened since 5th when I went up against leafblower for the first time. I almost never hear of people getting tabled on turn 2. Knowing that the guy across the table from you cannot score is a HUGE advantage and lets you play very defensively if you need to.
It seems that GW wants to publicise their new 40k edition, so they have uploaded a promotional video with Jervis Johnson, part of GW’s Rule Development Team. I have taken some screenshots of all the rules for a better reading, click to enlarge. More or less this confirms the rumours we have beer hearing these days, I am still afraid of the impact of including Lords of War in regular 40k, let’s see how this goes.
I think some of the stuff looks interesting, but I'm still waiting to see the full picture because it feels like we're only looking at a handful of pieces.
If anyone at GW is reading this thread, I hope the MAIN thing they take away from it is:
More communication with your fanbase is a good thing.
That video with Jervis explaining some of the reasoning and rules, along with screen caps from the actual rulebook, goes a long way towards making me feel better about dropping $100 or so on a new book in a couple weeks. While watching it I found myself thinking that perhaps they've actually gone through the rules so that they make more sense.
The rules layout looks pretty clear. The reasoning appears sound and given what we just saw I'm pretty sure that the Force Chart is a long long ways from actually being dead.
streamdragon wrote: Even Unbound armies are limited by the (new) Allies chart. So you're still won't face someone who "cherry picked the most broken units from 15 different sources".
I was going to add "you're supposed to discuss restrictions with your opponents before games", but from the way PUG players keep posting, it sounds like actually talking to your opponent beyong "1500 points?" doesn't actually happen.
Well, that's reality. When you go to a store, you usually have two scenarios:
1) Everyone who is looking for a game is already playing. You wait until another person looking for a game comes in. You have the choice of their playing that person, or risking not playing at all because either there is no other person coming in, or the next person coming in is going to play him rather than you.
2) One or more people are waiting for a game, and aren't playing each other for some reason. Either you play one of those people or you are joining the crowd of people who jump everyone who comes in with an figure case.
Most of the time, you either play whoever wants to play and don't be picky about it, or you'll end up spectating games all afternoon.
EDIT: As Azreal said, I don't think these will be the prices for the US since Australia experiences such a mark-up, I just wanted to provide the exact translation
Great. Still don't have the full rules, but with 7th, you are absolutely required to communicate with your opponent before the game whether he wants to play the game (no Unbound) or just shove plastic on the table (allowing Unbound).
I really laughed out loud when I read that the "advantage" you get for using the FOC is re-rolling the Warlord Table. Great fething job GW. Whoop-di-whoop. And I am glad that only your Bound force may score while hordes of Waveserpents and Riptides tear everything apart.
GW isn't even trying anymore.
Still: waiting for the entire rules. Right now, it looks utterly terrible now.
Plus: really? ~100€ for a rulebook? Not going to happen. Ever.
Well, that's reality. When you go to a store, you usually have two scenarios:
1) Everyone who is looking for a game is already playing. You wait until another person looking for a game comes in. You have the choice of their playing that person, or risking not playing at all because either there is no other person coming in, or the next person coming in is going to play him rather than you.
2) One or more people are waiting for a game, and aren't playing each other for some reason. Either you play one of those people or you are joining the crowd of people who jump everyone who comes in with an figure case.
Most of the time, you either play whoever wants to play and don't be picky about it, or you'll end up spectating games all afternoon.
'
I fail to see how either of those scenarios makes a 2 minute conversation about what you both want out of the game impossible. Surely you are capable of working something out with another human being, who is theoretically also there because they too want to get a game in?
Sigvatr wrote: Great. Still don't have the full rules, but with 7th, you are absolutely required to communicate with your opponent before the game whether he wants to play the game (no Unbound) or just shove plastic on the table (allowing Unbound).
I really laughed out loud when I read that the "advantage" you get for using the FOC is re-rolling the Warlord Table. Great fething job GW. Whoop-di-whoop. And I am glad that only your Bound force may score while hordes of Waveserpents and Riptides tear everything apart.
GW isn't even trying anymore.
Still: waiting for the entire rules. Right now, it looks utterly terrible now.
Plus: really? ~100€ for a rulebook? Not going to happen. Ever.
There are a number of bonuses listed, but here are the two we know in full:
The video gives you partial view of a few more as well.
I changed my mind. The deathstrike missile army is lame and unfriendly, and not in the spirit of the game.
I'm bringing an army of nothing but 3rd edition Daemonhunters Heavy Support Orbital Bombardments. It's a unit in my collection, and I can use whatever units are in my collection, or whatever, so why the feth not?
daedalus wrote: I changed my mind. The deathstrike missile army is lame and unfriendly, and not in the spirit of the game.
I'm bringing an army of nothing but 3rd edition Daemonhunters Heavy Support Orbital Bombardments. It's a unit in my collection, and I can use whatever units are in my collection, or whatever, so why the feth not?
Oh my god, with each passing day it gets worse! Don't have 10 marneus Calgar models? Oh well cool thing is now all your dopes will be really good-ish at holding objectives unless your opponent also doesn't have 10 Abbadons and he too is good0ish at holding objectives, then you both still suck at holding objectives!
Man! this all seems so hard! How do i write a decent list? Oh I know, I'll just forge a narrative :forgeforgeforgeforge: until GW just straight up writes a list for me!
ungh... all that forging! Excuse me I have to pawn my worthless crap models off on some unsuspecting dweeb.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You're missing the part where FoC bound armies get advantages to capturing objectives. Which is a pretty nice tactical advantage over unbound armies.
By the reading of this, even Unfun armies are able to capture objectives unless Regular troops are at the very same objective?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You're missing the part where FoC bound armies get advantages to capturing objectives. Which is a pretty nice tactical advantage over unbound armies.
By the reading of this, even Unfun armies are able to capture objectives unless Regular troops are at the very same objective?
I see what you did there...
Yeah, that seems to be the scenario. I guess it is meant to encourage at least min-max troop choices in an Unbound list to hide in cover and attempt last-minute objective grabs.
Sounds like a lot of fun. Hide for the entire game while getting bombared by superior troops. Points-denial games have always been the most fun games.
very exciting much fun so wow
Points denial is the new "forging the narrative". Holy cow, I just hope GW stays away from WHFB for the next at least 10 years. They seriously suck at making rules.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You're missing the part where FoC bound armies get advantages to capturing objectives. Which is a pretty nice tactical advantage over unbound armies.
By the reading of this, even Unfun armies are able to capture objectives unless Regular troops are at the very same objective?
My understanding is basically 3 tiers of units, with regards to objectives:
1. Obective Secured units. Tyranid Skyblight Gargoyles, and Troop units from Battle Forged armies go here.
2. Scoring units. Whatever units that aren't scoring. Troop units from Unbound armies go here.
3. Denial units. Units that can't score themselves, but are still capable of contesting objectives.
OS units can't be contested by Scoring or Denial units. They can ONLY be contested by other OS units. So a Skyblight Gargoyle could contest a Battle Forged Tactical Space Marine squad sitting on an objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Sounds like a lot of fun. Hide for the entire game while getting bombared by superior troops. Points-denial games have always been the most fun games.
very exciting much fun so wow
Points denial is the new "forging the narrative". Holy cow, I just hope GW stays away from WHFB for the next at least 10 years. They seriously suck at making rules.
Isn't this basically what has been done since objectives became a thing in 40k? I mean, freakin last round Wave Serpent Tank Shocks or Turbo Boosting to objectives isn't anything new.
alphaecho wrote: I'd be happy if Unbound will let you take armies based on BL novels where the protagonists do not necessarily fit the FOC.
For example Talos and a veteran Night Lords squad with 30+ Bleeding Eye Raptors.
Might be hoop on the table and achieve nothing but could be fun to play!
Isn't Talos, two veteran Night Lords squads, and 30+ Bleeding Eye Raptors already legal? Does that single 5 man chaos marine squad make all the difference in you forging that narrative?
I don't have the current Chaos Codex. Do Chosen/ veteran Chaos Marines count as Troops or are they Elites? Can you take 40 Raptors in an FOC based army?
What I was suggesting (apologies if it wasn't clear) was one Elite choice with four+ Fast Attack selections. No HQ, no Troops.
Can see a lot of people learning quick wether they like or dislike this unbound stuff. It's just annoying to see the same people going on about the small things we've seen like that's the ONLY thing that'll be the difference between Unbound and Battleforged armies.
GW just proved that we have no idea what's coming and have no idea how it's gonna balance out.
Yeah the benefits for "Battle Forged" armies might not seem awesome as yet, but we don't know what else we've not seen as of yet. Do we?
2 more of those videos to come, should shed some light on it.
If unbound armies are allowed in competitive play then the nids just jumped at the top of the food chain!
Want to play unbound? Meet my Endless swarm list of x-thousand non tablable objective securing MSU. Oh and a pair of Primes somewhere in there to secure synapse.
I'm a little confused about why they felt the need to mention that all units in your primary detachment need to be within the same Faction (which I assume is some new allies matrix thing) but then also mention that all units in your Allied detached must be within the same Faction.
What does that mean? Aren't all units from the same codex within the same faction anyhow? Does that mean that if I'm playing an "imperial" primary detachment, I can take units from Imperial Guard, Vanilla Marines, and Blood Angels, all within the same detachment?
Could I then choose an allied detachment from another Faction (let's say Eldar), which would then presumably be able to take units from the Eldar faction (which I assume includes DE)? Because it does not indicate that Allied Detachments have to be from the same faction as your Primary detachment.
Spoletta wrote: If unbound armies are allowed in competitive play then the nids just jumped at the top of the food chain!
Want to play unbound? Meet my Endless swarm list of x-thousand non tablable objective securing MSU. Oh and a pair of Primes somewhere in there to secure synapse.
darkcloak wrote: Oh my god, with each passing day it gets worse! Don't have 10 marneus Calgar models? Oh well cool thing is now all your dopes will be really good-ish at holding objectives unless your opponent also doesn't have 10 Abbadons and he too is good0ish at holding objectives, then you both still suck at holding objectives!
Man! this all seems so hard! How do i write a decent list? Oh I know, I'll just forge a narrative :forgeforgeforgeforge: until GW just straight up writes a list for me!
ungh... all that forging! Excuse me I have to pawn my worthless crap models off on some unsuspecting dweeb.
"No FoC" does not mean "can take 10 copies of Special Characters".
darkcloak wrote: Oh my god, with each passing day it gets worse! Don't have 10 marneus Calgar models? Oh well cool thing is now all your dopes will be really good-ish at holding objectives unless your opponent also doesn't have 10 Abbadons and he too is good0ish at holding objectives, then you both still suck at holding objectives!
Man! this all seems so hard! How do i write a decent list? Oh I know, I'll just forge a narrative :forgeforgeforgeforge: until GW just straight up writes a list for me!
ungh... all that forging! Excuse me I have to pawn my worthless crap models off on some unsuspecting dweeb.
Marneus Calgar is a force multiplier. An army of 10 Calgars would get destroyed.
Play 10 Mephistons instead.
Nah for real neither of those will happen, chill out.
Spoletta wrote: If unbound armies are allowed in competitive play then the nids just jumped at the top of the food chain!
Want to play unbound? Meet my Endless swarm list of x-thousand non tablable objective securing MSU. Oh and a pair of Primes somewhere in there to secure synapse.
Yes you can put your models back in the case now.
You're forgetting that in unbound it doesn't matter if you have 2.2 million troops, they won't take the objectives from battle forged guys even if they're both in range. Also, from my perspective with Guard, Wyverns would barrage-snipe your Primes to death and then your gribblies will eat themselves for the rest of the game. I wouldn't get my hopes up quite that high just yet, and god forbid you end up with a kill-points game hahah.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You're missing the part where FoC bound armies get advantages to capturing objectives. Which is a pretty nice tactical advantage over unbound armies.
By the reading of this, even Unfun armies are able to capture objectives unless Regular troops are at the very same objective?
That is the way I read it, however that allows regular Bound troops to do some awesome last minute land grabs by swooping into contesting distance in a transport and automatically controlling the objective against any Unbound units, with the Objective Secured rule that Unbound cannot have.
darkcloak wrote: Oh my god, with each passing day it gets worse! Don't have 10 marneus Calgar models? Oh well cool thing is now all your dopes will be really good-ish at holding objectives unless your opponent also doesn't have 10 Abbadons and he too is good0ish at holding objectives, then you both still suck at holding objectives!
Man! this all seems so hard! How do i write a decent list? Oh I know, I'll just forge a narrative :forgeforgeforgeforge: until GW just straight up writes a list for me!
ungh... all that forging! Excuse me I have to pawn my worthless crap models off on some unsuspecting dweeb.
"No FoC" does not mean "can take 10 copies of Special Characters".
Why not? Nothing to say otherwise just yet is there? Besides I wasn't being serious with my examples. See this is what I hate about the internet. Say your piece and someone always has to come along and go "hey, you forgot the comma in between..."
Anyways it doesn't matter. No matter what the deal is, this whole UB/BF is just dumb. So what? I call my buddy up for a game and he brings over 10 Turkies, how the hell are we supposed to remain friends after that? Thanks GW, you've just given TFGs everywhere the go-ahead.
Consolation prize if you already have an army that you spent a year building? Objectives Secured.
Well, that's reality. When you go to a store, you usually have two scenarios:
1) Everyone who is looking for a game is already playing. You wait until another person looking for a game comes in. You have the choice of their playing that person, or risking not playing at all because either there is no other person coming in, or the next person coming in is going to play him rather than you.
2) One or more people are waiting for a game, and aren't playing each other for some reason. Either you play one of those people or you are joining the crowd of people who jump everyone who comes in with an figure case.
Most of the time, you either play whoever wants to play and don't be picky about it, or you'll end up spectating games all afternoon.
'
I fail to see how either of those scenarios makes a 2 minute conversation about what you both want out of the game impossible. Surely you are capable of working something out with another human being, who is theoretically also there because they too want to get a game in?
What's the point of that discussion?
"Hey, I want to try my new counts-as-Imperial Knight, want to play?"
"Sorry, no Knights."
-> No game
"Hey, want to play a story scenario from that IA book I bought, want to play?"
"I'd rather play a regular game."
-> No game
"Would you mind not playing the dual turbo-laser warhound?"
"Sorry, didn't bring another army"
-> No game
"I'm a competitive player, is it ok for me to field my riptide/serpent/wraithknight list?"
"Uh, sorry I'd rather no be tabled by turn 3."
-> No game
"I'm playing a fluffy grot army, would you please play a weak army?"
"Sorry, I'm training for next weeks tournament."
-> No game
"Hey, I just bought my second Blood Angel rhino, wanna play?"
"I don't think that game would enjoyable for you, kid."
-> No game
"So, what are you playing?"
"Tau with eldar allies."
"Ugh, tough. How many points?"
"1750, want to play?"
"Sure, better than not playing"
-> Got a game
No matter what you talk about, you can chose between not playing the perfect game you imagined or not playing at all.
The only thing you can do is bring three or four army lists yourself and hope the people present are willing to play against at least one of those lists. An actual discussion to find a consensus about how to play the game happens very rarely, and usually only if the other person is a seasoned veteran with a vast collection of models.
darkcloak wrote: Oh my god, with each passing day it gets worse! Don't have 10 marneus Calgar models? Oh well cool thing is now all your dopes will be really good-ish at holding objectives unless your opponent also doesn't have 10 Abbadons and he too is good0ish at holding objectives, then you both still suck at holding objectives!
Man! this all seems so hard! How do i write a decent list? Oh I know, I'll just forge a narrative :forgeforgeforgeforge: until GW just straight up writes a list for me!
ungh... all that forging! Excuse me I have to pawn my worthless crap models off on some unsuspecting dweeb.
"No FoC" does not mean "can take 10 copies of Special Characters".
Well, won't he autolose from taking 10 turkies, since he has hardly anything on the board? I mean, he could take a single small squad of cultists, but then they'll probably die.
Besides, Special Characters have the Unique rule, iirc. Which basically means "no duplicates"
Spoletta wrote: If unbound armies are allowed in competitive play then the nids just jumped at the top of the food chain!
Want to play unbound? Meet my Endless swarm list of x-thousand non tablable objective securing MSU. Oh and a pair of Primes somewhere in there to secure synapse.
Yes you can put your models back in the case now.
You're forgetting that in unbound it doesn't matter if you have 2.2 million troops, they won't take the objectives from battle forged guys even if they're both in range. Also, from my perspective with Guard, Wyverns would barrage-snipe your Primes to death and then your gribblies will eat themselves for the rest of the game. I wouldn't get my hopes up quite that high just yet, and god forbid you end up with a kill-points game hahah.
Except that the list i mentioned is battle forged.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You're missing the part where FoC bound armies get advantages to capturing objectives. Which is a pretty nice tactical advantage over unbound armies.
By the reading of this, even Unfun armies are able to capture objectives unless Regular troops are at the very same objective?
That is the way I read it, however that allows regular Bound troops to do some awesome last minute land grabs by swooping into contesting distance in a transport and automatically controlling the objective against any Unbound units, with the Objective Secured rule that Unbound cannot have.
Which means an Unfun army gets to spam easy objective holders that sit on an objective while blasting the enemy with far superior models, giving him no chance but to stay in cover and out of LoS for the entire game. How would a Regular Space Marine army be able to properly hold objectives vs the combined fire of an Unfun army? Physically blocking an objective isn't as hard as it might first appear to be, especially when you can spam cheap regular troops. Try to get up to 3'' to an objective with a huge Ork / IG blob sitting on it while you drown in bullets.
There needs to be a massive advantage for Regular vs. Unfun armies, e.g. considerably higher points allowance or additional VP, e.g. doubling VP for kills vs. an Unfun list, else you're better off choosing to play either system instead of combining the two.
But again: let's wait for the entire set of rules. It looks like the worst modern 40k rules system so far, but it might have some saving graces.
I'm intrigued by the new rules in the video. Hopefully the new book isn't going to cost an arm and a leg (directly converting Aussie pricing isn't a good gauge due to their markup).
Combined Arms Detachment, with it's special rules, seems pretty neat. I get the feeling there will be many other detachment types, with appropriate FOC requirements and conferred bonuses.
And I do like the sound of the new Mission Objectives, Psychic Phase and Daemonology lores.
Unbound, still not decided on. No idea where people are getting the idea of ignoring unit composition rules or special character limits, because unbound only affects the FOC...
If GW was a smart company, it could use Unbound armies as FAQ /Errata laboratory. Listening, viewing and reading to opinions/battle reports about Unbound games would let it know why unit X is OP and everyone is using, and why unit Y is terrible and noone is using. Based on such reports, GW could analyze and fix such units - helping Battle-forged games as well!
darkcloak wrote: Oh my god, with each passing day it gets worse! Don't have 10 marneus Calgar models? Oh well cool thing is now all your dopes will be really good-ish at holding objectives unless your opponent also doesn't have 10 Abbadons and he too is good0ish at holding objectives, then you both still suck at holding objectives!
Man! this all seems so hard! How do i write a decent list? Oh I know, I'll just forge a narrative :forgeforgeforgeforge: until GW just straight up writes a list for me!
ungh... all that forging! Excuse me I have to pawn my worthless crap models off on some unsuspecting dweeb.
"No FoC" does not mean "can take 10 copies of Special Characters".
Why not? Nothing to say otherwise just yet is there?
Apoc doesn't allow multiples of Special Characters and it doesn't use FOC.
darkcloak wrote: Oh my god, with each passing day it gets worse! Don't have 10 marneus Calgar models? Oh well cool thing is now all your dopes will be really good-ish at holding objectives unless your opponent also doesn't have 10 Abbadons and he too is good0ish at holding objectives, then you both still suck at holding objectives!
Man! this all seems so hard! How do i write a decent list? Oh I know, I'll just forge a narrative :forgeforgeforgeforge: until GW just straight up writes a list for me!
ungh... all that forging! Excuse me I have to pawn my worthless crap models off on some unsuspecting dweeb.
"No FoC" does not mean "can take 10 copies of Special Characters".
Shame not everyone shares this common sense...
Surely the whole point of No FoC is to be able to take 10 Special Characters if you want.
Just think what an awesome scenario it would be if the Orks surprised the conclave of 10 Space Popes with their honour guards, but then 12 Riptides arrived to save the day.
That is exactly the kind of narrative scenario people would love to play
Why is it GW fault? Is it the fault of gun manufacturers that people murder? Can't people take responsibly for their own actions?
So instead of blaming the person for being TFG or a person who must win with plastic toy soldiers, it's GW fault?
Maybe what we need to do, is get our governments making it illegal to be TFG and then we can throw them in jail because they shouldn't be able to abuse what is written and then have it on record why they abuse a system so they can win with plastic toy soldiers.
I think people are getting upset over nothing. It's a game. If people want to abuse the system, then the problem is with the person not GW.
ascended_mike wrote: The cost of living is entirely different in Australia. No point in comparing the prices. Wages are often twice as high, as are the prices
The underlined hasn't been true for quite a while.
But yes, prices are higher there.
ascended_mike wrote: The cost of living is entirely different in Australia. No point in comparing the prices. Wages are often twice as high, as are the prices
The underlined hasn't been true for quite a while.
But yes, prices are higher there.
Maybe not always, but everyone I know in Australia on the same job as me is being paid atleast (or almost) twice as much as I am. But then again, I'm sure it's different in different parts of Australia. And in different working environments.
Sorry for the generalisation, but the point remains. Cost of living is higher in general.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, won't he autolose from taking 10 turkies, since he has hardly anything on the board?
I mean, he could take a single small squad of cultists, but then they'll probably die.
Besides, Special Characters have the Unique rule, iirc. Which basically means "no duplicates"
Well that video has done nothing to remove my fears of the upcoming insanity.
The benefits for using FOC are pretty lame. Re-roll warlord trait - whatever
Troops holding objectives better - not going to stop you from getting tabled.
The page they show you even confirms you can field an army of all flyers - helldrake super spam is on people.
It's nice to see GW doing design videos like this, but Jervis seems a little awkward to me, could have done with a re-take or two. Compare this to the vids Alan Blyth does for FW for instance?
As a Tau player I can tell you point blank that Riptides without signature system and markerlight support are gak.
Want to run 6 riptides against my flying circus be my guest, Be'Lakor and any greater daemons I run will eat them one by one . I will keep my horrors in reserve until the last minute and take objective which you can't do.
Want to run 6 heldrakes be my guest my my Imperial Fist centurions and storm ravens will shoot them down.
We do not know what other changes are coming, give it a rest. I for one am excited.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, won't he autolose from taking 10 turkies, since he has hardly anything on the board? I mean, he could take a single small squad of cultists, but then they'll probably die.
Besides, Special Characters have the Unique rule, iirc. Which basically means "no duplicates"
Just LoS! all wounds with Yarrik and St.Celestine, have them pop up again when they die. For the Emprah!
Well, we still don't really know what the allies restrictions are. However, that does not stop one from taking every special character in a codex.
So yeah, Yarrick, Pask, Creed and Straken walk onto a battlefield, and run into Abbadon, Huron Ahriman and Typhus. They then have a picnic, for reasons.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, won't he autolose from taking 10 turkies, since he has hardly anything on the board?
I mean, he could take a single small squad of cultists, but then they'll probably die.
Besides, Special Characters have the Unique rule, iirc. Which basically means "no duplicates"
Cheese isn't free. Figuring out how to give players the opposite of what they want costs money that needs to be recouped.
GW underling: Sir! We gave players what we thought they wanted (the ability to buy everything!)... but profits are down. People don't seem to take kindly to us giving up any semblance of balance with all the detachments, dataslates, and odd couple allies matrix. They've seen through the sham and realize it was just a crass ploy to buy MOAR. What should we do???
GW bossman: Hrmm... that's a pickle... I got it! We'll make the army construction rules even more loosey goosey! That'll fix it! And we'll make it standard in the rules instead of as a separate resource. Just make sure to increase the price on the book as well.
Originally I was against 7th, im still on the fence but my outlook is more positive, please have the book be sub 99 usd, I have only had 6th for what 2 years? Gw should have a book trade in deal kinda like textbooks rules updates wouldn't seem AS bad.
zammerak wrote: Originally I was against 7th, im still on the fence but my outlook is more positive, please have the book be sub 99 usd, I have only had 6th for what 2 years? Gw should have a book trade in deal kinda like textbooks rules updates wouldn't seem AS bad.
Yeah, I'm gonna wait for the "rules only" book on this one.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, won't he autolose from taking 10 turkies, since he has hardly anything on the board?
I mean, he could take a single small squad of cultists, but then they'll probably die.
Besides, Special Characters have the Unique rule, iirc. Which basically means "no duplicates"
Jidmah wrote: Just LoS! all wounds with Yarrik and St.Celestine, have them pop up again when they die. For the Emprah!
Do you miss the memo ? GW could not have a SoB character even remotely useful, so they nerfed Celestine. She can still come back… once per game, maybe, if she can succeed a Ld test. She still insta-dies to S6+, though. And still no better invulnerable than 4+.
Davor wrote: Why is it GW fault? Is it the fault of gun manufacturers that people murder? Can't people take responsibly for their own actions?
So instead of blaming the person for being TFG or a person who must win with plastic toy soldiers, it's GW fault?
Maybe what we need to do, is get our governments making it illegal to be TFG and then we can throw them in jail because they shouldn't be able to abuse what is written and then have it on record why they abuse a system so they can win with plastic toy soldiers.
I think people are getting upset over nothing. It's a game. If people want to abuse the system, then the problem is with the person not GW.
To torture your metaphor still further.
With a game like 40K, GW 'the gun manufacturer" has the ability to fit all it's "guns" with a feature which could significantly decrease the number of "murders" they are responsible for, but chooses not to.
It is, of course, a fething stupid analogy to draw in the first place, but that's where it falls over.
zammerak wrote: Originally I was against 7th, im still on the fence but my outlook is more positive, please have the book be sub 99 usd, I have only had 6th for what 2 years? Gw should have a book trade in deal kinda like textbooks rules updates wouldn't seem AS bad.
Hate to say it but Games Workshop has stock holders to answer to. Take a look at the $£¥ that Magic players put down each expansion and it won't be so bad.
It had seemed like the mood was shifting away from the "sky is falling" but it would appear we are in "Revenge of the Haters" mode again.
If you are worried about facing 100000 heldrakes/tanks/riptides maybe it's time to find a different gaming scene.
No one in my area is that TFG. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.
I highly doubt that any tournament will allow anything but battle-forged armies. If this edition integrates escalation, stronghold assault and dataslates into battle-forged armies, that's fine. Tournaments could easily have restrictions like "battle-forged armies only, but no Lords of War" or "battle-forged, but the only fortifications allowed are one Aegis or one Bastion per army", eg, and be done with it.
Battle-forged troops being able to hold objectives even against former Denial units from Elites/Fast/Heavy means that the value of Troops does go up relative to the other FOC choices, however minimally. This is a good thing.
Re Unbound:
Apocalypse already lets you put down whatever units you have, without regards to FOC. So Unbound is like Apocalypse for smaller armies. Cool, lets the kiddies play with their cool models, lets the fluffmonkeys Forge Narratives, etc. New players who don't have their two troops and an HQ assembled yet can still get a game in to start learning the rules as well. Awesome.
Game-focused people who have full armies already will be playing only Battle-forged anyways.
And if it's a choice between twiddling my thumbs at the gaming store, or finding out how many of my guardsmen can survive against 6 Riptides? I might actually choose to have a silly game instead of surfing Dakka while I wait for another battle-forged army to show up.
Waiting for more information about the "maelstrom" missions, and the objective cards. If they did it right, that could really shake up the "jump on objectives at the last turn to win" situation.
Sigvatr wrote: I really laughed out loud when I read that the "advantage" you get for using the FOC is re-rolling the Warlord Table. Great fething job GW. Whoop-di-whoop. And I am glad that only your Bound force may score while hordes of Waveserpents and Riptides tear everything apart.
GW isn't even trying anymore.
I guess just letting you choose your warlord trait is too difficult?
skink007 wrote: It seemed like JJ was very consciously working very hard to avoid saying the word "buy" in the beginning of the video.
"So they can choose what to...uhh... use to play with"
Lobukia wrote: A fun, but horrible list. Guardian spam alone would roll that up.
Special Characters can't beat an army on their own? No wai!
I'd be more worried about spammed generic HQs anyways, especially those able to take bikes. Nob bikers are still semi-good, you could get 10 decked-out warbosses on bikes at 1750 points, more if you skip a couple of powerklaws and attack squigs. Even if you don't, that's still 30 T6 wounds with 30 TL S5 shots and 60 S10 AP2 attacks on the charge, plus you get the old wound-bouncing shenanigans back.
"Hey, I want to try my new counts-as-Imperial Knight, want to play?"
"Sorry, no Knights."
-> No game
"Hey, want to play a story scenario from that IA book I bought, want to play?"
"I'd rather play a regular game."
-> No game
"Would you mind not playing the dual turbo-laser warhound?"
"Sorry, didn't bring another army"
-> No game
"I'm a competitive player, is it ok for me to field my riptide/serpent/wraithknight list?"
"Uh, sorry I'd rather no be tabled by turn 3."
-> No game
"I'm playing a fluffy grot army, would you please play a weak army?"
"Sorry, I'm training for next weeks tournament."
-> No game
"Hey, I just bought my second Blood Angel rhino, wanna play?"
"I don't think that game would enjoyable for you, kid."
-> No game
"So, what are you playing?"
"Tau with eldar allies."
"Ugh, tough. How many points?"
"1750, want to play?"
"Sure, better than not playing"
-> Got a game
Hopefully I'm misunderstanding, because it sounds like you're fine with any of those scenarios as long as you don't know about it before hand? I'm failing to see an issue here. In these examples someone avoided a series of games they'd rather not play, and eventually found a game. How is that not exactly what I said. I'd also point out that your "successful" example could be the exact same as your "I don't want to get tabled by turn 3" player, with the only difference being one person was up front about bringing a competitive list, the other just said "Tau and Eldar". For all you know, it's the same list from both players and you're still getting tabled.
No matter what you talk about, you can chose between not playing the perfect game you imagined or not playing at all.
The only thing you can do is bring three or four army lists yourself and hope the people present are willing to play against at least one of those lists. An actual discussion to find a consensus about how to play the game happens very rarely, and usually only if the other person is a seasoned veteran with a vast collection of models.
"playing the perfect game you imagined" and "not playing" are your only two choices? Really? Because there is a whole heck of a lot of space between those two that still constitutes "playing". To me, it sounds like the best way to play is to find someone else who wants to play and is willing to set up a mutually agreeable game. I'm not sure why you make it sound like some sisyphean task to work that out.
zammerak wrote: Originally I was against 7th, im still on the fence but my outlook is more positive, please have the book be sub 99 usd, I have only had 6th for what 2 years? Gw should have a book trade in deal kinda like textbooks rules updates wouldn't seem AS bad.
Hate to say it but Games Workshop has stock holders to answer to. Take a look at the $£¥ that Magic players put down each expansion and it won't be so bad.
Well, I'm spending about 20€ per expansion, 40€ if I attend a (pre-)release event, and that's rounded up. If Warhammer 40k ever remotely reaches level of rules writing and balance MtG has, I will never, ever complain about their prices again. As long as long as their rules are as obscure and unbalanced as they are now, they aren't worth half of what I spend on magic.
Strangelooper wrote: Battle-forged troops being able to hold objectives even against former Denial units from Elites/Fast/Heavy means that the value of Troops does go up relative to the other FOC choices, however minimally. This is a good thing.
I must have missed the rule where troops from a warforged list control objectives after they've been killed by the broken unbound list they're facing. Is that one of the new warlord trait options we get to reroll?
So, people are poo-pooing the idea of Riptide diarrhea all over the table, because you need some support units to make them unstoppable. Wouldn't a few units of Tetras fit that role for cheap! cheap! cheap!
zammerak wrote: Originally I was against 7th, im still on the fence but my outlook is more positive, please have the book be sub 99 usd, I have only had 6th for what 2 years? Gw should have a book trade in deal kinda like textbooks rules updates wouldn't seem AS bad.
Hate to say it but Games Workshop has stock holders to answer to. Take a look at the $£¥ that Magic players put down each expansion and it won't be so bad.
Well, I'm spending about 20€ per expansion, 40€ if I attend a (pre-)release event, and that's rounded up. If Warhammer 40k ever remotely reaches level of rules writing and balance MtG has, I will never, ever complain about their prices again. As long as long as their rules are as obscure and unbalanced as they are now, they aren't worth half of what I spend on magic.
Wizards of the Coasts playtest their games (& get their players to play test them) for an extensive period - And publish the results of these tests. Perhaps not always with magic, but they have other games that they do this with - And they do it very very well, to balance some things out.
D&D 4e is low in peoples opinions because there aren't many "broken" character classes as in 3.5e. Acheived via extensive testing. D&D Next is currently being playtested (I am playtesting this) & they are releasing the edition in waves to the players, and adjusting it based on feedback.
I wonder what GW does to playtest.... Because I'm sure they don't get consult their players.
That being said, Still looking forward to the new edition!!
Wizards of the Coasts playtest their games (& get their players to play test them) for an extensive period - And publish the results of these tests. Perhaps not always with magic, but they have other games that they do this with - And they do it very very well, to balance some things out.
D&D 4e is low in peoples opinions because there aren't many "broken" character classes as in 3.5e. Acheived via extensive testing. D&D Next is currently being playtested (I am playtesting this) & they are releasing the edition in waves to the players, and adjusting it based on feedback.
I wonder what GW does to playtest.... Because I'm sure they don't get consult their players.
That being said, Still looking forward to the new edition!!
I disagree- People disliked 4th edition because it became uncomfortably close to a boardgame instead of a roleplaying game. The example that sticks out in my mind is a class had a power that created an area of difficult terrain that it could only use in a crowded urban environment. This was used to represent someone chucking garbage behind them to slow pursuers.
Yeah who really cares if you can't contest objectives. You can still claim them or just wipe your opponent off the board.
Also, I tried a game on Vassal with Wraight Knights, Imperial Knights, and Riptides w/ some marker drones against a basically ALL FMCMC Chaos army and it was wiped out by like turn 3.
Any rumors of a fix for the wound allocation. Will my marine pass on his special weapon or will turns still consist of shuffling slightly to the left or right and immediately killing off any useful weapons I have no matter the squad position.
Sigvatr wrote: MtG has a developer that fully playtests all releases and is interested in releasing a competitive, balanced ruleset.
GW gives a gak about any sort of balance and purposefully BREAKS balance to sell more stuff.
Quite a difference.
Ummm...not only MtG has considerable power creep, the tournament formats routinely ban or restrict too powerful cards.
Simply not true. There isn't a Standard banlist and the Modern and Legacy ban lists are pretty short compared to the number of allowed cards. It's not "routinely" done at all.
Wizards of the Coasts playtest their games (& get their players to play test them) for an extensive period - And publish the results of these tests. Perhaps not always with magic, but they have other games that they do this with - And they do it very very well, to balance some things out.
D&D 4e is low in peoples opinions because there aren't many "broken" character classes as in 3.5e. Acheived via extensive testing. D&D Next is currently being playtested (I am playtesting this) & they are releasing the edition in waves to the players, and adjusting it based on feedback.
I wonder what GW does to playtest.... Because I'm sure they don't get consult their players.
That being said, Still looking forward to the new edition!!
I disagree- People disliked 4th edition because it became uncomfortably close to a boardgame instead of a roleplaying game. The example that sticks out in my mind is a class had a power that created an area of difficult terrain that it could only use in a crowded urban environment. This was used to represent someone chucking garbage behind them to slow pursuers.
I agree the feel of the game is different but the balance struck is something achieved through extensive internal and external testing. Whilst you may dislike the edition, the balance is there with regards to classes not being too overpowered. (This was my point)
You won't find that with GW. But would too much balance change the game and how it feels?
Hopefully I'm misunderstanding, because it sounds like you're fine with any of those scenarios as long as you don't know about it before hand? I'm failing to see an issue here. In these examples someone avoided a series of games they'd rather not play, and eventually found a game.
Well, kind of. Even if it was the same person(was supposed to be a bunch of unrelated examples), he would have gotten a game after driving home gameless for six Saturdays, and then finally found a game (which he still might not have enjoyed) after not playing at all for almost two months. That's a lot of wasted fuel and time, if you ask me. That's why pick-up games simply ask for points and then duke it out. If the kid with the rhinos wants to play, I'll play him and go easy on him. Even if I'm not getting the game I'm looking for, I get to play. If the other guy is setting down the Warhound Titan, I'll see if I can beat it, even though it would take a lot of luck. Still better than standing around in a store with nothing to do but hoping that someone without a lord of war comes in.
How is that not exactly what I said. I'd also point out that your "successful" example could be the exact same as your "I don't want to get tabled by turn 3" player, with the only difference being one person was up front about bringing a competitive list, the other just said "Tau and Eldar". For all you know, it's the same list from both players and you're still getting tabled.
That's my point. Either you get a game in and might get tabled, or just just don't play a game. For what we know, that imaginary person might totally suck at generalship and you manage to beat him easily. Or you get tabled, get to know that person and arrange a game with him for next week. Still better than simply refusing to play.
No matter what you talk about, you can chose between not playing the perfect game you imagined or not playing at all.
The only thing you can do is bring three or four army lists yourself and hope the people present are willing to play against at least one of those lists. An actual discussion to find a consensus about how to play the game happens very rarely, and usually only if the other person is a seasoned veteran with a vast collection of models.
"playing the perfect game you imagined" and "not playing" are your only two choices? Really? Because there is a whole heck of a lot of space between those two that still constitutes "playing". To me, it sounds like the best way to play is to find someone else who wants to play and is willing to set up a mutually agreeable game. I'm not sure why you make it sound like some sisyphean task to work that out.
Because that person might not be present, is already playing a game with other people, didn't bring the models to play the game you're looking for or simply doesn't want to play you for other reasons. Not everyone can afford to hang around the store for hours and days, waiting till someone comes to play your way. Most of the time, there are only one or two opponents to chose from, and a lot of times, those people don't have the same idea of how the game is supposed to be played as you. The smallest common ground are GW's rules. If you leave that common ground, you are willingly skipping out of games. The farther you leave, the less games you get. If you refuse to play against Tau, Eldar, Daemons, Escalation, Stronghold, Grey Knights and anything from forgeworld - which is exactly what many people are suggesting - good luck on finding any games at all.
Spoletta wrote: If unbound armies are allowed in competitive play then the nids just jumped at the top of the food chain!
Want to play unbound? Meet my Endless swarm list of x-thousand non tablable objective securing MSU. Oh and a pair of Primes somewhere in there to secure synapse.
Yes you can put your models back in the case now.
You're forgetting that in unbound it doesn't matter if you have 2.2 million troops, they won't take the objectives from battle forged guys even if they're both in range. Also, from my perspective with Guard, Wyverns would barrage-snipe your Primes to death and then your gribblies will eat themselves for the rest of the game. I wouldn't get my hopes up quite that high just yet, and god forbid you end up with a kill-points game hahah.
Except that the list i mentioned is battle forged.
Ok, so you're basically saying that you're only going to field this against Unbound lists to get the advantage of the scoring troops? It still has nothing to do with being top tier, unless you mean that in the world of "which battle-forged armies are the best against unbound lists," this is #1. You should be more clear to avoid this confusion haha, it seemed very much like you were saying you'd take an unbound list of entirely gaunts/gants.
I'm actually pretty shocked by the benefits of fielding a FOC/lore friendly list. The command benefits are extremely lacking. I was completely expecting to see FOC lists get +(x) amount of points depending on the level of play or something...
Yes perhaps my rant is as to this discussion as GW is to tabletop wargaming, but oh well. It;s out there and I'll stand by my opinion until I or another changes it.
We really are speculating at this point and I realize this, but the 40k isn't what caused the fingers to fly just then. It just bugs me when people use a slight discrepancy in your post to try and undermine the validity of your input. It's like saying "you misspelled a word, you must be dumb", like no buddy, my finger slipped and I didn't see the error until after, my bad, lets get back on topic ya know?
But like I just said, back on topic. Yeah okay UB lists will allow players who have large collections to field more of their models in unique ways, but this means nothing to the new player. Only that now you can just buy whatever you want and field it. Sure that has some value in and of itself to new players but doesn't this also kind of detract as well? Why bother buying troops and an HQ as your first army or why bother with the battle forces because you're now encouraged to cherry pick the units you want. People will just go okay, I'm building a kill everything or lose list and be fine with that. This could lead to things like Rhinos not selling at all, or other units that are more for player flavour falling behind in favour of more elite big money items. I can see a situation where people just say screw it to troops because for more in-game worth they can spend a couple more bucks on an elite or heavy. Why run Tacticals anymore when you can just run some uber cheap scouts and have a Cent army?
@Jidmah Exalted. Certainly making more sense than half the posters here.
People have to remember we do not have the full picture yet!!
Battle forged lists could see far more benefits...
jhnbrg wrote: So everyone think its fine paying another 100$ in an obvious moneygrab? So next edition will be in about 12 months?
And STILL no ork codex!
It's weird that you should read this thread and your takeaway is that anyone is fine about anything!
Personally, if it offers a more interesting game, or fixes some of the inherent issues with 6th, then yes, I'll be ok with it. If it is just another ham fisted way of trying to manipulate suggestible people into buying more models...not so much. But because I play in a club environment, unless there's a consensus (there won't be) my choice is buy 7th or stop playing, so as the decision is somewhat out of my hands, I don't see the point in getting too overwrought about it.
Strangelooper wrote: Battle-forged troops being able to hold objectives even against former Denial units from Elites/Fast/Heavy means that the value of Troops does go up relative to the other FOC choices, however minimally. This is a good thing.
I must have missed the rule where troops from a warforged list control objectives after they've been killed by the broken unbound list they're facing. Is that one of the new warlord trait options we get to reroll?
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: In a game between two battle-forged armies, giving troops a little more utility is good. It's annoying that in the current edition a single terminator/obliterator/(other elite/fast/heavy infantryman) can prevent a huge unit of troops from claiming an objective. This change fixes that. Does it fix everything? No, but it's at least a fix in the in right direction.
If you want troops that control objectives after they've been killed, play 'Crons and get back up.
But seriously, why would you play against an Unbound army if you don't want to? It doesn't take much in the way of conversation and social skills to say, "I'm only interested in playing against battle-forged armies, thanks".
I think that most games of 40k in most stores will still be battle-forged only, except among new players, kids, or people who have pre-arranged an Unbound battle for funsies. You can always whip out the "All-Orbital-Strike" army if the only person at the store has an Unbound list and you're feeling like upping the ante.
Ok, so you're basically saying that you're only going to field this against Unbound lists to get the advantage of the scoring troops? It still has nothing to do with being top tier, unless you mean that in the world of "which battle-forged armies are the best against unbound lists," this is #1. You should be more clear to avoid this confusion haha, it seemed very much like you were saying you'd take an unbound list of entirely gaunts/gants.
Yeah should have been more clear.
What i actually meant was: " If unbound list are going to dominate the competitive scenes then nids will eat them for good" (Outside of kill points)
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm actually pretty shocked by the benefits of fielding a FOC/lore friendly list. The command benefits are extremely lacking. I was completely expecting to see FOC lists get +(x) amount of points depending on the level of play or something...
That would mean publicly admitting that their points values aren't balanced. We all know as gamers that there are some glaring examples of undercosted and overcosted units but simply giving away points to cheap gamers who had the nerve to use their existing stuff instead of buying MOAR! was never going to happen. I was hoping for a slew of benefits like rerolling seizing, swapping out the turn by turn objectives previewed, +1 to reserves, etc. Not just a reroll on a frequently useless table and super scoring units that will get wiped out first.
jhnbrg wrote: So everyone think its fine paying another 100$ in an obvious moneygrab? So next edition will be in about 12 months?
And STILL no ork codex!
Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.
I would say dont jump to conclusions and start rageing against the rules until we actually know the rules, but that would be too sensible for a lot of posters here....
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: In a game between two battle-forged armies, giving troops a little more utility is good.
That does make a difference. In a battle with a broken unbound list (which I admit won't be all of them but it only takes a few to ruin a local scene), it is throwing a rotten bone to players who already bought their armies. Super scoring troops are no better once dead than any other unit and that's what they will be when facing a cherry picked unbound force.
Sigvatr wrote: MtG has a developer that fully playtests all releases and is interested in releasing a competitive, balanced ruleset.
GW gives a gak about any sort of balance and purposefully BREAKS balance to sell more stuff.
Quite a difference.
Ummm...not only MtG has considerable power creep, the tournament formats routinely ban or restrict too powerful cards.
Simply not true. There isn't a Standard banlist and the Modern and Legacy ban lists are pretty short compared to the number of allowed cards. It's not "routinely" done at all.
I can't check to be sure because Magic's website is blocked here at work, but I'm pretty sure there are around 12,000 or so distinct cards in MtG (not counting basic lands and considering reprinted cards to be a single discreet card), and less than 100 are on the banned list. I don't think Backfire really has any significant experience with MtG.
Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.
jhnbrg wrote: So everyone think its fine paying another 100$ in an obvious moneygrab? So next edition will be in about 12 months?
And STILL no ork codex!
Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.
I would say dont jump to conclusions and start rageing against the rules until we actually know the rules, but that would be too sensible for a lot of posters here....
Did i miss the convo about these force org charts and battle-forged bonuses?
It's been the talk around the virtual water cooler this page and the preceeding half dozen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agent_Tremolo wrote: So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".
I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.
The allies FOC is right next to the FOC and right above the battle forged "benefits" so I'd hazard a guess that allies are still in for "normal" armies... unfortunately.
Sir Arun wrote: Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.
The "powercreep" in MtG isn't as bad as that in 40K.
The existance of the "Standard" tournament format as being the most popular means of playing removes a lot of the necessity of powercreep. New cards don't have to be more powerful than the older cards simply because there's a constant rotation as to what is eligible for that format. New cards can actually be less powerful than older cards and still get played in Standard because they're the best option available for the task at hand.
That's not to say that powercreep doesn't exist, but it's more a function of coming up with new ideas for new rules mechanics that may or may not be superior to previous mechanics (Undying vs Persist, for example). That being said, there are still mechanics and cards from 10+ years ago that would be considered very powerful under the most recent sets (Affinity coupled with Artifcat Lands, for example).
Agent_Tremolo wrote: So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".
I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.
Well, right next to the FOC labeled "Combined Arms" is the "allies" FOC.
While it'd be neat to have a few other variations of the FOC usable for Warforged armies, I suspect that it's going to come to nothing but "combined arms", "allies", etc.
jhnbrg wrote: So everyone think its fine paying another 100$ in an obvious moneygrab? So next edition will be in about 12 months?
And STILL no ork codex!
Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.
I would say dont jump to conclusions and start rageing against the rules until we actually know the rules, but that would be too sensible for a lot of posters here....
No reliable rumors said that FAQ/Errata would make your 6th edition rulebook still work. Those were as believable as the percentages crap. Nor does it make a lick of sense that they would do such a thing from a sales standpoint. People will buy the book, download it off the intertubes or quit the game in a hissy fit.
jhnbrg wrote: So everyone think its fine paying another 100$ in an obvious moneygrab? So next edition will be in about 12 months?
And STILL no ork codex!
Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.
While I agree that it's too early to start the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I don't agree that FAQ+ERRATA instead of 7th will work. The leaks we've seen on this thread so far are rather dramatic changes.
Sir Arun wrote: Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.
I would definitely argue against this. The difference is that the good cards used to be spells, and now the good cards are creatures. Creature card power level has definitely increased, but the concurrent weakening of spells means that the over-all power level has been more or less steady since Mirage came out (with obvious spikes and dips such as Urza's Block, Mirrodin, Masques, and Kamigawa.).
Sir Arun wrote: Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.
Can we take the MtG talk to a different thread before the mods get mad?
Mr.Church13 wrote: Any rumors of a fix for the wound allocation. Will my marine pass on his special weapon or will turns still consist of shuffling slightly to the left or right and immediately killing off any useful weapons I have no matter the squad position.
I don't feel that wound allocation is broken. I know that some here are of the opinion that front-first removal is the worst thing about 6th ed, but it is one of my favorite changes. I always thought that allowing the owner to remove whichever model he wanted was dumb, and the way that promoted buying upgrades for models just to play wound games with was broken.
I've played Daemons for the last few years, and in 5th I benefited from the wound allocation rules with my Bloodcrushers, with a squad needing to take almost 5 wounds before a single model died. I have no issues with front-first removal. I think it brings an interesting tactical dimension to the game. I may be biased though, as all of my units can Deep Strike, and my shooty units (Tzeentch DPs) are fast enough to position themselves in the best spots to take advantage of front-first removal.
Unbound sounds realy underwhelming. Other the person makes a army to try and board you, or he plays a army the will struggle to hold objective properly.
It feels likr something most pick up gameing groups will pretend dosen't exist.
I already know a player or two who will try to get games with broken spam lists with unbound. Bassiclt picking on newer players for the lulz
Agent_Tremolo wrote: So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".
I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.
The wording of some of these rules implies to me that:
a) You can nominate your Warlord from a Formation, providing it's from the same faction,
and/or
b) There are alternative FOCs to 'Combined Arms' that can be selected as primary, where for example you might get less HS slots but more FA instead. Maybe there's one that lets you take lots of Elites with the Objective Secure rule, or perhaps you can't take any Lords of War / Fortifications but get more slots to use elsewhere. Would be interesting if Battleforged takes that direction.
This thread reads like it needs a BAM! after a lot of comments
I just pray that the 6th edition rule book + FAQ/Errata will be a viable approach, although the signs seem to be coming together to read as "no." I think that if that is the case and the rules turn out to be okay, I will wait a while to obtain a rules-only edition of the game. After only two years with the LE copy, well, I won't get fooled again!
Accolade wrote: This thread reads like it needs a BAM! after a lot of comments
I just pray that the 6th edition rule book + FAQ/Errata will be a viable approach, although the signs seem to be coming together to read as "no." I think that if that is the case and the rules turn out to be okay, I will wait a while to obtain a rules-only edition of the game. After only two years with the LE copy, well, I won't get fooled again!
You'll probably have to kill a few trees printing out the FAQ
Accolade wrote: This thread reads like it needs a BAM! after a lot of comments
I just pray that the 6th edition rule book + FAQ/Errata will be a viable approach, although the signs seem to be coming together to read as "no." I think that if that is the case and the rules turn out to be okay, I will wait a while to obtain a rules-only edition of the game. After only two years with the LE copy, well, I won't get fooled again!
You'll probably have to kill a few trees printing out the FAQ
So it's ok to kill the environment by surfing the net that takes electricity? This is more harmful than killing a few trees. Also what if he is not printing it out and using an iPad or some other tablet?
Sir Arun wrote: Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.
Can we take the MtG talk to a different thread before the mods get mad?
The mods are always mad. That's their secret.
2 years is way too soon for a new edition in my book. I don't like it. But, to stay current, I'll buy one from my FLGS anyway.
Well, kind of. Even if it was the same person(was supposed to be a bunch of unrelated examples), he would have gotten a game after driving home gameless for six Saturdays, and then finally found a game (which he still might not have enjoyed) after not playing at all for almost two months. That's a lot of wasted fuel and time, if you ask me. That's why pick-up games simply ask for points and then duke it out. If the kid with the rhinos wants to play, I'll play him and go easy on him. Even if I'm not getting the game I'm looking for, I get to play. If the other guy is setting down the Warhound Titan, I'll see if I can beat it, even though it would take a lot of luck. Still better than standing around in a store with nothing to do but hoping that someone without a lord of war comes in.
But even in all of your examples, you still have the "Welp, better than nothing I guess" option. I'm merely suggesting that instead of simply accepting a game you don't find fun, that you might have an actual conversation with the person to see if there is perhaps some middle ground to be reached. Perhaps I'm being optimistically naive, but I'd like to think someone there for a fun game would be willing to try to make it fun for both people.
That's my point. Either you get a game in and might get tabled, or just just don't play a game. For what we know, that imaginary person might totally suck at generalship and you manage to beat him easily. Or you get tabled, get to know that person and arrange a game with him for next week. Still better than simply refusing to play.
Because that person might not be present, is already playing a game with other people, didn't bring the models to play the game you're looking for or simply doesn't want to play you for other reasons. Not everyone can afford to hang around the store for hours and days, waiting till someone comes to play your way. Most of the time, there are only one or two opponents to chose from, and a lot of times, those people don't have the same idea of how the game is supposed to be played as you. The smallest common ground are GW's rules. If you leave that common ground, you are willingly skipping out of games. The farther you leave, the less games you get. If you refuse to play against Tau, Eldar, Daemons, Escalation, Stronghold, Grey Knights and anything from forgeworld - which is exactly what many people are suggesting - good luck on finding any games at all.
Ah, here may be where I think we've run into a communication disconnect. I wasn't suggesting you simply refuse to play anyone and everyone who doesn't want to play exactly as you do (which I realize is also not what you're suggesting, but rather was is hyperbolically being suggested at you). I'm suggesting that cries of "UNBOUND WILL COMPLETELY RUIN PUGs!" are off base in that it's not as though you can't speak with that other person and see if some agreement can be reached. Sure, sometimes there is nothing either of you can budge on, but in that case you're still really where you were before you asked: forced to either play or not play. That other person is presumably in the same situation you are: they want to play a game but have a limited supply of opponent's to choose from.
Davor wrote: So it's ok to kill the environment by surfing the net that takes electricity? This is more harmful than killing a few trees. Also what if he is not printing it out and using an iPad or some other tablet?
Hydroelectric power here.
Seriously, I expect a massive FAQ for this. And it will be magical.
Davor wrote: So it's ok to kill the environment by surfing the net that takes electricity? This is more harmful than killing a few trees. Also what if he is not printing it out and using an iPad or some other tablet?
Hydroelectric power here.
Seriously, I expect a massive FAQ for this. And it will be magical.
It will probably be the length of the 6th ed rulebook
Davor wrote: So it's ok to kill the environment by surfing the net that takes electricity? This is more harmful than killing a few trees. Also what if he is not printing it out and using an iPad or some other tablet?
Hydroelectric power here.
Seriously, I expect a massive FAQ for this. And it will be magical.
It will probably be the length of the 6th ed rulebook
Still waiting for the most important information of all- the models in the starter.
If Orks are up soon, then having them in the starter makes sense, and it's also possibly sensible to have Blood Angels be with them, since BA haven't had an update in a wee while, they could be next after that.
If it's Orks and Blood Angels, I'm leaning a little more towards picking up a starter, for nostalgia reasons.
Still haven't painted my last starter's worth though! Should really get on that.
Da Boss wrote: Still waiting for the most important information of all- the models in the starter.
If Orks are up soon, then having them in the starter makes sense, and it's also possibly sensible to have Blood Angels be with them, since BA haven't had an update in a wee while, they could be next after that.
If it's Orks and Blood Angels, I'm leaning a little more towards picking up a starter, for nostalgia reasons.
Still haven't painted my last starter's worth though! Should really get on that.
Starters have traditionally come out a few months AFTER the big rule book for recent editions IIRC.
Da Boss wrote: Still waiting for the most important information of all- the models in the starter. If Orks are up soon, then having them in the starter makes sense, and it's also possibly sensible to have Blood Angels be with them, since BA haven't had an update in a wee while, they could be next after that.
If it's Orks and Blood Angels, I'm leaning a little more towards picking up a starter, for nostalgia reasons.
Still haven't painted my last starter's worth though! Should really get on that.
Starters have traditionally come out a few months AFTER the big rule book for recent editions IIRC.
You are correct:
5th edition: July 2008 Assault on Black Reach: Sept 2008
6th Edition: June 2012 Dark Vengeance: Sept 2012
WrentheFaceless wrote: Starters usually do, but since this edition is comming out quicker than prior ones, perhaps the starter will be out a bit quicker as well?
Davor wrote: So it's ok to kill the environment by surfing the net that takes electricity? This is more harmful than killing a few trees. Also what if he is not printing it out and using an iPad or some other tablet?
Hydroelectric power here.
Seriously, I expect a massive FAQ for this. And it will be magical.
It will probably be the length of the 6th ed rulebook
....I may need another ream of paper then.
Get with the times. Get an iPad. Will be cheaper with all that paper, and it will save some trees.
BTW I see you are like me. You can't decide if you are Canadian or American.
5th edition: July 2008
Assault on Black Reach: Sept 2008
6th Edition: June 2012
Dark Vengeance: Sept 2012
WrentheFaceless wrote: Starters usually do, but since this edition is comming out quicker than prior ones, perhaps the starter will be out a bit quicker as well?
Here's hoping!
Thanks for the details. If we extrapolate from this limited data set, we get:
7th Edition: May 2012
Absurdity of the Unbound Mayhem: Sept 2012
They obviously don't want people waiting for the "little book" to get the new rules from their when they can get a sizable proportion of sales of the larger more expensive book in the meantime which I suspect is the reason for the gap historically. In any case, I don't expect to get the big book for the first time since getting into the game in 3rd edition. Hell, I got the 4e book despite skipping it.. but now I know better. I'll just wait for cheaper alternatives a few months down the line. In any case, at the rate I play of two trips to the FLGS every 3 months, I won't miss much.
Da Boss wrote: Still waiting for the most important information of all- the models in the starter.
If Orks are up soon, then having them in the starter makes sense, and it's also possibly sensible to have Blood Angels be with them, since BA haven't had an update in a wee while, they could be next after that.
If it's Orks and Blood Angels, I'm leaning a little more towards picking up a starter, for nostalgia reasons.
Still haven't painted my last starter's worth though! Should really get on that.
There will be no starter.
From 40k radio:
"Some updates on 7th edition: 1) It will purely be a book release. 2) It could be released as early as May.
On the Chaos Space Marine Releases. 1) Look for the stuff to be released beginning of summer. 2) Crimson Slaughter(CSM in the DV starter) might receive a Supplement as well."
So you will only have to buy the rulebook for 100$, it will be valid for about 12 months top.
Davor wrote: So it's ok to kill the environment by surfing the net that takes electricity? This is more harmful than killing a few trees. Also what if he is not printing it out and using an iPad or some other tablet?
Hydroelectric power here.
Seriously, I expect a massive FAQ for this. And it will be magical.
It will probably be the length of the 6th ed rulebook
....I may need another ream of paper then.
Get with the times. Get an iPad. Will be cheaper with all that paper, and it will save some trees.
BTW I see you are like me. You can't decide if you are Canadian or American.
I show up as Canadian when I'm at the local college. Despite my house being closer to the border than the college is.
And I have an iPad, but not all the books are on iPad. Plus I bought most of the books in hard copy to get them on release for review purposes.
$85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
Why do you have to buy a card pack? I haven't had to yet.
jhnbrg wrote: So you will only have to buy the rulebook for 100$, it will be valid for about 12 months top.
Why do you think there will be no starter?
Why do you think it will only last 12 months tops?
No information that has been posts suggests this in any way shape or form. You're just tossing out 'sky is falling' panic comments for no particular reason.
"Some updates on 7th edition: 1) It will purely be a book release. 2) It could be released as early as May.
So you will only have to buy the rulebook for 100$, it will be valid for about 12 months top.
1) The 6th ed rulebook was released in july and the starter box wasn't out until September so the fact that there's no starter box this month proves precisely feth all
Eldarain wrote: The new missions would seem to require them.
The things they represent aren't going to be spelled out in the rules? You know - like the Psychic powers?
Entirely possible but it would be fairly clunky to roll for them randomly each turn including swapping out and easily keeping track of what missions each player is going after turn after turn.
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
Why do you have to buy a card pack? I haven't had to yet.
You certainly don't have to, but I really liked the psychic power cards. Shame they're invalidated so quickly.
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
Why do you have to buy a card pack? I haven't had to yet.
You certainly don't have to, but I really liked the psychic power cards. Shame they're invalidated so quickly.
Index cards 4tw.
Or magic card proxies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WrentheFaceless wrote: Probably because 5th to 6th was a bit longer, and 6th was advertised as a new edition, not a giant update not new but is new but not new edition.
Except WD called this a new edition, not a revamp...
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
Why do you have to buy a card pack? I haven't had to yet.
You certainly don't have to, but I really liked the psychic power cards. Shame they're invalidated so quickly.
Index cards 4tw.
Or magic card proxies.
feth that noise. Spread sheets + Printer+ Laminator. It's just sitting there, collecting dust, judging me...
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
I don't see the issue. It only works out o $50 a year. Xbox LIVE costs more than that. Why are people making such a huge deal about this?
Because for some people, it's either/or, not both. Look I know the "feth you, I got mine Jack" attitude is popular around here, but it's not a difficult concept to grasp; people who don't have a lot of disposable income are naturally going to resent an additional unnecessary expense being imposed. It means they have to give up something else, and if they can only afford to keep up one hobby and chose 40K, it means they have to eat into their own hobby budget just to keep using the models they already have.
Christ I have an Autism spectrum disorder and I seem to have more empathy and basic consideration for other people's circumstances than a lot of folk here.
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
I don't see the issue. It only works out o $50 a year. Xbox LIVE costs more than that. Why are people making such a huge deal about this?
Xbox Live nets you quality multiplayer, offering reliable servers, VOIP chat, discounts on products and even free games.
40k gets you gakky, non-playtested and hastily written rules.
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
Why do you have to buy a card pack? I haven't had to yet.
You certainly don't have to, but I really liked the psychic power cards. Shame they're invalidated so quickly.
I'll be interested to see the new psychic power cards, and whether they're the whole set of Bio, TK, Pyro, Div, and TP, along with the all new Daemonology, or if the new cards are just Daemonology.
Actually, no, only if GW offered you the infrastructure to play games. Well...they do. If you still play at a GW. And can still play at a GW. If you don't get charged for doing so. If you don't get bothered and oushed to buy something at their store. GW stores used to be dedicated to playing the game. Ye know, a long time ago.
Nowadays, you are much better off playing at a gaming club. Full allowance of proxies, much better atmosphere, more events and actual competitive games.
Nope. What we get are new rules after just 2 years as GW realized that's the only way to make money. Purposefully overpowered models and rules to boost sales. Shutting down comp play and alienating vets because they don't fall for their poor business strategies...etc.
7th is not out yet. It might turn out good. Right now, however, it looks like the worst edition for a long time.
Mr.Church13 wrote: $85 for the rules and you have to buy an additional card pack! And they more than likely plan to invalidate the rules every two years now so what is wrong with GW? It's like they're trying to throw the company under the train on purpose now.
My psychic cards are predicting another 25% fall very soon for the big Kirby machine.
Why do you have to buy a card pack? I haven't had to yet.
You certainly don't have to, but I really liked the psychic power cards. Shame they're invalidated so quickly.
I'll be interested to see the new psychic power cards, and whether they're the whole set of Bio, TK, Pyro, Div, and TP, along with the all new Daemonology, or if the new cards are just Daemonology.
There was a rumor 30+ pages back or so that Divination was getting modified, so I'm betting it's all new.
an entire deny the witch 
