45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 azreal13 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I love all this talk about how we're suddenly going to see these broken Unbound armies are just going to overtake the meta. Seriously now, who'd play against an army of 10 Bloodthirsters or all Riptides or any other insane combo you can think of? Be honest now.
It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)
I know your Bloodthirster example was deliberately hyperbolic, but a kitted out BT is nigh on 300 points, so 10 are circa 3k, and by the time they'd agreed amongst themselves who was Warlord, you'd probably only have 6 or 7 left to field! Strong units that aren't undercosted do not concern me for the prospect of Unbound lists, it's things that are undercosted and horribly efficient like the Waveserpent that continue to concern me, in the context of the game as a whole in fact, and the lack of any rumours of anything that's going to tangibly rein them in is the one thing that is still bothering me.
I was more using it as the most extreme example of an army I could think of without digging out codexes to actually build one. The point remains though, those extremely broken combos (whatever they may be) are very rarely, if ever actually see play because people will just avoid playing them.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
azreal13 wrote:It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)
Well the WD article does say that point limits are optional...
85057
Post by: vadersson
I think I solved the question of which rulebook to get. I leave for vacation on the 29th and don't want to lug three big hard cover books with me to read. So digital edition here I come.
I hope I get to actually play again soon. I have spent an awful lot of money just to play two turns of a game so far. 
69829
Post by: Thatguyhsagun
Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/CM's to represent a DW army.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 Peregrine wrote: azreal13 wrote:It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)
Well the WD article does say that point limits are optional...
Yeah, but I think we can treat that with the contempt it deserves. Automatically Appended Next Post: Thatguyhsagun wrote:Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/ CM's to represent a DW army.
Actually, if your opponent decides to bring an unending horde of baby Nids, they'll probably do ok!
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I like every single change that has been stated so far, and don't get the falling sky mentality. Now my opinion is that Daemons got a huge boost in power almost to the point of Broken, but we have not seen the other side of the coin with the Anti Demon powers.
Psychic Phase -> Interesting and fun, now seems like you are actually "doing" stuff instead of Buff Debuff Shooting Attack. You mean I actually can stop my opponent from casting stuff , Great!!
-2 Through Difficult Terrain, Great!
Grounded! Great
More Survivable vehicles. Great , Negates Open top being super destroyable but still worthwhile.
Battle Forged! Great
Unbound , Great ! Sure i can be abused
Mission Changes, Love it. Makes the game matter from Turn 1 onward.
I like Unbound Armies , it allows you to play old school games and it allows you to build stuff like Genestealer cult without anyone complaining.
Yes, I am in fact playing the entire first company of my Marine army, it's really cool I don't know why people hating on it.
Like anything it can be abused but there's only so many rules you can make to prevent this.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Hollismason wrote:I like Unbound Armies , it allows you to play old school games and it allows you to build stuff like Genestealer cult without anyone complaining.
Yes, I am in fact playing the entire first company of my Marine army, it's really cool I don't know why people hating on it.
Like anything it can be abused but there's only so many rules you can make to prevent this.
Not exactly, if all the units points values were commensurate with their power value, then there would be very limited ways to abuse Unbound without resorting to cheating. The only issue people have with unbound armies is that units exist in the game that are too strong for their points, and Unbound gives a certain sort of player to exploit those imbalances still further.
You're absolutely correct, used responsibly, Unbound has potential to allow players to do awesome stuff without having to jump through hoops to get permission to do it, but nobody is worried about players who will use it to create awesome army concepts.
So, the only rule that needs to exist for it to be no problem whatsoever is one in the Game Design office in GWHQ that reads "Test Units Thoroughly and Cost Them Appropriately."
5601
Post by: Kelly502
I like the sound of the special edition boxed set but man that's pricey! I want the little rule book mostly. don't need the art book... Anyonw know if the smallish rule book will be available later?
121
Post by: Relapse
Seems fitting to have a DE Haemonculus on the rule book cover, the portal, no doubt to unimaginable suffering as one struggles to make sense of this year's rules.
39502
Post by: Slayer le boucher
 Sir Arun wrote:Okay, so apart from us existing players already having a set number of purchased units and armylists etc. leading us to continue playing battle forged armies, my questions is:
...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?
If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.
Been spending the day in Brussels GW, spaked with a bunch of guys, when speaking about the reroll, they all agree that this is a good thing, so if some seasoned players, think so, then there is a lot of newbies who will think so.
Also a newbie player won't now, what to take from what codex to make something broken, if he does, its a) becaus someone told him so/made his list for him, b) he found a thread with army lists and simply copy them without knowing really how to play them, in both cases, it won't a good army.
Now of course if they listen to the redshirts, who can't do nothing but yappers about the brolen stuffs, and they listen to it( like i saw today...), then there is nothing any one can do.
 Kelly502 wrote:I like the sound of the special edition boxed set but man that's pricey! I want the little rule book mostly. don't need the art book... Anyonw know if the smallish rule book will be available later?
To be fair the Munitorium set contaisn quite a lot, the books obviously, objectives tokens, missions cards i believe, all the new templates and dices+stick rulers and also a 40k novel i heard from the Staff.
But then again 250euros for a cardboard box..., if it was a etched metal box with gravings...or at least like the Apoc Vortex grenade transport case;
But instead for 250euros a box that has the shape of a bolter?...
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
Relapse wrote:Seems fitting to have a DE Haemonculus on the rule book cover, the portal, no doubt to unimaginable suffering as one struggles to make sense of this year's rules.
Missed that joke by about 30 pages.  Good grief this thread is getting bloated.
I'm curious if you're required to still pick a character as a warlord in unbound lists? The Tyranid player from the battle reportseems to use a Tervigon(a non-character HQ).
121
Post by: Relapse
 Sinful Hero wrote:Relapse wrote:Seems fitting to have a DE Haemonculus on the rule book cover, the portal, no doubt to unimaginable suffering as one struggles to make sense of this year's rules.
Missed that joke by about 30 pages. Good grief this thread is getting bloated.
I'm curious if you're required to still pick a character as a warlord in unbound lists? The Tyranid player from the battle reportseems to use a Tervigon(a non-character HQ).
Oh well, at least someone won't have to sift 30 pages back to find it. Look for it again in about 40 pages! 
14698
Post by: Lansirill
Thatguyhsagun wrote:Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/ CM's to represent a DW army.
I'm stealing that idea for my own DW. I think I may have to make some movie marines as well.
53531
Post by: Juicifer
Why, yes GW, we do indeed intend to play this game with points. Thanks for putting that on the table, though!
I'm almost convinced we're about to go from "Forging a Narrative" to "Jesus take the Wheel", and that's just based on the official word so far!
121
Post by: Relapse
 Juicifer wrote:Why, yes GW, we do indeed intend to play this game with points. Thanks for putting that on the table, though!
I'm almost convinced we're about to go from "Forging a Narrative" to "Jesus take the Wheel", and that's just based on the official word so far!
I must exalt that!
85001
Post by: Sihdhartha
Here's the thing, I keep seeing people say that they don't think unbound or some of these other changes are going to alter things that greatly, it'll only be a small percentage that exploits the problems that these could potentially cause ect..
Well then, wouldn't this small percentage be the same small percentage of players that exploit current problems such as re-rollable 2+ ward saves, Riptide spam, wave serpent spam, ect?
So then if it's really such a small percentage that would exploit things like this why would they possibly need to fix things? (which seems to be the biggest consensus most places i have gone).
Let's not kid ourselves, it's going to be the same percentage that creates these problems now as it will be looking for new problems in the next edition.
History (of the game, and community) would seem to give lie to trying to downplay and brush off the concerns brought up by some of these changes (and rumored ones) as unfounded and going to happen so rarely as to not matter.
4183
Post by: Davor
 Slayer le boucher wrote: But then again 250euros for a cardboard box..., if it was a etched metal box with gravings...or at least like the Apoc Vortex grenade transport case; But instead for 250euros a box that has the shape of a bolter?...
At least when I bought my 5th edition rule set it came with a metal box that I can put my minis in in a shape of an ammunition box. Card board doesn't seem worth it to me at all. Yes I didn't get all the extra books and poster but then again, all the extra books was one book.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
It isn't significantly different from how it is now, and that's my point. Right now, troops are an afterthought for many armies. The meta of today is to take minimal troops and invest in the big toys so that you can spend five turns decimating your opponents' army, and then make a last ditch dash with your minimal squad-sized troops to grab as many objectives as you can. That's today's meta. The rumored FOC changes, scoring changes and Unbound rules makes that "ignore troops, focus on the big guns" strategy stronger. It's not alleviating the problem, it's encouraging people to become apart of it. And how do you know tabling is an auto-lose now?
How do you know it isn't? This isn't an argument. I see the appeal that you're trying to make, but there's a difference between speculating on information we actually have, which is what I'm doing, and falling back on the Dakka-typical "you shouldn't judge until we know more!" angle that you're trying to use here. This is a speculation thread.
1460
Post by: shade1313
azreal13 wrote: Peregrine wrote: azreal13 wrote:It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)
Well the WD article does say that point limits are optional...
Yeah, but I think we can treat that with the contempt it deserves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thatguyhsagun wrote:Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/ CM's to represent a DW army.
Actually, if your opponent decides to bring an unending horde of baby Nids, they'll probably do ok!
Actually sounds like a fun battle to watch, potentially.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
So how many ADL will I be able to take? 10 quad guns a vindicare? And an entire half of the field in difficult terrain sounds hilarious.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Terrain isn't apart of the FOC iirc, so you can't take multiple fortifications, even with Unbound.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 BlaxicanX wrote:And how do you know tabling is an auto-lose now?
How do you know it isn't? This isn't an argument. I see the appeal that you're trying to make, but there's a difference between speculating on information we actually have, which is what I'm doing, and falling back on the Dakka-typical "you shouldn't judge until we know more!" angle that you're trying to use here. This is a speculation thread.
You cut part of my post off there in your rush to look right. I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.
Next time don't quote out of context to make yourself look "right" it just makes you look like someone who is desperately trying to "win" an argument on the internet.
Frankly I don't care who wins, I just think assuming the worst possible outcome being the only correct one is just too pessimistic for even me. I prefer "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" as my mantra. Sure it means I do have to consider the worst, but frankly I already have, it's called "I quit 40k and play something else". Everything else is less dark in comparison.
14386
Post by: Grey Knight Luke
BlaxicanX wrote:Terrain isn't apart of the FOC iirc, so you can't take multiple fortifications, even with Unbound.
I just assumed terrain was included as non faction groups... My mistake
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
This guy has milked all the new stuff about 7th from WD #16:
http://www.ozdestro.com/blog/white-dwarf-issue-16-full-40k-7th-ed-revealed
+ In Eternal War missions both players have the same objectives throughout the battle
+ In Maelstrom of War missions, the parameters can change from one turn to another. The idea is to simulate High Command changing the orders as the battle goes on. By gaining points at the end of each turn you have a fighting chance all the way until the end of the game.
+ Unit Coherency has been increased to 6" when measured vertically
+ Split Fire no longer requires a Leadership test
+ Super-Heavy Vehicles, Gargantuan Creatures and Destroyer weapons are now in the rule book
+ Specific scenery sets you can buy from GW now have their own data sheets.
+ Wound Allocation has changed - now when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll a hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of weapons in the unit at a time.
+ Casualties are always models closest to the firers.
+ You can choose which weapons in your squad fire first
+ Vehicle survivability has been rejigged too; a Penetrating Hit now requires a score of 7 on the Vehicle Damage table to destroy the vehicle. You can still destroy a vehicle by whittling it down or destroying it in one foul swoop with a dedicated anti-tank weapon. The difference is that a speculative shot isn't likely to get the job done in a single shot. This makes the +1 or +2 bonus on the vehicle Damage table for certain weapons invaluable.
+ Difficult Terrain is now a -2" on the charge distance.
+ Almost all units can claim objectives - including Land Raiders.
+ One of the advantages of a Battle-Forged army is that your troops always trump an opponent's scoring units enabling you to capture objectives even with enemy units nearby.
+ There is now a Battle Focus rule for Psykers which can increase the amount of psychic powers you have at the start of the game.
+ If you choose all your powers from the same discipline, for example, the you get the Primaris Power in addition - which gives every Psyker at least two to use.
+ Battle-Forged armies can re-roll your Warlord Trait and the Objective Secured special rule.
+ Unbound armies can have units that are not allied in the same force!
36303
Post by: Puscifer
I got a question...
Like 5th and 6th ed, will the armies be getting an FAQ/Errata on launch day of 7th?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
ClockworkZion wrote:I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.
In 6th edition you can have armies that consist of nothing but flyers (or similar units that must start in reserve) and units that start the game aboard flyers, and you will automatically lose the game. GW had no problem screwing over all-reserve armies, even fluffy ones like jump pack BA or Elysian drop troops, in 6th, so there's no reason to believe that this rule will change in 7th.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
ClockworkZion wrote:You cut part of my post off there in your rush to look right. I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.
I really don't think it does. I've seen rumors that Unbound armies ignore the FOC. Where are you seeing that an all-flyer army is possible? Frankly I don't care who wins, I just think assuming the worst possible outcome being the only correct one is just too pessimistic for even me.
You need to learn what analysis is. Positing that I'm being "pessimistic" by pointing out that the current rumors strongly encourage ignoring troops is like saying that I'm being "pessimistic" for pointing out that 2+2=4. I understand the sentiment of too much negativity being annoying. But the point of this thread is not to have a happy circle-jerk and talk about how great (or terrible) 7th edition is going to be, the point of this thread is to speculate and discuss the rumors that we're seeing. I call it as I see it, so if you want my opinions on 7th edition to be more positive, than present me with rumors or information that gives me a reason to have a positive reception.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
BlaxicanX wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:You cut part of my post off there in your rush to look right. I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.
I really don't think it does. I've seen rumors that Unbound armies ignore the FOC. Where are you seeing that an all-flyer army is possible?
I don't get how you don't see that they are. If someone doesn't have to follow FOC they can easilly take an army of nothing but Stormtalons, Heldrakes or Doom Scythes (to name a few).
24685
Post by: midget_overlord
+ If you choose all your powers from the same discipline, for example, the you get the Primaris Power in addition - which gives every Psyker at least two to use.
Do you mean that I can now choose my powers instead of rolling, or are they stil rolled forl randomly?
48139
Post by: BarBoBot
What it means, is that if you choose to roll ALL your psychic rolls for a model on divination (as an example) then you get the primaris power for free.
5601
Post by: Kelly502
Me too... I think I lost my sparky enthusiasm... <:( Automatically Appended Next Post:  vadersson wrote:I think I solved the question of which rulebook to get. I leave for vacation on the 29th and don't want to lug three big hard cover books with me to read. So digital edition here I come.
I hope I get to actually play again soon. I have spent an awful lot of money just to play two turns of a game so far.
May be the best bet because correct me if I'm wrong, but the updates/ correction will happen automatically.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Kelly502 wrote:May be the best bet because correct me if I'm wrong, but the updates/ correction will happen automatically.
iTunes does it automatically, you have to manually download the ePub/mobi versions, but you get free updates for the life of that book from the Black Library (or so they've said).
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.
Frankly the only reason I'm buying it now is to review it and cover the whole thing as best I can so others can make informed decisions of their own. Something I wish we had a lot more of in this hobby honestly.
I mean, sure there will be reviews, but most of them will be short and focus on very specific things or glaze over the details and you have to read a lot of different ones to get a complete picture. It's that and the complaints I used to see about there being no way to know what's in some of these books that inspired me to do day one reviews. Of course that means throwing my money into a bin like everyone else, but at least I do it through my FLGS and not through GW directly so I don't feel as bad about it. My FLGS is going to order these books anyways, at least this way I'm supporting them while I do this.
EDIT: Oh, and I actually like most of what 6th was. There were some things I felt needed refining (such as faster ways to handle Look Out Sir and allocating wounds) but largely I liked the core rules. The real issue was the bipolar way the game handled codex design. If they were all on the same level as the CSM or DA books the game would be fine. The problem is that they're not, they're all over the place and the internal balance in a lot of books is a mess. The core rules didn't break the game, the codexes did.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
I look forward to Zion's review.
Did some catching up on the thread, nothing of note to comment on besides this is it... After this weekend, rules leaks ahoy as the book hits hands on Tuesday. It's kinda like being at the top of the chain on the roller coaster. That bit of slow tottering right before the plunge.
I like sixth edition and the potential it held, for the record. It got a bit too fiddly and the recent six months killed my interest dearly. But man, sixth edition prior to the heldrakes FAQ? Smiles for miles.
49658
Post by: undertow
I've heard people mention on other sites that FMCs won't be able to charge until the turn after they land. Has anyone else seen this or gotten any confirmation?
47246
Post by: Yonan
Yeah, please wait for reviews before you jump in and buy this, I hate it when companies bad business practices are rewarded. Although it is somewhat comforting to see that tabletop gamers suffer from it similarly to video gamers.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
I'll be giving it my best! And it'll likely be in more than one part because the codex reviews already run long, so a rulebook review is going to need to be in chunks. I'm going to aim to include pictures this time though as well just to make things easier to follow along with.
 TheKbob wrote:Did some catching up on the thread, nothing of note to comment on besides this is it... After this weekend, rules leaks ahoy as the book hits hands on Tuesday. It's kinda like being at the top of the chain on the roller coaster. That bit of slow tottering right before the plunge.
I assume we'll see the next WD before the rulebook hits the internet, but yes, the leaks will flow for sure. Automatically Appended Next Post:  undertow wrote:I've heard people mention on other sites that FMCs won't be able to charge until the turn after they land. Has anyone else seen this or gotten any confirmation?
My FLGS was saying his GW rep said the same, but reps are unreliable so I don't want to put the cart before the horse on that one.
71426
Post by: bodazoka
ClockworkZion wrote: fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.
Frankly the only reason I'm buying it now is to review it and cover the whole thing as best I can so others can make informed decisions of their own. Something I wish we had a lot more of in this hobby honestly.
Feel free to PM me the link when you do! I would love to read your breakdown I have appreciated your honest, un emotional, un bias comments (both negative and positive) on these changes in this thread so far. Will be a good informative read.
Also to the previous poster Im one of those "weird" guys who liked 6th so.. have all ready ordered 7th...
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
bodazoka wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.
Frankly the only reason I'm buying it now is to review it and cover the whole thing as best I can so others can make informed decisions of their own. Something I wish we had a lot more of in this hobby honestly.
Feel free to PM me the link when you do! I would love to read your breakdown I have appreciated your honest, un emotional, un bias comments (both negative and positive) on these changes in this thread so far. Will be a good informative read.
Also to the previous poster Im one of those "weird" guys who liked 6th so.. have all ready ordered 7th...
I don't usually get called "unemotional". Makes me sound like a Necron. 
That said, assuming this topic hasn't been locked I'll link it here and in my signature, And I'm glad people like my approach to writing. I try to be honest and not pull punches while at the same time not resorting to hyperbole to prove my points. I figure if people know how I think then they can know if they'll like or hate something in relation to my opinion much easier and form their own thoughts much cleaner. Basically I nicked the approach from Totalbiscuit because it fits my sort of writing style and I'm glad other people like it.
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
 44Ronin wrote:You have a very poor grasp of military history, and what actually happens in close quarter fighting. Your position is downright ignorant to actual history. Your revisionist view is laughable at best.
1700 was chosen as the beginning of large scale manufacture of firearms. Which, funnily enough, began the process. If you'd like to illustrate your point, though, I'll happily stand in the same ten foot room as you with a firearm while you get a spade, and we'll see who wins.
Melee continues to exist. But over time it's faded into the modern iteration, which has made it all but obsolete. My point stands, and until you can show me any contemporary combat where any significant percentage of combat occurred in melee it's going to keep doing so.
Cavalry charges and even infantry charges were a big part of warfare in the Napoleonic era. In fact I'd call these things decisive elements in a battle in those times. You're wrong with your arbitrary date.
No, you're taking an off hand comment that was originally intended in jest as some gospel to which I adhere in a way I never said I did.
 Accolade wrote:You ever heard of this thing called friendly fire? Ten feet... 
I never called anyone stupid, I'm pointing out factual errors and modern misconceptions about warfare. They're almost to the point of being offensively ignorant.
Did you ever hear of this thing called aiming? If it's not at the point where you are literally linking arms in a grapple with someone, picking out a guy and the guy several feet away isn't hard. Unless you have a comrade between said target and yourself.
You will notice that all the special forces response teams which do things like storm embassies and work their way through any other buildings all bring guns, and all use them indoors. They may have melee options available, but I'd struggle to find an example of them ever being used in deference to the firearm they're carrying.
59141
Post by: Elemental
 Brachiaraidos wrote:
1700 was chosen as the beginning of large scale manufacture of firearms. Which, funnily enough, began the process. If you'd like to illustrate your point, though, I'll happily stand in the same ten foot room as you with a firearm while you get a spade, and we'll see who wins.
Melee continues to exist. But over time it's faded into the modern iteration, which has made it all but obsolete. My point stands, and until you can show me any contemporary combat where any significant percentage of combat occurred in melee it's going to keep doing so.
No, you're taking an off hand comment that was originally intended in jest as some gospel to which I adhere in a way I never said I did.
Did you ever hear of this thing called aiming? If it's not at the point where you are literally linking arms in a grapple with someone, picking out a guy and the guy several feet away isn't hard. Unless you have a comrade between said target and yourself.
You will notice that all the special forces response teams which do things like storm embassies and work their way through any other buildings all bring guns, and all use them indoors. They may have melee options available, but I'd struggle to find an example of them ever being used in deference to the firearm they're carrying.
Okay, so are you arguing this to correct misconceptions about war in general, unrelated to 40K? Or are you arguing that 40K suffers for not being realistic enough with regards to CC?
Because if the latter, here's the thing. Most people understand that the melee rules in 40K are overly generous. They understand, and don't care. The reason that they don't care is that a green tides of Orks crashing into the enemy with choppas, or superhuman cultists of dark gods of slaughter with gore-encrusted chain-axes are cool. And that is, really, the end of the matter. 40K is not a realistic setting marred by CC rules, it happily prioritises coolness over realism at every stage and assaults are way, waaaaaay down the list of things that likely wouldn't work in a realistic battle.
Which is okay. Realism is not a worthy goal for its own sake. There are other games that better fit that mould (Infinity springs to mind, where close combat is extremely corner-case), but complaining that 40K isn't realistic is like buying a motorcycle and then complaining that it's defective because two of the wheels are missing and there's no sunroof.
8520
Post by: Leth
fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.
Well maybe not everyone thought it was "Dog's Bollocks". I started in third and 6th edition has been the most fun edition I have played so far. From everything I have heard 7th is an improvement on 6th.
Honestly I found that most of my problems with the edition stemmed from two things. Personal failings and mission design. Once you get away from the overly simple core rulebook missions a lot of those broken builds start to fall apart. The second thing is that I was bringing crap lists and playing like crap. Once I learned to play the game and make decent lists(not netlists) I had a lot more fun. Its amazing how many people blame the rules for their inability to play well or build a decent army.
Are there balance issues? Sure, most people arent denying that. But instead of whining and moaning about it look at it as an opportunity to get better and fight against the odds. I played grey knights at the end of fifth and eventually just sold them because I was becoming a terrible player there was no strategy or tactics behind my decision because I didnt need there to be.
Now obviously this is more aimed at tournament play, but even for pick up games how hard is it to just have two-three lists ready to go(with significant overlap in models) and ask before you arrive what level they want to play at.
56122
Post by: Perfect Organism
I thought that 'the dogs bollocks' was a good thing? Am I failing to keep up with English again?
Anyway, I like sixth. I've liked every edition since fourth better than the last and only my ignorance of third edition and my issues with the style of second edition stop me from seeing all versions of 40k so far as a steady improvement.
15543
Post by: spartanlegion
Hm, the more I read, the more I am getting concerned.
I have a nice 2k guard army I finished, stuck with the foc, didn't go crazy on uber units, kept it balanced...
But who's to say others in my game group are going to do the same (curtousy)?
Couple guys were scheming tonight at the shop... Even I am tempted to make some insane unbound suicide tidal wave ruin your game army...
Must resist...must hold on....must fight it....
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Perfect Organism wrote:I thought that 'the dogs bollocks' was a good thing? Am I failing to keep up with English again?
Dog's bollocks is a good thing. Dog's breakfast means "shambles".
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Hatemonger wrote:
Brachiaraidos wrote:40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.
Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.
Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.
I mostly agree with you, except that this is exactly what the change from 2nd to 3rd edition was supposed to be about. If you have access to WD #226, it has all the "introductions" to the (then) new 3rd edition, including lots of designer notes and explanations, and it's well worth a read. Changes like Rapid Fire getting extra shots based on range, Cover Saves and the armor/ AP system instead of modifiers, were all done to facilitate batch rolling. Instead of "This marine is at long range from that Ork in cover, and this one is short range from that Ork in cover, and these two are short range from those guys in the open, but they moved, so..." you just go on to "These guys fire bolters at those Orks... 5 hits... 3 wounds. Take saves." Psychic powers went from a card-based mini-game to basically "actions" that you do in the appropriate phase - albeit most of them just glorified alternate guns, which was admittedly rather bland.
Fast forward to today, and I'm fiddling with model placement so that my special weapons are close enough to hit, but not close enough to automatically be the first to die due to "Closest Model" removal, and then my opponent is rolling saves separately again because of Look Out Sir. They're adding the Psychic Phase back in, which I confess does actually seem like a simplification against the proliferation of powers used during-or-maybe-at-the-beginning-of- any given phase. I'm rolling on tables before we start playing, because my Commander gets different special rules every game, and my daemons also get different wargear. My daemons also might get different invulnerable saves over the turns, but also random anger-of-the-gods-artillery-strikes, because CHAOS. But I guess now we'll also be rolling/drawing for different mission objectives every turn, too?
Each of these things might be ok on its own. It's not any one of them that I feel bogs the game down, it's the cumulative effect of all of them together. To be fair, they all have the potential to add little bits of flavor to a game, but I'm left wondering if the cost involved is really worth it to me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Is it a futuristic, small scale, skirmish RPG? Or is it epic in 28mm? D-weapons, riptides, deathstar units etc etc, are neither here nor there. The game suffers from an identity crisis - we get a horrible compromise of big battles and skirmishes crammed into one, and from what I've been reading, it's just gotten worse.
I think this cuts to the heart of it, but it's not just about the size of the game, it's about the focus. Superheavies are cool. Detailed characters with little roleplay elements are cool. Offbeat games with unlikely alliances are cool. Mental duels between mighty psykers are cool. Grand battles with sweeping movements of massed troops are cool. Bombing runs and dogfights and air-cav drops are cool. That's all cool! But I don't know that it's really cool to try and do all of that at the same time. In my head - in the ideal sense - yeah, sure it is. But at a certain point, something has to give, and unfortunately, I fear it is the gameplay that is being compromised now. They've gone to great pains to include a lot of fun ideas, but I feel like the sum total does not result in a more satisfying experience for me.
- H8
I'm in total agreement. I've nothing against super tanks blasting the dakka out of each other, or massed wings of fighter bombers zooming all over the place, but unfortunately, the rules are the same for a 700 point game as they are for a 7000 point game, and something just gets lost in that. Here's hoping that 7th fixes that, but I won't hold my breath.
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
 Elemental wrote:Okay, so are you arguing this to correct misconceptions about war in general, unrelated to 40K? Or are you arguing that 40K suffers for not being realistic enough with regards to CC?
Originally, it was a jokey statement a few dozen pages ago that some people keep dragging up. I'm just keeping pace.
But in general, I just like the direction assault took in 6e, in that it's slowly been reduced in focus compared to the ranged weapon firefights. And 7e seems to have maintained that, and I like this. Consolidating into combat, true or no (I think it was one of the ones in WD), is still only going to be useful if I'm silly enough to stand within 6' of an ongoing combat I'm about to lose.
I would still enjoy if CC came to incorporate pistols and assault weapons, so close combat wasn't all just glorified arm flailing when it makes little sense.
(Though frankly most of my guardsmen are as if not more dangerous punching an enemy because of the proliferation of S3. A shotgun blast that hurts as much as punching, go figure.)
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 Yodhrin wrote: Accolade wrote: Davespil wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:mercury14 wrote:I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.
Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.
39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?
This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen written on Dakka. You sir and a poet and a genius! I may add that to my signiture.
Yeah, I am in agreement with this. Obviously 40k isn't all about realism, but sometimes the efforts to make things kewl and axesome come across as heavy-handed and childish. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any assault whatsoever, but that it shouldn't be about massive charges and counter charges like this is the Crimean War- which even then, the large horse charges resulted in significant defeat when the Crimean guns just mowed them all down.
Personally, if I was GW I would make assault less and less important in 40k to help differentiate both it and WHFB to encourage people to play both games. With the Psychic Phase returning, there is less and less reason to play WHFB (apart from pretty models).
The whole point of 40K is anachronisms. Machineguns and swords, space knights and space elves, laser guns and revolvers, tanks and cavalry charges. These days pretty much the only reasons to play 40K are the aesthetic and the background, so unless you're stuck playing it because literally no other games are played in your area, why would you want to dilute and change those? There are innumerable tabletop and videogames out there that cater to everything from hyper-real modern military to near-future hard sci-fi that would satisfy this "guns pwn everything" mindset, so why not play one of those instead of wishing to change major parts of 40K's thematic underpinnings that attract a lot of other people to the setting in the first place?
Total agreement. You're one of the few people that actually 'gets' what 40k is. If you read the background, then you'll know that mankind is scattered all over the galaxy, with varying degrees of technological advances. Some worlds are feudal, some are hi-tech, so there is a place for cavalry charges and sword fights, despite being a futuristic game of super duper guns.
5601
Post by: Kelly502
I'm really curious about the dynamic changes to objectives during game play.
Now they're arguing about CQB... Oh my Gork!
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Perfect Organism wrote:I thought that 'the dogs bollocks' was a good thing? Am I failing to keep up with English again?
Anyway, I like sixth. I've liked every edition since fourth better than the last and only my ignorance of third edition and my issues with the style of second edition stop me from seeing all versions of 40k so far as a steady improvement.
I prefer the politer term of bee's knees as opposed to dog's bollocks.
56122
Post by: Perfect Organism
Brachiaraidos wrote:I would still enjoy if CC came to incorporate pistols and assault weapons, so close combat wasn't all just glorified arm flailing when it makes little sense.
(Though frankly most of my guardsmen are as if not more dangerous punching an enemy because of the proliferation of S3. A shotgun blast that hurts as much as punching, go figure.)
I'm pretty sure that 40k 'close combat' is meant to represent both point-blank shooting and hand-to-hand fighting. Surely that's why pistols give you an extra attack? Granted, it isn't a great representation because the rules don't give you much benefit from having a good gun in close, but I think the idea is there already.
Also, guardsmen might not have a Close Combat Weapon, but I seem to recall the rulebook saying that most combatants would have knives and improvised weapons even if they didn't have anything listed in their wargear. Stabbing someone with a knife or bludgeoning them with a club probably isn't nearly as deadly as shooting them, but at least it's in the same ballpark.
85380
Post by: Brachiaraidos
Perfect Organism wrote: Brachiaraidos wrote:I would still enjoy if CC came to incorporate pistols and assault weapons, so close combat wasn't all just glorified arm flailing when it makes little sense.
(Though frankly most of my guardsmen are as if not more dangerous punching an enemy because of the proliferation of S3. A shotgun blast that hurts as much as punching, go figure.)
I'm pretty sure that 40k 'close combat' is meant to represent both point-blank shooting and hand-to-hand fighting. Surely that's why pistols give you an extra attack? Granted, it isn't a great representation because the rules don't give you much benefit from having a good gun in close, but I think the idea is there already.
Also, guardsmen might not have a Close Combat Weapon, but I seem to recall the rulebook saying that most combatants would have knives and improvised weapons even if they didn't have anything listed in their wargear. Stabbing someone with a knife or bludgeoning them with a club probably isn't nearly as deadly as shooting them, but at least it's in the same ballpark.
All true enough. But the CC rules do fall apart a little in the hand to hand range when you consider that units can be up to 50 strong and get pulled into 'melee' because of consolidation, even if they started the hypothetical maximum of ~100 inches end to end.
And very true on the knives part, but again. A shotgun blast and one earnest stab are rather different, but the 1-10 scale is a little restrictive in that regard. We make do with what we have.
25400
Post by: Fayric
It would be highly amusing if all this about unbound armies and optional point limits, allying with non allies etc, still had the prohibition on embarking other codexes transports.
You simply do NOT ride in someone elses ride, not even come the apocalypse.
But then again, if you actually can get in to others transports, you would have an insane gamechanger right there.
Chaos marines loaded in Valkyries spring to mind.
68182
Post by: Wayshuba
Everything I wanted to know about 7th edition was clear in Jervis's closing comments on the Psychic Phase video:
"What we wanted to do with this edition is add on top of the previous edition and give players the chance to use all the models in their collection on the battlefield."
That sums it up - fix nothing, add more junk on top of an already fethed up edition, and throw away all semblance of game balance or coherency and let people use whatever expensive toys they want from their collections.
Oh, and color me not surprised at how little a "bonus" you get for sticking with the FoC army build.
Get ready folks, the Ork codex is going to be very telling. If we see a cover on the Ork codex in the new bland 40k rule cover format expect to see all the codexes redone - yet again.
For me, I am getting off this crazy roller coaster at this point. I feel GW is going to keep going until they literally destroy the game at this point as they have resigned themselves to be a two trick pony now (WHFB and 40k).
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.
And then the next time GW does something annoying they will still be around to complain about it. Like all the people screaming about dropping their WD subscriptions with the recent WD/Visions change when WD has been worthless for at least 10 years already. There really shouldn't have been any subscribers left to drop out at that point.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Copied from white dwarf
It’s worth pondering exactly what the line ‘whichever units from your collections that you
want’ means, however. Your collection may, of course, include all manner of units from all
manner of armies. So, yes, this means you can simply play a game of Warhammer 40,000
with an army as random and diverse as you want. You could have Space Marine Sternguard
Veterans, a Bloodthirster of Khorne, a Tyranid Exocrine, a Tau Riptide Battlesuit and a unit of
Eldar Guardians as your army. That’s a very silly and extreme example, and you certainly
won’t be very popular with your opponents, and we think you’ll find that going radically ‘offpiste’
with theme and background makes for far, far less compelling games and battlefield
storytelling. In fact, what makes the Unbound method really exciting is that it allows you to
tell the stories that you want to tell, and really drill down into a theme. Let me explain by way
of my Tyranids: Hive Fleet Eumenides is currently rapidly adapting in response to the
resistance it’s encountering in the form of Imperial Knights. As such, when it goes to war
these days it’s funnelling its energies towards a specific purpose: felling giant vehicles. My
Unbound theme, then, is a host of myriad bioforms awash with Haywire weapons: Hive
Guard with shockcannons, Hive Crones with tentaclids, and Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and
Hive Tyrants bred with the electroshock grub thorax swarm. It’s a highly specialised army (no
Troops whatsoever!) that will be next to useless against certain forces, but it’s emblematic of
how the Hive Mind works, and it really lets me unfold a particular narrative (the Tyranids are
fighting back against Imperial Knights!) by picking exactly the monsters I want to use.
56122
Post by: Perfect Organism
I find it a bit hard to swallow that half-ton marines and normal humans can get in each other's transports without changing the transport capacity. I guess it's just one more little absurdity for the pile though. I doubt that it's actually going to crop up very often.
The only really desirable cross-faction transport combos I can think of are daemons in landraiders and eldar infantry in dark eldar vehicles, both of which seem fairly justifiable and not too powerful.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
 Lansirill wrote:Thatguyhsagun wrote:Kind of happy to hear about the unbound armies. I can finally recreate those fluff moments where a dozen dreads alone hold back the Xenos tide. They may look funny, they may be ineffective, they may be overcosted to a degree, but dammit i like the fellas, Also planning to run a variety of captains/ CM's to represent a DW army.
I'm stealing that idea for my own DW. I think I may have to make some movie marines as well.
Ooooh, that's a great idea for running tru/artscale Marines actually. An entire Unbound army made up of Iron Hands Chapter Masters, muahahahahahaha*cough* 
Perfect Organism wrote:I find it a bit hard to swallow that half-ton marines and normal humans can get in each other's transports without changing the transport capacity. I guess it's just one more little absurdity for the pile though. I doubt that it's actually going to crop up very often.
The only really desirable cross-faction transport combos I can think of are daemons in landraiders and eldar infantry in dark eldar vehicles, both of which seem fairly justifiable and not too powerful.
It makes more sense when you remember that 40K vehicles are often wildly out of scale. The Chimera and Rhino should really both be quite a bit bigger; if a situation arose where baseline humans had to use a Marine Rhino or SM had to use a Guard Chimera the only real issue would be seating, and if your choice is "uncomfortable ride in a Rhino with the wrong seats" or "get your face chewed off by gribblies", I doubt anyone would be happy to hang about in the hope a "proper" ride shows up.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Sir Arun wrote:also, new pics of the individual books are up on the GW site. the verdict remains: worst rulebook cover design ever:
No, it is awesome: no marine!
ClockworkZion wrote:I have a feeling the change really will be 1 HQ, 1 Troop and then everything else comes in "detachments". That sounds like GW's way of rolling. Sure you have to have a second troop choice, it's just part of one of the detachments.
Or the WD made a typo again.
Or you just misread the article? I mean, the only part speaking about one troop choice was about some unbound dark angel army.
I love how GW makes it crystal-clear how much they do not care about each player having a chance of winning!
20880
Post by: loki old fart
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Sir Arun wrote:also, new pics of the individual books are up on the GW site. the verdict remains: worst rulebook cover design ever:
No, it is awesome: no marine!
ClockworkZion wrote:I have a feeling the change really will be 1 HQ, 1 Troop and then everything else comes in "detachments". That sounds like GW's way of rolling. Sure you have to have a second troop choice, it's just part of one of the detachments.
Or the WD made a typo again.
Or you just misread the article? I mean, the only part speaking about one troop choice was about some unbound dark angel army.
I love how GW makes it crystal-clear how much they do not care about each player having a chance of winning!
You don't need a troop choice at all
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
For battleforged army, you do. You need two, actually. For unbound, you do not need one, but the guy from the article says he will field one, and only one: a unit of scouts.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Sir Arun wrote:also, new pics of the individual books are up on the GW site. the verdict remains: worst rulebook cover design ever:
No, it is awesome: no marine!
ClockworkZion wrote:I have a feeling the change really will be 1 HQ, 1 Troop and then everything else comes in "detachments". That sounds like GW's way of rolling. Sure you have to have a second troop choice, it's just part of one of the detachments.
Or the WD made a typo again.
Or you just misread the article? I mean, the only part speaking about one troop choice was about some unbound dark angel army.
I love how GW makes it crystal-clear how much they do not care about each player having a chance of winning!
I just re-read the article, and he's clearly talking about the FOC for a Battle Forged army when he refers to requiring only 1 Troop choice.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 loki old fart wrote:Copied from white dwarf
It’s worth pondering exactly what the line ‘whichever units from your collections that you
want’ means, however. Your collection may, of course, include all manner of units from all
manner of armies. So, yes, this means you can simply play a game of Warhammer 40,000
with an army as random and diverse as you want. You could have Space Marine Sternguard
Veterans, a Bloodthirster of Khorne, a Tyranid Exocrine, a Tau Riptide Battlesuit and a unit of
Eldar Guardians as your army. That’s a very silly and extreme example, and you certainly
won’t be very popular with your opponents, and we think you’ll find that going radically ‘offpiste’
with theme and background makes for far, far less compelling games and battlefield
storytelling. In fact, what makes the Unbound method really exciting is that it allows you to
tell the stories that you want to tell, and really drill down into a theme. Let me explain by way
of my Tyranids: Hive Fleet Eumenides is currently rapidly adapting in response to the
resistance it’s encountering in the form of Imperial Knights. As such, when it goes to war
these days it’s funnelling its energies towards a specific purpose: felling giant vehicles. My
Unbound theme, then, is a host of myriad bioforms awash with Haywire weapons: Hive
Guard with shockcannons, Hive Crones with tentaclids, and Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and
Hive Tyrants bred with the electroshock grub thorax swarm. It’s a highly specialised army (no
Troops whatsoever!) that will be next to useless against certain forces, but it’s emblematic of
how the Hive Mind works, and it really lets me unfold a particular narrative (the Tyranids are
fighting back against Imperial Knights!) by picking exactly the monsters I want to use.
You've got to be fething kidding me.
Yeah, that's it. Anybody who buys this gak? You've got only yourselves to blame.
36303
Post by: Puscifer
I hope that 1 troops choice is correct. That helps my army out immensely.
26765
Post by: Bangbangboom
Perfect Organism wrote:
The only really desirable cross-faction transport combos I can think of are daemons in landraiders and eldar infantry in dark eldar vehicles, both of which seem fairly justifiable and not too powerful.
Orks in anything they damn well please?
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
 Alex C wrote:I just re-read the article, and he's clearly talking about the FOC for a Battle Forged army when he refers to requiring only 1 Troop choice.
Where? How? Can you please quote? At least in the dark angel part, it is about an unbound army. “[…]Unbound army […] will allow me to focus […] on […] Ravenwing. […] (I do not have that freedom in a battleforged army list […] in many games I will play in the future, the only troop choice in my army will be a squad of Scouts.[…]It is a wonderful example of the things the Unbound method allows you to do. Of course, the Battle-forged method [something completely different]”
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Here:
"Battle Forged armies use the Force Organisation Chart you know and love from previous editions of Warhammer 40,000. You'll need 1 HQ and 1 Troops choice"
From the WD scan on page 209 of this thread.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Okay, I was looking at the wrong place. He is lying though: it is not the FOC we know then .
tAnd also, it is explicitly contradicting the FOC we see on http://youtu.be/7JnMByJVUow?t=1m6s , so I am going to say it is a typo.
53708
Post by: TedNugent
I sincerely hope that those of you who were saying "wait and see" wait until this aberration is reviewed before you buy it.
The entire definition of a preorder is contrary to the idea of "wait and see," so I hope you're not doing that.
Please don't forget that they are putting the rulebooks in Dark Vengeance and therefore it should be available a la carte on Ebay eventually.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Alex C wrote:Here:
"Battle Forged armies use the Force Organisation Chart you know and love from previous editions of Warhammer 40,000. You'll need 1 HQ and 1 Troops choice"
From the WD scan on page 209 of this thread.
He is referring to "at least" 1 troop and HQ because that is what an ally detachment requires. The combined arms FOC has already been shown and it still has 2 troops minimum.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Brachiaraidos wrote: Did you ever hear of this thing called aiming? If it's not at the point where you are literally linking arms in a grapple with someone, picking out a guy and the guy several feet away isn't hard. Unless you have a comrade between said target and yourself. You will notice that all the special forces response teams which do things like storm embassies and work their way through any other buildings all bring guns, and all use them indoors. They may have melee options available, but I'd struggle to find an example of them ever being used in deference to the firearm they're carrying.
Even with aiming it's still very much possible to shoot your fellow soldiers in close quarters, due to weapon spread, the fact they keep moving, ect ect.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Oh, yeah. So, at low point level, one can play an allied detachment as the only detachment. Could be interesting if your only troop unit is a deathstar.
85299
Post by: Spoletta
Sorry you can't, you always need at least 2 troops.
If you are battleforged you have a warlord.
If you have a warlord you have a primary detachment.
If you have a primary detachment you need 2 troops.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
By the look of it, not only can you run just an allied detachment, but even if you do take allied+Combined Arms, your warlord can be in either (it only says that your primary is determined by which army your Warlord is from, implying you can choose).
I suppose there's a precendent for that with C:Inq allowing 'allied' Warlords.
31285
Post by: Chrysis
 Paradigm wrote:By the look of it, not only can you run just an allied detachment, but even if you do take allied+Combined Arms, your warlord can be in either (it only says that your primary is determined by which army your Warlord is from, implying you can choose).
I suppose there's a precendent for that with C: Inq allowing 'allied' Warlords.
Except that we've seen the rules for the Allied Detachment, and it includes that the Warlord cannot be from that detachment and it cannot be the Primary Detachment.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
Chrysis wrote: Paradigm wrote:By the look of it, not only can you run just an allied detachment, but even if you do take allied+Combined Arms, your warlord can be in either (it only says that your primary is determined by which army your Warlord is from, implying you can choose).
I suppose there's a precendent for that with C: Inq allowing 'allied' Warlords.
Except that we've seen the rules for the Allied Detachment, and it includes that the Warlord cannot be from that detachment and it cannot be the Primary Detachment.
Ah, must have missed that.
56122
Post by: Perfect Organism
 Bangbangboom wrote: Perfect Organism wrote:
The only really desirable cross-faction transport combos I can think of are daemons in landraiders and eldar infantry in dark eldar vehicles, both of which seem fairly justifiable and not too powerful.
Orks in anything they damn well please?
Oh, good Gork! I've just realised that I might be able to do the looted stormraven I've been thinking of ever since I first saw the model.
4179
Post by: bubber
I just want to know if you have to fork out another £14 for the 2 decks of card to be able to play this new version...
52163
Post by: Shandara
 bubber wrote:I just want to know if you have to fork out another £14 for the 2 decks of card to be able to play this new version...
Likely to be in the rulebook, ready for copying (for personal use).
44272
Post by: Azreal13
bubber wrote:I just want to know if you have to fork out another £14 for the 2 decks of card to be able to play this new version...
The psychic powers are all in the 6th book, we've seen screen grabs of the Daemonology page from the book, so it's reasonable to assume the rest are in there.
We've seen the SO chart (or parts of it) as a D66 table too, so again, reasonable to assume that the cards are a convenience rather than a necessity.
I bought the Psychic Deck for 6th because I found it for a good price, but seldom use it, so won't be bothering with that, I'll prolly get a few games under my belt before deciding in the objective cards, I can see them helping with housekeeping mid game.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
 Shandara wrote: bubber wrote:I just want to know if you have to fork out another £14 for the 2 decks of card to be able to play this new version...
Likely to be in the rulebook, ready for copying (for personal use).
Without the deck you roll a d66 (tens, ones) for each objective and write them down. So no the deck isn't necessary but I'm definitely getting one for ease and time saving.
557
Post by: alphaecho
azreal13 wrote:[I bought the Psychic Deck for 6th because I found it for a good price, but seldom use it, so won't be bothering with that, I'll prolly get a few games under my belt before deciding in the objective cards, I can see them helping with housekeeping mid game.
The guy who runs my FLGS has only been allocated two sets of Objective Cards (compared to ten Rulebook sets) and the GW rep "couldn't" (or wouldn't) confirm if the cards were "while stocks last" or not.
That doesn't mean they're limited and the GW website doesn't indicate that they are but its something to bear in mind.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Good to know, thanks, but I won't lose too much sleep over it, it might well be that once the book has landed and we have the full picture that it will become the "alternate" format and most players stick with standard missions, if it's popular but I find myself having to roll dice and write things down. *shrug*
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I bought the psychic deck (and all the psychic cards since) because I thought they'd be a great resource. Now they're invalidated. Feth that noise.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Honestly dude, I'm going to PM Lego and get him to change your username to Eeyore!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Oh bother!
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
undertow wrote:I've heard people mention on other sites that FMCs won't be able to charge until the turn after they land. Has anyone else seen this or gotten any confirmation?
This would be awesome! Fits with the new hardship in trying to ground them. On the other hand, shooty FMCs won't land
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
 Seaward wrote: loki old fart wrote:Copied from white dwarf
It’s worth pondering exactly what the line ‘whichever units from your collections that you
want’ means, however. Your collection may, of course, include all manner of units from all
manner of armies. So, yes, this means you can simply play a game of Warhammer 40,000
with an army as random and diverse as you want. You could have Space Marine Sternguard
Veterans, a Bloodthirster of Khorne, a Tyranid Exocrine, a Tau Riptide Battlesuit and a unit of
Eldar Guardians as your army. That’s a very silly and extreme example, and you certainly
won’t be very popular with your opponents, and we think you’ll find that going radically ‘offpiste’
with theme and background makes for far, far less compelling games and battlefield
storytelling. In fact, what makes the Unbound method really exciting is that it allows you to
tell the stories that you want to tell, and really drill down into a theme. Let me explain by way
of my Tyranids: Hive Fleet Eumenides is currently rapidly adapting in response to the
resistance it’s encountering in the form of Imperial Knights. As such, when it goes to war
these days it’s funnelling its energies towards a specific purpose: felling giant vehicles. My
Unbound theme, then, is a host of myriad bioforms awash with Haywire weapons: Hive
Guard with shockcannons, Hive Crones with tentaclids, and Tervigons, Tyrannofexes and
Hive Tyrants bred with the electroshock grub thorax swarm. It’s a highly specialised army (no
Troops whatsoever!) that will be next to useless against certain forces, but it’s emblematic of
how the Hive Mind works, and it really lets me unfold a particular narrative (the Tyranids are
fighting back against Imperial Knights!) by picking exactly the monsters I want to use.
You've got to be fething kidding me.
Yeah, that's it. Anybody who buys this gak? You've got only yourselves to blame.
I like how when GW actually takes the time to clarify something, it's this stupid gak. Not the myriad of issues we had before, no, but the meaning of what exactly "everything in your collection" means.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Or you just misread the article? I mean, the only part speaking about one troop choice was about some unbound dark angel army.
Please tell me how I misread this:
Since it's a bit fuzzy let me transcribe the part in question for you from my copy (empahasis mine):
White Dwarf 16, Page 22, Second Paragraph wrote:Battle-forged armies use the Force Organisation chart you know and love from the previous editions of Warhammer 40,000. You'll need to take at least one HQ and one Troops choice, and use Detachments. There are two types of Detachments - Combined Arms and Allied - and your Primary Detachment will be the one with your Warlord in it.
Now how did I misread that exactly?
EDIT: I see it's already been covered now, but I'm still leaving this up just in case anyone else missed the page.
7680
Post by: oni
Wow... Somedays I'm just amazed!
There are screen captures of the FOC in the OP... Two troops and one HQ are compulsory.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 oni wrote:Wow... Somedays I'm just amazed!
There are screen captures of the FOC in the OP... Two troops and one HQ are compulsory.
Which is why I was thinking that you're required 1 Troops and then a second Troops comes as part of the detachments. If GW has used numerals and put "1" instead of "2" I'd assume it was just a typo, but they spelled it out as "one", which is a lot harder to screw up.
26765
Post by: Bangbangboom
The screen shot from the video showing pages from the rule book states two troops.
But I suppose there may be other detachments you can choose as the primary that only have one, zero or sixteen troop choices as a minimum and still allow you to be battle forged
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Bangbangboom wrote:The screen shot from the video showing pages from the rule book states two troops.
Which doesn't invalidate the WD which says you take 1HQ, 1 Troops and then add a detachment on top of that to make your army.
3687
Post by: Red__Thirst
I'm going to err on the side of the screen caps of the rulebook in the video as being what is the actual case.
The White Dwarf weekly's don't exactly have the best track record for 100% correct/complete info (Re: the Knights info we got prior to the Knight codex releasing).
Either the author typoed the article and nobody caught it (likeliest scenario) or he was referencing the allied detachment information instead of the main part of the Combined Arms detachment force org chart.
Just my opinion on that. Battleforged forces are 1 HQ, and 2 Troops choices mandatory. Everything else is optional.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Red__Thirst wrote:I'm going to err on the side of the screen caps of the rulebook in the video as being what is the actual case.
The White Dwarf weekly's don't exactly have the best track record for 100% correct/complete info (Re: the Knights info we got prior to the Knight codex releasing).
Either the author typoed the article and nobody caught it (likeliest scenario) or he was referencing the allied detachment information instead of the main part of the Combined Arms detachment force org chart.
Just my opinion on that. Battleforged forces are 1 HQ, and 2 Troops choices mandatory. Everything else is optional.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Oh I am taking it easy when people aren't jumping down my throat to say I'm wrong when I'm quoting the WD article.
Yes, they can be wrong, but until we have rulebook in hand we won't know for sure so biting my head off won't solve anything.
And just because it's been brought up a dozen times now: the Knights thing was more a lot of vagueness what they meant by "your army" instead of being intentionally misleading to Chaos Players.
Though if rumors are true we could see Knights in CSM armies in the near future.
26765
Post by: Bangbangboom
The WD just looks badly written and I suspect contains errors.
"You need to take one HQ, one troops and use detachments"
"There are two types of detachments combined arms and allied"
So that leaves us in a situation where a combined arms army has two HQ and three troops or and allied army consisting of one HQ and one troop choice from faction A and one HQ and one troop choice from faction B.
Personally I don't see them making two HQ's compulsory. I am going to choose to ignore what was said in WD, others can if they wish continue to threat about BF armies with one troop choice.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Quoted from wd16
The new Warhammer 40,000 offers unlimited potential for utilising your
collections of miniatures. Jes Bickham takes a look at what making an Unbound
army really means for both your army and the grim darkness of the far future…
Forget what you know. The old ways are dead, and a horizon of limitless possibilities has
opened up for the armies of Warhammer 40,000. With the advent of Unbound armies, you
can create exactly the army you want. It’s a seismic shift in army creation and a profound
change in how games of Warhammer 40,000 can now be played. Let’s explore exactly what it
means for you.
There are two ways of creating an army now. Once you and your opponent have decided the
points limit of your game (if indeed you want to use points at all), you need to decide whether
your army is going to be Battle-forged or Unbound. Battle-forged armies use the Force
Organisation chart that you know and love from previous editions of Warhammer 40,000.
You’ll need to take at least one HQ and one Troops choice, and use Detachments. There are
two types of Detachment – Combined Arms and Allied – and your Primary Detachment will
be the one with your Warlord in it. With us so far? You’ll also need to bear in mind Factions
(basically the race a particular unit belongs to – Space Marines, Necrons, Imperial Knights or
whatever) as units in a Detachment must be of the same Faction, and your Faction also
dictates your level of alliance of with other Factions. (More on this next issue!)
This should all sound pretty similar to how armies were constructed in previous editions of
Warhammer 40,000, right? But there are added bonuses to being Battle-forged, mainly the
ability to re-roll your Warlord trait, and the Objective Secured special rule. This rule applies
to Troops units from Battle-forged Detachments; all units are scoring units now in
Warhammer 40,000, but Troops units with Objective Secured will always control objectives
over and above other units.
And why is this important? Because of the Unbound method of building your army, which
offers complete freedom but lacks Objective Secured. The new Warhammer 40,000 has this
to say about Unbound armies: simply use whichever units from your collection that you
want. It’s that simple… and almost paralysing in the freedom it offers. It’s therefore entirely
possible that you won’t have any Troops in an Unbound army at all! (And it explains why the
Objective Secured special rule is such a valuable bonus for making a Battle-forged army.)
30538
Post by: Triszin
340$. wut
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
 H.B.M.C. wrote:I bought the psychic deck (and all the psychic cards since) because I thought they'd be a great resource. Now they're invalidated. Feth that noise.
Yeah, that's why I don't bother with those sort of aides.
One could just photocopy them from the book and be done with it anyway.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Yes, the collector's edition is very, very expensive and I have no desire for one, even if I had the money.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
 MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Perhaps. We still do not know the full extent of the rules, nor do we know if there are other Battle-forged bonuses.
So far, we have only seen the combined arms FoC; there could be others.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!
20880
Post by: loki old fart
azreal13 wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!
What gives you that idea.
3687
Post by: Red__Thirst
ClockworkZion wrote: Red__Thirst wrote:I'm going to err on the side of the screen caps of the rulebook in the video as being what is the actual case.
The White Dwarf weekly's don't exactly have the best track record for 100% correct/complete info (Re: the Knights info we got prior to the Knight codex releasing).
Either the author typoed the article and nobody caught it (likeliest scenario) or he was referencing the allied detachment information instead of the main part of the Combined Arms detachment force org chart.
Just my opinion on that. Battleforged forces are 1 HQ, and 2 Troops choices mandatory. Everything else is optional.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Oh I am taking it easy when people aren't jumping down my throat to say I'm wrong when I'm quoting the WD article.
Yes, they can be wrong, but until we have rulebook in hand we won't know for sure so biting my head off won't solve anything.
And just because it's been brought up a dozen times now: the Knights thing was more a lot of vagueness what they meant by "your army" instead of being intentionally misleading to Chaos Players.
Though if rumors are true we could see Knights in CSM armies in the near future.
Made my post for clarity's sake here, wasn't trying to bite your, or anyone else's, head off. :( Nor was I trying to jump down your throat. Was just offering my opinion on the info presented and it happened to be opposite of yours of course. I didn't think I was being disrespectful but if I came off that way, I apologize.
I made the knight WD article reference as a note to the lack of... shall we say.. full or clear info in the WD's in the past.
You're welcome to your opinion and interpretation of the White Dwarf info, and I don't besmirch you that opinion, or interpretation. I'm just erring on the side of the screen caps I've seen of the actual rulebook vs. the WD article you've quoted. We'll see what we see once the rulebook is up for sale and we get our hot little hands on it.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
37477
Post by: Battlesong
 Squidbot wrote: Captainlanger wrote:anyone else a little bit annoyed that Games workshop seems to be ebbing closer and closer to everything just being Space marines. haven't seen much else from other armies for months, nothing but supplements for space marines and a whole new IG army. have they forgotten there are actually other armies out there? all these new rules sounding like you can use whatever you want in any army. i just want my Orcs update waited so long now 
I feel your pain, but we're getting what we want soon.
As a Tyranid player, let me just say "be careful what you wish for"
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Red__Thirst wrote:Made my post for clarity's sake here, wasn't trying to bite your, or anyone else's, head off. :( Nor was I trying to jump down your throat. Was just offering my opinion on the info presented and it happened to be opposite of yours of course. I didn't think I was being disrespectful but if I came off that way, I apologize.
I wasn't saying you were jumping down my throat, just that when people do (and there were several who did all at once) it's really hard to "take it easy".
44272
Post by: Azreal13
loki old fart wrote: azreal13 wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!
What gives you that idea.
From the screen caps of WD.
It refers to "battle forged or unbound" as one of the things you decide on with your opponent, alongside points values etc, before you begin the game.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you choosing to mix and match, but the implication certainly seems to be that it is an either/or decision, game by game.
3687
Post by: Red__Thirst
ClockworkZion wrote: Red__Thirst wrote:Made my post for clarity's sake here, wasn't trying to bite your, or anyone else's, head off. :( Nor was I trying to jump down your throat. Was just offering my opinion on the info presented and it happened to be opposite of yours of course. I didn't think I was being disrespectful but if I came off that way, I apologize.
I wasn't saying you were jumping down my throat, just that when people do (and there were several who did all at once) it's really hard to "take it easy".
Ah, I see what the sticking point is, my bad. If you review my post history, I close every post I make here with "Take it easy." I have since I started posting on Dakka in 2006. That wasn't a dig or statement to you to calm down or chill out, it was just me closing my post as I always do. Apologies if it came off as me telling you to chill out.
And yea, several folks did go a little on the extreme in their replies to you when you made your point quoting the article and showing the screen cap.
Anyway, with that said, all's well that ends well.
In closing, as I like to say,
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
37477
Post by: Battlesong
 Lobukia wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm missing how that'd work since it says Objective Secured still counts as scoring the objective even if another unit is nearby as long as they don't also have "Objective Secured".
It says even if another "scoring" unit is there... not another unit. I'm just really worried that Unbound or something else will have non-scoring units... which could hurt the ill-prepared 40k commander
Things like this should be bad for the ill-prepared; that's part of learning and becoming a better player......and I say this even though I, admittedly, am not very good at this game.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”
Still no love for assault then
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Perfect Organism wrote:I thought that 'the dogs bollocks' was a good thing? Am I failing to keep up with English again?
Anyway, I like sixth. I've liked every edition since fourth better than the last and only my ignorance of third edition and my issues with the style of second edition stop me from seeing all versions of 40k so far as a steady improvement.
I prefer the politer term of bee's knees as opposed to dog's bollocks.
It can be both depending on usage. If it is "the Dog's Bollocks' that is good. It it looks like a pair of them then it is bad. Never understood why - coz it isn't a pretty sight regardless.
And yes, despite the flag, I am English.
56122
Post by: Perfect Organism
MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
People keep saying stuff like that, but I've yet to see much evidence that unbound armies will be much more powerful than battle forged ones. The most powerful deathstar units at the moment are ones which tank damage with re-rollable invulnerables. Being able to spam extra killing power isn't going to work, because they can shrug off the 10% more damage you manage to squeeze out by eliminating the 'filler' from your list.
You can also make an unbound army which is really difficult to kill, by having all your units only vulnerable to a narrow range of threats (or just a seerstar / screamerstar combination) but then the objective secured rule actually becomes quite good, because you are generally playing for points rather than tabling your opponent.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
loki old fart wrote:Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”
Still no love for assault then
You're being overly pessimistic, we've heard next to nothing about anything, thanks to the information embargo, the only things we have any real confirmation of are the things GW have chosen to share, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that they'll have their own agenda with regards to what they choose.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
azreal13 wrote: loki old fart wrote:Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”
Still no love for assault then
You're being overly pessimistic, we've heard next to nothing about anything, thanks to the information embargo, the only things we have any real confirmation of are the things GW have chosen to share, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that they'll have their own agenda with regards to what they choose.
Well that was a cut and paste from WD 16, so GW chose to share that.
4179
Post by: bubber
 tetrisphreak wrote: Shandara wrote: bubber wrote:I just want to know if you have to fork out another £14 for the 2 decks of card to be able to play this new version...
Likely to be in the rulebook, ready for copying (for personal use).
Without the deck you roll a d66 (tens, ones) for each objective and write them down. So no the deck isn't necessary but I'm definitely getting one for ease and time saving.
Cheers guys.
Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.
31872
Post by: Brotherjanus
Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?
37477
Post by: Battlesong
ClockworkZion wrote: fullheadofhair wrote:What I don't get is why people are lining upto to buy this consider what a dog's bollocks this last edition was. Like all of a sudden you are going to get a good rule set. And $85 - sweet mother of God. And a week before their financial year end - looks like Kirby was right about his customers all along and will get the quick boost to sales numbers.
Frankly the only reason I'm buying it now is to review it and cover the whole thing as best I can so others can make informed decisions of their own. Something I wish we had a lot more of in this hobby honestly.
I mean, sure there will be reviews, but most of them will be short and focus on very specific things or glaze over the details and you have to read a lot of different ones to get a complete picture. It's that and the complaints I used to see about there being no way to know what's in some of these books that inspired me to do day one reviews. Of course that means throwing my money into a bin like everyone else, but at least I do it through my FLGS and not through GW directly so I don't feel as bad about it. My FLGS is going to order these books anyways, at least this way I'm supporting them while I do this.
EDIT: Oh, and I actually like most of what 6th was. There were some things I felt needed refining (such as faster ways to handle Look Out Sir and allocating wounds) but largely I liked the core rules. The real issue was the bipolar way the game handled codex design. If they were all on the same level as the CSM or DA books the game would be fine. The problem is that they're not, they're all over the place and the internal balance in a lot of books is a mess. The core rules didn't break the game, the codexes did.
And personally, I greatly appreciate your effort. Some type of comprehensive review will go a long way towards me deciding what to do with this edition. I somewhat agree on 6th. The problem is the rules were all over the place, they nerfed assault badly which hamstrung not just units, but whole fething armies; then they exacerbated the whole thing with non-existent internal balancing in the codices. I wish they wrote rules and then found ways to incorporate the fluff rather than using the fluff to decide how to write the rules.....
44272
Post by: Azreal13
loki old fart wrote: azreal13 wrote: loki old fart wrote:Anyone think the shooting rules will slow things down a bit.
Now, when a squad or vehicle shoots, you fire, roll to hit, wound and resolve wounds with one class of
weapons in the unit at a time, and casualties are the models which are closest to the firers.
So, in a Tactical squad you might choose to fire your flamer first, resolving its effects before
unleashing the bolters and lastly a missile launcher. This gives the active player some tactical
choices as to which weapons to fire in which order. It’s really simple once you get your head
around the small changes.”
Still no love for assault then
You're being overly pessimistic, we've heard next to nothing about anything, thanks to the information embargo, the only things we have any real confirmation of are the things GW have chosen to share, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that they'll have their own agenda with regards to what they choose.
Well that was a cut and paste from WD 16, so GW chose to share that.
Sorry, I was specifically responding to the "no love for assault" comment, but I didn't make that clear originally.
44531
Post by: Agent_Tremolo
MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Thanks! I'm finding more people who like my articles here than in the actual comments for said articles which is kind of funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bubber wrote:Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.
I got a set (along with 3 Vortex Markers) off eBay. It was still sealed and all the parts were in the original plastic!
77159
Post by: Paradigm
The new shooting rules won't bother me, it's pretty much how I've always played it, rather than bothering with 'wound pools' or anything like that.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 Agent_Tremolo wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.
I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.
I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.
I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.
I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.
19754
Post by: puma713
azreal13 wrote: loki old fart wrote: azreal13 wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!
What gives you that idea.
From the screen caps of WD.
It refers to "battle forged or unbound" as one of the things you decide on with your opponent, alongside points values etc, before you begin the game.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you choosing to mix and match, but the implication certainly seems to be that it is an either/or decision, game by game.
Actually, what was quoted just above seems to say pretty much the exact opposite. Otherwise, what is the point of the "Objective Secured" bonus, if you don't ever play against Unbound armies? What was quoted above seems to indicate that you would be at a distinct advantage if you played a Battle-Forged Army against an Unbound army, because all of your Troops would score above and beyond any others, so if the Unbound army had no troops (in the example), then you would have the upper hand.
I seriously doubt there will be a "you must play Battle-Forged vs Battle-Forged or Unbound vs. Unbound", especially with the move toward less structure that they seem to be going toward.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Perfect Organism wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
People keep saying stuff like that, but I've yet to see much evidence that unbound armies will be much more powerful than battle forged ones. The most powerful deathstar units at the moment are ones which tank damage with re-rollable invulnerables. Being able to spam extra killing power isn't going to work, because they can shrug off the 10% more damage you manage to squeeze out by eliminating the 'filler' from your list.
You can also make an unbound army which is really difficult to kill, by having all your units only vulnerable to a narrow range of threats (or just a seerstar / screamerstar combination) but then the objective secured rule actually becomes quite good, because you are generally playing for points rather than tabling your opponent.
I'm not talking about obvious screamerstarriptidewraithknight spam cheese.
I'm talking about the guy that brings his IG armored battalion list full of Lemun Russ's.
My bound tac-list simply won't have the anti-tank to deal with all the threats.
Having scoring troops won't do anything to help me win against that.
BUT, since we're on the topic.
But now GW has endorsed the guy that brings his chaos converted riptide,anhialation barge, chaos wraithknight and chaos thunderfire cannons. That's all perfectly legit now and it's lazy, a cash grap doesn't sound fun.
The greatest creativity comes when we have to work within a limited rule set. As an artist we find that our best work comes from when we're given a framework. Our work often falls apart when we're told "Do whatever." It usually comes out crap. That's why successful artists find a style, genre and niche, because it gives them that framework to work around, through and over.
When I was doing the illustrations for Hard Magic by Larry Correia, I was told to do the work in a 1930's noir pulp style. My first few drawings he rejected because "they're too good." I had to dig down into my inner pulp artist to find the art he wanted. It was fun and pushed myself as an artist. Okay, maybe I'm meandering, but I'm trying to say that this unbound could be fun if you have the right player enviroment, but without that small group of likeminded friends that will impose limits (there's that again), it'll be a mess.
31872
Post by: Brotherjanus
My question was pushed back pretty fast and I haven't seen any talk of this:
Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?
19754
Post by: puma713
azreal13 wrote: Agent_Tremolo wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.
I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.
I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.
I can see TO's quickly saying "Battle-Forged Only".
44272
Post by: Azreal13
bubber wrote:
Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.
They're all in stock on GWUK.com
You have to order them all separately.
They're £6 each.
But they are there.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
 Brotherjanus wrote:Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?
Look at your allies chart in the current 6th book. Each of those is a faction. The Blood Angels are a faction. The Iron Hands are a seperate faction within the Codex Space Marines.
Perhaps they are specifying further because they are making books like Codex: Space Marines where they have factions within the codex proper. An Imperial Fists and Ultramarines army are two different things with the 6th ed codex, after all.
31872
Post by: Brotherjanus
But it specifies race. an iron hands marine is the same race as a dark angel marine. That is where I am having these thoughts. I wouldn't put it past them to do this, it would mean every marine player has to buy all the marine books.
Hmm, but then IG and Sisters would be able to mix freely as they are both human. That can't be right. Why say faction instead of codex though?
20880
Post by: loki old fart
 puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote: Agent_Tremolo wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.
I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.
I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.
I can see TO's quickly saying "Battle-Forged Only".
Will that be enough???
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
One thing assured, no serious tournament will allow Unfun to be played.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
Brotherjanus wrote:But it specifies race. an iron hands marine is the same race as a dark angel marine. That is where I am having these thoughts. I wouldn't put it past them to do this, it would mean every marine player has to buy all the marine books.
Hmm, but then IG and Sisters would be able to mix freely as they are both human. That can't be right. Why say faction instead of codex though?
They said faction, not race. This isn't Warcraft, where all Humans are in the Human/Alliance faction and all Orcs are in the Orc/Horde faction. The Ultramarines are a different faction from the Dark Angels.
You aren't going to be able to make a battleforged list using multiple codices to cherry pick your favorites from the Space Marine codices.
And they don't use 'codex' in the current rulebook, they use detachment, and specify somewhere that each detachment must be from the same codex. (this is also specified in each Codex, as well.)
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote: loki old fart wrote: azreal13 wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!
What gives you that idea.
From the screen caps of WD.
It refers to "battle forged or unbound" as one of the things you decide on with your opponent, alongside points values etc, before you begin the game.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you choosing to mix and match, but the implication certainly seems to be that it is an either/or decision, game by game.
Actually, what was quoted just above seems to say pretty much the exact opposite. Otherwise, what is the point of the "Objective Secured" bonus, if you don't ever play against Unbound armies? What was quoted above seems to indicate that you would be at a distinct advantage if you played a Battle-Forged Army against an Unbound army, because all of your Troops would score above and beyond any others, so if the Unbound army had no troops (in the example), then you would have the upper hand.
I seriously doubt there will be a "you must play Battle-Forged vs Battle-Forged or Unbound vs. Unbound", especially with the move toward less structure that they seem to be going toward.
I draw your attention to the second paragraph, specifically "once you and your opponent have decided the points limit of your game...you need to decide whether your army is going to be Battle-forged or Unbound" Which seems to imply to me that it is part of the "start up process" of playing a game and something you discuss with your opponent, and don't simply flop your list out on the table and assume a "come at me bro" stance.
As for objective secured, that means that you cannot have an objective contested by any other unit but your opponents troops choices (assuming objective secured is exclusive to troops for the time being) which is universally useful in BF and UB lists.
I also seriously doubt that they will be as explicit as "you must not play UB vs BF" because that isn't their style, neither would it be game breaking if you didn't stick to that, but, to me, the intent seems clear.
I personally don't expect to play much UB in PUGs, but I'm not angry that it exists. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Sigvatr wrote:One thing assured, no serious tournament will allow Unfun to be played.
Yeah, I totes can't see any of the professional, serious tourneys adopting it, not with people's livelihoods on the line.
56122
Post by: Perfect Organism
Brotherjanus wrote:Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?
I think it's because your faction can include things which aren't in your codex, like datasheets. The Baneblade isn't in the Astra Militarum codex, but it's still part of their faction. It's just clearing up the terminology so they aren't using the word 'codex' in a confusing way.
4884
Post by: Therion
Why is everyone only mentioning unbound? It's blatantly broken of course, and I'm repeating myself in saying that anyone who doesn't see how unbound armies are stronger than battle forged armies can't be very experienced in tournament hammer, but one of the unaddressed real issues is that Reavers and Revenants are now a part of standard 40K. Everyone agreed to that they should be banned from 'standard 40K' when Escalation and the Lords of War PDF file hit, but now when they actually are are part of standard 40K, people choose to ignore the subject altogether and talk about snap fire.
Is anyone at any point going to address any of the large concerns in this game or are we just going to talk about snap fire and psychic powers?
a) Titans and other crazies in 1500 point standard games.
b) Are Forgeworld units finally legal without a tournament rules package or the opponent's permission or an endless debate on the internet about it?
c) Are data slates legal? Are data sheets legal? Are all the fortifications in Stronghold Assault legal in small points values?
d) Why is the tabletop size for the battle still the exact same size it was 15 years ago, considering now we have 5 times more models on the table?
e) Lastly the unbound vs. battle forged, which is a stupid debate altogether. Unbound means you pick and choose any models/units from any codex and match them together to make the ultimate army. If you're so new or completely unimaginative and only copy a tournament winner's list for yourself before you can assemble an army, you won't understand, but for the regulars, unbound is like 10 tiers above battle forged in overall strength. And how can you say it's not legal, if it's a part of the core rules?
Who the heck cares about snap fire when all of the above issues are going on? Can we actually talk about the game of 40K instead of one or two universal special rules? Thanks.
31872
Post by: Brotherjanus
Quoted from wd16
You’ll need to take at least one HQ and one Troops choice, and use Detachments. There are
two types of Detachment – Combined Arms and Allied – and your Primary Detachment will
be the one with your Warlord in it. With us so far? You’ll also need to bear in mind Factions
(basically the race a particular unit belongs to – Space Marines, Necrons, Imperial Knights or
whatever) as units in a Detachment must be of the same Faction, and your Faction also
dictates your level of alliance of with other Factions. (More on this next issue!)
Here is where it gets confusing. Why are they saying faction (and then explaining it means race) instead of saying codex? It implies something like what I am concerned about but then goes on to talk about factions relating to allies. It seems like they added that new term plus explanation just to be confusing.
Perfect Organism's response makes sense, I forgot about data slates and such. All in all I do not enjoy so many things spread around outside the codex for your army that are options for your army. Makes it annoying to look at all your options imo.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
azreal13 wrote:
I draw your attention to the second paragraph, specifically "once you and your opponent have decided the points limit of your game...you need to decide whether your army is going to be Battle-forged or Unbound" Which seems to imply to me that it is part of the "start up process" of playing a game and something you discuss with your opponent, and don't simply flop your list out on the table and assume a "come at me bro" stance.
I think the words your army, says it all.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Thats a lexicographical ambiguity, could mean you the individual or you the players. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Therion wrote:Why is everyone only mentioning unbound? It's blatantly broken of course, and I'm repeating myself in saying that anyone who doesn't see how unbound armies are stronger than battle forged armies can't be very experienced in tournament hammer, but one of the unaddressed real issues is that Reavers and Revenants are now a part of standard 40K. Everyone agreed to that they should be banned from 'standard 40K' when Escalation and the Lords of War PDF file hit, but now when they actually are are part of standard 40K, people choose to ignore the subject altogether and talk about snap fire.
Is anyone at any point going to address any of the large concerns in this game or are we just going to talk about snap fire and psychic powers?
a) Titans and other crazies in 1500 point standard games.
b) Are Forgeworld units finally legal without a tournament rules package or the opponent's permission or an endless debate on the internet about it?
c) Are data slates legal? Are data sheets legal? Are all the fortifications in Stronghold Assault legal in small points values?
d) Why is the tabletop size for the battle still the exact same size it was 15 years ago, considering now we have 5 times more models on the table?
e) Lastly the unbound vs. battle forged, which is a stupid debate altogether. Unbound means you pick and choose any models/units from any codex and match them together to make the ultimate army. If you're so new or completely unimaginative and only copy a tournament winner's list for yourself before you can assemble an army, you won't understand, but for the regulars, unbound is like 10 tiers above battle forged in overall strength. And how can you say it's not legal, if it's a part of the core rules?
Who the heck cares about snap fire when all of the above issues are going on? Can we actually talk about the game of 40K instead of one or two universal special rules? Thanks.
Actually, Unbound still has to respect allies rules, and while that, in itself, seems to be slightly more relaxed, does remove the free for all element that still remains the pervue of Apoc.
There is a strong rumour that D weapons have been revised, although to what extent seems to be a little vague, so who's to say there won't be other factors to mitigate Superheavies in standard games?
Everything is legal, unless your opponent refuses to play you, at which point nothing is. Like Schrödinger's cat.
I'm not saying your concerns aren't valid, but they may, may be premature.
34906
Post by: Pacific
I remember lining up 'good' vs 'evil' massive 40k games when I was 12 years old, back in the tale end of first edition. Thousands of points a side, and just whatever we wanted plonked down on the table.
<------------------ Playing unbound/apocalypse before it was cool.
31872
Post by: Brotherjanus
I thought unbound meant anything you want? In the example given in the White Dwarf they talk about a riptide, a tyranid exocrine, and various other things. Tyranids can't ally with anyone.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 Pacific wrote:I remember lining up 'good' vs 'evil' massive 40k games when I was 12 years old, back in the tale end of first edition. Thousands of points a side, and just whatever we wanted plonked down on the table.
<------------------ Playing unbound/apocalypse before it was cool.
I had BA and my mate had SW we never NEVER played them against one another, if one of us wanted to play our Marines, the other would choose their alternate "evil" faction (Eldar for me, Chaos for him)
Was a bit of a jar when I came back in 5th and saw Marine on Marine action all over the place!
19754
Post by: puma713
I agree. I think when he says "your army" he means YOUR army, for the reasons I have mentioned. Otherwise, I believe the article would have said, "the armies" or the "type of armies". If it is only Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged and Unbound versus Unbound, the "Objective Secured" bonus is nearly useless. Furthermore, why have a bonus at all if it is always one versus the other? There is no need to have a bonus if your opponent's army type will always mirror yours.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Brotherjanus wrote:I thought unbound meant anything you want? In the example given in the White Dwarf they talk about a riptide, a tyranid exocrine, and various other things. Tyranids can't ally with anyone.
Come The Apocalypse allies can now ally, with further restrictions over Desperate Allies (can't deploy within 12" of each other, perhaps even move within 12", not sure in that)
So, yes, technically you can put what you want on the table, but there are possible negatives to doing it, unlike with Apoc.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote:
I agree. I think when he says "your army" he means YOUR army, for the reasons I have mentioned. If it is only Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged and Unbound versus Unbound, the "Objective Secured" bonus is nearly useless. Furthermore, why have a bonus at all if it is always one versus the other? There is no need to have a bonus if your opponent's army structure will always mirror yours.
As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.
Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?
20880
Post by: loki old fart
puma713 wrote:
I agree. I think when he says "your army" he means YOUR army, for the reasons I have mentioned. Otherwise, I believe the article would have said, "the armies" or the "type of armies". If it is only Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged and Unbound versus Unbound, the "Objective Secured" bonus is nearly useless. Furthermore, why have a bonus at all if it is always one versus the other? There is no need to have a bonus if your opponent's army type will always mirror yours.
Agreed
31872
Post by: Brotherjanus
We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.
4001
Post by: Compel
That's still the argument I don't understand for Unbound. - Sorry to tread on this again, but the BOW guys mentioned it in their Weekender today too.
"Many of us have basically been playing Unbound games for years and didn't need written rules to do it. 40k has this thing where many people think that if it's not written down, then you're Doing It Wrong. Unbound armies encourage people to bypass this and 'gives permission' for more people to play more cinematic games, working together to make a fun game."
Or the like, is generally how the argument goes.
My counter-argument would be. If someone came up to you and says, "you're doing it wrong" for playing a narrative game in 3rd to 6th edition in 40k, then they're probably a massive jerk and you wouldn't want to play with them in an Unbound Game in 7th edition anyway, even if the rules for it are printed."
1478
Post by: warboss
azreal13 wrote:
I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.
I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.
I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.
I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.
The same people who will abuse unbound lists will vehemently oppose any soft scoring as well. They bring up their mother's uncle's son once lost out on 3rd place because buddies at LocalCon XXIV gave themselves perfect scores but tanked his.
19754
Post by: puma713
azreal13 wrote:
As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.
Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?
What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
I get Allied Detachment, but what is Combined Arms?
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.
Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?
What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.
Assault terminators are not troops. Hardly useless.
56617
Post by: barnowl
Therion wrote:
a) Titans and other crazies in 1500 point standard games.
b) Are Forgeworld units finally legal without a tournament rules package or the opponent's permission or an endless debate on the internet about it?
c) Are data slates legal? Are data sheets legal? Are all the fortifications in Stronghold Assault legal in small points values?
d) Why is the tabletop size for the battle still the exact same size it was 15 years ago, considering now we have 5 times more models on the table?
e) Lastly the unbound vs. battle forged, which is a stupid debate altogether. Unbound means you pick and choose any models/units from any codex and match them together to make the ultimate army. If you're so new or completely unimaginative and only copy a tournament winner's list for yourself before you can assemble an army, you won't understand, but for the regulars, unbound is like 10 tiers above battle forged in overall strength. And how can you say it's not legal, if it's a part of the core rules?
Who the heck cares about snap fire when all of the above issues are going on? Can we actually talk about the game of 40K instead of one or two universal special rules? Thanks.
a) They have been several pages of it
b) No change to FW rules yet so still oppenents okay
c) DataSlates have been legal for a while, just not liked and there for banned at some tourney. Datasheets are APOC things so still APO only no change, SA has been since book hit if you use it so no change there.
d) IT has changed rather a lot. At one point there were 3 official sizes 4x4 Alpha boards, 4x6 Delta boards and 4x8 Omega boards now there is just 4x6 standards and 4x8 or bigger apoc boards so they have changed.
e) That is the general view of Unbound. And it is very easy to say it's not legal: "This is my event, and I am making Unbound illegal do to imbalance for it. You can agree and play, disagree and not play". See that, pretty easy to do and TO's been doing it for years.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.
Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?
What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.
Why?
There's still elites, FA, HQs and Heavy Support in Battle Forged, all of which can score. One single Guardsman, Tac Marine, Termagant or Firewarriors wonders within 3" of an objective and scores the points regardless of whatever non-Troops units your opponent has arranged around it.
I'd suggest you go back and reread some of the stuff pertinent to this, because I think you've massively misunderstood something along the way dude.
56617
Post by: barnowl
The old standard FOC with all the extras added like LoW and fortifications, and probably dataslates.
19754
Post by: puma713
 CthuluIsSpy wrote: puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.
Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?
What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.
Assault terminators are not troops. Hardly useless.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the rule is useless. I'm saying that specifying that only Battle-Forged armies can use it is useless if they only face other Battle-Forged armies. The rule would always be in effect. There would be no need to specify conditions if the conditions are always met.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote:
I'd suggest you go back and reread some of the stuff pertinent to this, because I think you've massively misunderstood something along the way dude.
See above.
It would be like each Space Marine having a Special rule saying:
"Special Rule: Power Armour. A Space Marine in Power Armour has a 3+ armour save."
It is redundant and pointless. If the conditions are always met (power armour always having a 3+ armour save), then there is no reason to also have a special rule.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 warboss wrote: azreal13 wrote:
I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.
I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.
I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.
I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.
The same people who will abuse unbound lists will vehemently oppose any soft scoring as well. They bring up their mother's uncle's son once lost out on 3rd place because buddies at LocalCon XXIV gave themselves perfect scores but tanked his.
Frankly, couldn't care less. If those people know what the scoring criteria is and choose not to participate, fair enough, but I suspect the sort of event I outlined would be more likely to appeal to a non-traditional tourney player anyway, which, I suspect, is a larger slice of the player base.
4179
Post by: bubber
azreal13 wrote: bubber wrote:
Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.
They're all in stock on GWUK.com
You have to order them all separately.
They're £6 each.
But they are there.
Cheers for pointing that out.
However they are the old ones - have no complaints about the pie plate & firestorm ones but i really want the wiggly bombardment one :(
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote: CthuluIsSpy wrote: puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.
Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?
What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.
Assault terminators are not troops. Hardly useless.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the rule is useless. I'm saying that specifying that only Battle-Forged armies can use it is useless if they only face other Battle-Forged armies. The rule would always be in effect. There would be no need to specify conditions if the conditions are always met.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote:
I'd suggest you go back and reread some of the stuff pertinent to this, because I think you've massively misunderstood something along the way dude.
See above.
But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.
26519
Post by: xttz
azreal13 wrote: Agent_Tremolo wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.
I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.
I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.
I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.
I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.
As another player who avoids the whole competitive scene, I agree completely. Even before unbound, broken or un-fun lists were more than possible already. Unbound at least provides fairer options to counter imbalance. For example, if I was playing someone fielding a ( FOC-legal) all-Knight army with my Nids, I would really struggle, as the best ranged anti-armour options are crammed into Elites. With Unbound I can at least tool up with all my Zoanthropes + Hive Guard and have a fighting chance.
I also see Unbound it as an opportunity to use other units normally devalued by the FOC, such as Lictors.
Even if GW wanted it to be and made it their #1 goal tomorrow, a game as complex as 40k is never going to be anywhere near balanced. Personally I'd rather have the flexibility to take on realistic challenges. If someone wants to take things too far with their hyper-optimised math-hammered list with the best units from all codexes, I simply won't play against them. In exactly the same way I didn't play against hyper-optimised math-hammered lists before Unbound.
19754
Post by: puma713
azreal13 wrote:
But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.
I'm going to stop here since this is a "news and rumour" thread and not a rules debate. In my opinion, GW is not going to open the floodgates, then put restrictions on who you can play. It is going to be wide open, that is why they gave Battle-Forged armies a bonus, so you're enticed to play them over Unbound armies. There wouldn't be an incentive to play a certain type of army, if both people are going to always be playing that type of army.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
I can say that tighter rules make for a better game, even for narrative players. I've had more "narratives forged" in three games of Infinity due to their awesome ARO system (that keeps both players actively engaged) that would take the same time to play one game of 40k.
I get what GW is trying to do with unbound as it's what every other game now does... You pick a faction and build armies. However, every other game still has an inhibitor so you can't break the game spamming certain units ( PP has unit amount restrictions, Infinity has SWC, Malifaux has unit types, etc.).
GW has never designed their units in the codices to operate in this fashion, thus it's stillborn by nature. Sure you can house rule to fix stuff, but if you have to house rule an $85 rule book and a $50 codex, what are you doing? Infinity makes for a better kill team game than kill team rules from GW and they provide them for free and update them constantly based on feedback. I just taught a bud Infinity using GW models and it was an awesome game. He was excited that my turn resulted in killing two of my own guys from his shooting.
The problem with Warhammer 40k isn't the people or dbags or WAAC players it's the terrible rules balance.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.
I'm going to stop here since this is a "news and rumour" thread and not a rules debate. In my opinion, GW is not going to open the floodgates, then put restrictions on who you can play. It is going to be wide open, that is why they gave Battle-Forged armies a bonus, so you're enticed to play them over Unbound armies. There wouldn't be an incentive to play a certain type of army, if both people are going to always be playing that type of army.
What?
Am I accidentally typing in Arabic or something?
You appear to be saying that Objective Secured is only of use if playing against an Unbound list.
This is objectively untrue, and there's no rumour here, as we have seen the Objective Secured rule in black and white, and a rule that allows you Troops units to score regardless of what other non-Troops units your opponent has within range of that objective seems to be consistently useful in every game regardless of what list type your opponent fields.
Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?
46
Post by: alarmingrick
TheKbob wrote:Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?
I don't see how that can be answered yet?
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Everything scores now and troops choices get objective secured, thus I'm assuming that you have super scoring transports?
I hope not. Can you imagined super scoring land raiders?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
TheKbob wrote:Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?
Christ, I think you're right.
Waveserpents need to die. They're the one thing that directly impacts onto my regular games that nothing I've read about in the new rules seems to mitigate in any way. Automatically Appended Next Post: TheKbob wrote:
Everything scores now and troops choices get objective secured, thus I'm assuming that you have super scoring transports?
I hope not. Can you imagined super scoring land raiders?
To be fair, SSLRs would be a big boost for BA, and they need it!
85299
Post by: Spoletta
puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.
I'm going to stop here since this is a "news and rumour" thread and not a rules debate. In my opinion, GW is not going to open the floodgates, then put restrictions on who you can play. It is going to be wide open, that is why they gave Battle-Forged armies a bonus, so you're enticed to play them over Unbound armies. There wouldn't be an incentive to play a certain type of army, if both people are going to always be playing that type of army.
I'll try to explain the difference between 6Th and 7Th.
6Th: I have a troop on a point and my enemy sits a tyrannofex on it. Nobody controls it, which means that having a good amount of troop can be countered by simply having enough units.
7Th: Same scenario. Troops control the objective. This means that to counter troops you either have an equal number of them or you start blasting those away.
19754
Post by: puma713
azreal13 wrote:
Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.
Again, you're incorrectly focusing on what I am saying. Lokioldfart understands and perhaps would be able to explain it better than I.
I am not saying that the rule is useless. The rule is a very good rule. What I am saying is useless is the fact that you make it a special rule only available to Battle-Forged armies if all you're every going to be playing is Battle-Forged armies.
It is a bonus for choosing Battle-Forged. Why do you get a bonus for choosing an army type, if the other person is forced to play the same thing and, so, also gets a bonus? It is redundant. That's not a bonus. It's just a rule. The only time you would need to call it a bonus is when your opponent may not also be receiving said bonus.
In simple (programming) logic:
bool Battle-Forged = true;
IF (Battle-Forged == true)
{
Objective Secured = true;
}
ELSE
{
Objective Secured = false;
}; ;
This is a pointless string of logic because, since you will always be playing Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged (as you're implying), you can NEVER reach the ELSE statement.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
TheKbob wrote:
Everything scores now and troops choices get objective secured, thus I'm assuming that you have super scoring transports?
I hope not. Can you imagined super scoring land raiders?
We've only seen enough to guess at this point. I'd rather discuss it when we know the whole picture.
Not saying the picture will be all Rosey when shown, but I'm saving my hate until I know exactly what I'm hating.
And in all fairness, I may not hate it or love it. I'm sure there'll be a little of both.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.
Again, you're incorrectly focusing on what I am saying. Lokioldfart understands and perhaps would be able to explain it better than I.
I am not saying that the rule is useless. The rule is a very good rule. What I am saying is useless is the fact that you make it a special rule only available to Battle-Forged armies if all you're every going to be playing is Battle-Forged armies.
It is a bonus for choosing Battle-Forged. Why do you get a bonus for choosing an army type, if the other person is forced to play the same thing and, so, also gets a bonus? It is redundant.
In simple (programming) logic:
bool Battle-Forged = true;
IF (Battle-Forged == true)
{
Objective Secured = true;
}
ELSE
{
Objective Secured = false;
}; ;
This is a pointless string of logic because, since you will always be playing Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged (as you're implying), you can NEVER reach the ELSE statement.
They specified that so people don't think that unbound lists have the rule. I don't think it's specified in the rulebook, other than being in the battleforged box as one fo the special rules that battleforged armies have.
So, if two unbound lists play, their troops are the same as in 5th. It's just GW making it absolutely clear so that, regardless if you can play BF vs UB, people know that it's only available in Battleforged lists.
Nothing worth getting into an argument over, guys. Seriously.
44531
Post by: Agent_Tremolo
azreal13 wrote: Agent_Tremolo wrote: MWHistorian wrote:As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.
Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.
I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be. I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me. I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices. I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.
I admit, I've been fiddling with the idea of using Unbound rules to represent a Squat army. The new Dwarf models are simply too cool to pass. But again, It's just like using house rules or fanmade codices. I will surely get games with my friends, maybe even some pickup games... But I'd probably be banned from the Tournament arena.
19754
Post by: puma713
Exactly. Lokioldfart and I were simply replying on his matter-of-factness that the two army-types will not face each other, so it won't be so bad. Neither one of us saw any indication that there was a rule saying that the two would not face each other and that the special rule indicated that the two, in fact, would be facing each other, otherwise there would be no reason to introduce a bonus for choosing one over the other.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote: azreal13 wrote:
Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.
Again, you're incorrectly focusing on what I am saying. Lokioldfart understands and perhaps would be able to explain it better than I.
I am not saying that the rule is useless. The rule is a very good rule. What I am saying is useless is the fact that you make it a special rule only available to Battle-Forged armies if all you're every going to be playing is Battle-Forged armies.
It is a bonus for choosing Battle-Forged. Why do you get a bonus for choosing an army type, if the other person is forced to play the same thing and, so, also gets a bonus? It is redundant. That's not a bonus. It's just a rule. The only time you would need to call it a bonus is when your opponent may not also be receiving said bonus.
In simple (programming) logic:
bool Battle-Forged = true;
IF (Battle-Forged == true)
{
Objective Secured = true;
}
ELSE
{
Objective Secured = false;
}; ;
This is a pointless string of logic because, since you will always be playing Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged (as you're implying), you can NEVER reach the ELSE statement.
Ah, ok, I now see what you're trying to say, it wasn't a commentary on the rule itself, and sadly, yes, it appears you're probably right.
I guess players will have to continue to hide behind the "nothing's legal unless I agree" shield.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
Didn't know unbound allowed any unit from any codex always thought it had to be same army. What hero teams should there be then:
Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Assassin, black widow
?, spidermam
?, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america
Painted in their colours it must be done the emperor wills it
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote:
Exactly. Lokioldfart and I were simply replying on his matter-of-factness that the two army-types will not face each other, so it won't be so bad. Neither one of us saw any indication that there was a rule saying that the two would not face each other and that the special rule indicated that the two, in fact, would be facing each other, otherwise there would be no reason to introduce a bonus for choosing one over the other.
We weren't arguing (seriously, why does everyone seem to view everyone else on the Internet as a red faced shouting loon just because they're not agreeing) we were misunderstanding one another.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
I will admit, if they sold those metal objective marker separately, I'd be down for them. They look cool.
19754
Post by: puma713
azreal13 wrote: puma713 wrote:
Exactly. Lokioldfart and I were simply replying on his matter-of-factness that the two army-types will not face each other, so it won't be so bad. Neither one of us saw any indication that there was a rule saying that the two would not face each other and that the special rule indicated that the two, in fact, would be facing each other, otherwise there would be no reason to introduce a bonus for choosing one over the other.
We weren't arguing (seriously, why does everyone seem to view everyone else on the Internet as a red faced shouting loon just because they're not agreeing) we were misunderstanding one another.
Agreed
And yes, people will still get behind the, "well I have to approve it" shield which is the opposite direction that GW is trying to push things. In trying to allow players to bring whatever they want, they may have alienated players even further.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
 unmercifulconker wrote:Didn't know unbound allowed any unit from any codex always thought it had to be same army. What hero teams should there be then:
Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Assassin, black widow
?, spidermam
?, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america
Painted in their colours it must be done the emperor wills it
Vindicare should be Hawkeye. Just give him a bow instead of a rifle.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Nah, Hawkeye would be that Eldar Ranger guy!
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Lelith as Black widow,
Arjac as Thor (seriously... draigo??)
4183
Post by: Davor
Has it been mentioned if a super scoring troop is in a transport they can still score? I hope not. I still hope they have to be out of a vehicle to still score. Surprised it's not mentioned on Objective secured that it doesn't say you can't score if you are in a vehicle.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
But Hawkeye has multiple ammo types like the Vindicare. And they have sleek body suits...
The idea of unbound is kinda cool when you think you could have a true Imperium of Mankind army now with Marines, IG, Inquistion, Knights, Sisters all on one board, but we could basically do that now and it never happens.
It's another case of killing us with kindness.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
Arjac does make a better choice
Struggling who should be cap draigo came up as he had a big shield but who else is there, Lysander?
78690
Post by: Colpicklejar
unmercifulconker wrote:Didn't know unbound allowed any unit from any codex always thought it had to be same army. What hero teams should there be then:
Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Assassin, black widow
?, spidermam
?, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america
Painted in their colours it must be done the emperor wills it
Calgar
Lysander
Mephiston
Helbrecht
Throw someone pink in there and you've got the power rangers!
4001
Post by: Compel
A bit off topic (may be worth doing a new thread)
But Farsight has a very 'Cap' shield on him
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
 Colpicklejar wrote:Calgar
Lysander
Mephiston
Helbrecht
Throw someone pink in there and you've got the power rangers!
That would be amazing
62405
Post by: Siberiandreamer
Unbound would mean I get to do all sorts of fluffy stuff with my Tzeentch themed army with amazing scope for conversions etc (using the actual rules of other models and not as a proxy). I totally disagree art flourishes more with boundries as that seems a total contradiction in a way. Could be great for games against regular groups of friends and as some have pointed out, won't really impact most other areas of gaming (especially as you have to agree on it first).
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Trazyn would be Loki.
I mean, he has the staff and everything.
4183
Post by: Davor
TheKbob wrote:
But Hawkeye has multiple ammo types like the Vindicare. And they have sleek body suits...
The idea of unbound is kinda cool when you think you could have a true Imperium of Mankind army now with Marines, IG, Inquistion, Knights, Sisters all on one board, but we could basically do that now and it never happens.
It's another case of killing us with kindness.
Yes we can do it now, but the problem is, a lot of people will say "NO you can't use it since it's not legal". So again, GW is giving us what a lot of people want but others are saying you can't do.
Now the question is, will Forge World be legal or will the debate still continue?
81093
Post by: Bronzefists42
I hope they do just say "Forge World is legal" explicitly and clearly in the new rulebook. It's a headache trying to convince someone that just because it is FW does not make it OP.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
azreal13 wrote: Brotherjanus wrote:I thought unbound meant anything you want? In the example given in the White Dwarf they talk about a riptide, a tyranid exocrine, and various other things. Tyranids can't ally with anyone.
Come The Apocalypse allies can now ally, with further restrictions over Desperate Allies (can't deploy within 12" of each other, perhaps even move within 12", not sure in that)
So, yes, technically you can put what you want on the table, but there are possible negatives to doing it, unlike with Apoc.
From what I've heard from my FLGS (by way of his rep) the restriction is only on deployment, after that they're Desperate allies.
85001
Post by: Sihdhartha
 Bronzefists42 wrote:I hope they do just say "Forge World is legal" explicitly and clearly in the new rulebook. It's a headache trying to convince someone that just because it is FW does not make it OP.
You guys must be talking about casual play correct? Because tournaments will have it clearly spelled out.
In casual play it is, as it always has been, something is permissible so long as you and your opponent agree to it.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
When was the last time you had to ask allowance for someone to use Farsight Enclave?
48188
Post by: endlesswaltz123
Azrael as the green ranger, and a knight titan converted to look megazordy....
On a point though, are we going to see super special character units inside an iron hands land raider achilles with a master of the forge inside it to keep it going?
Cheesey, and probably won't win you many games, but it would be great to see how long it takes them to go down!
No wait... YOU COULD GIVE EACH ONE OF THE CHARACTERS A VEHICLE CONVERTED TO BE LIKE A ZORD!!! OMGOMGOMGOMG!
6046
Post by: Divine_Tyranny
The attitude of things being legal or not has always baffled me, surely you play eiter in a pre-set tournement setting, or are casual gaming with people you want to play. The whole concept of 'having to play against x/y/z' seems so utterly redundant!
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Things I'm pondering:
How do all the assault based psychic powers work now, to include force weapons. Do they now have to be preemptively cast? Also, what of the assault powers that can be cast in both players assault phases, to include force weapons.
I believe Grey Knights/Inquisition can bring the cheapest psykers, more in unbound. 18pts gets you a mastery level one psyker.
Will allied psykers have independent warp charge pools? Or are they all the same? Big difference in power levels right there.
If snapshots are -2 BS, the Vindicare Assassin is the best AA gun in the game now with a 2 to hit and an average pen roll of 17, not accounting for rending.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Davor wrote:Has it been mentioned if a super scoring troop is in a transport they can still score? I hope not. I still hope they have to be out of a vehicle to still score. Surprised it's not mentioned on Objective secured that it doesn't say you can't score if you are in a vehicle.
So far what we "know" is "everything scores" and "dedicated transports count as being in the same FOC as the units they're bought for", what we don't know is if vehicles can have "Objective Secured" that way (and if they can the BT all LR army just got a buff) or if a unit with Objective Secured can score from inside of one.
374
Post by: Strangelooper
Colpicklejar wrote:
Calgar
Lysander
Mephiston
Helbrecht
Throw someone pink in there and you've got the power rangers!
Lucius the Eternal?
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Davor wrote:Has it been mentioned if a super scoring troop is in a transport they can still score? I hope not. I still hope they have to be out of a vehicle to still score. Surprised it's not mentioned on Objective secured that it doesn't say you can't score if you are in a vehicle.
all units are scoring units now in Warhammer 40,000,
"Dan: Almost every unit can control an Objective Marker, which means you’ll have some
hard-fought battles wrestling them away from Tyrannofexes or from underneath the tracks
of a Land Raider. One of the advantages of being a Battle-forged army is that your Troops
always trump an opponent’s scoring units (unless they too are Battle-forged), enabling them
to capture objectives even with enemy units nearby."
Forget what you know. The old ways are dead, and a horizon of limitless possibilities has
opened up for the armies of Warhammer 40,000.
Forget what you know. The old ways are dead, and a horizon of limitless sales has
opened up for (Games Workshop) armies of Warhammer 40,000.
48188
Post by: endlesswaltz123
ClockworkZion wrote:Davor wrote:Has it been mentioned if a super scoring troop is in a transport they can still score? I hope not. I still hope they have to be out of a vehicle to still score. Surprised it's not mentioned on Objective secured that it doesn't say you can't score if you are in a vehicle.
So far what we "know" is "everything scores" and "dedicated transports count as being in the same FOC as the units they're bought for", what we don't know is if vehicles can have "Objective Secured" that way (and if they can the BT all LR army just got a buff) or if a unit with Objective Secured can score from inside of one.
The same goes for Blood Angel armies, and especially since their land raider can deep strike!
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
endlesswaltz123 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Davor wrote:Has it been mentioned if a super scoring troop is in a transport they can still score? I hope not. I still hope they have to be out of a vehicle to still score. Surprised it's not mentioned on Objective secured that it doesn't say you can't score if you are in a vehicle.
So far what we "know" is "everything scores" and "dedicated transports count as being in the same FOC as the units they're bought for", what we don't know is if vehicles can have "Objective Secured" that way (and if they can the BT all LR army just got a buff) or if a unit with Objective Secured can score from inside of one.
The same goes for Blood Angel armies, and especially since their land raider can deep strike!
Now if it could only Deepstrike like a Mawloc can....
61618
Post by: Desubot
"Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Lilith, black widow
Warp spider exarc or some nid thing, spidermam
Vindicare, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america "
Make it happen right now.
85001
Post by: Sihdhartha
Sigvatr wrote:When was the last time you had to ask allowance for someone to use Farsight Enclave?
I wouldn't know I've never used it , but yes I get your point, but that has to do more with perception of power than anything else. Hell, an opponent could choose not to play anything. So having a rule that specifically says that x is now legal doesn't mean all groups or places will allow it.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
ClockworkZion wrote:endlesswaltz123 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Davor wrote:Has it been mentioned if a super scoring troop is in a transport they can still score? I hope not. I still hope they have to be out of a vehicle to still score. Surprised it's not mentioned on Objective secured that it doesn't say you can't score if you are in a vehicle.
So far what we "know" is "everything scores" and "dedicated transports count as being in the same FOC as the units they're bought for", what we don't know is if vehicles can have "Objective Secured" that way (and if they can the BT all LR army just got a buff) or if a unit with Objective Secured can score from inside of one.
The same goes for Blood Angel armies, and especially since their land raider can deep strike!
Now if it could only Deepstrike like a Mawloc can....
That would give a new meaning to " sh*****g bricks". 
In fact come to think of it...an Unbound army of Landraiders could be a hard counter to an Unbound Tyranid swarm army like the one featured in WDW.
Your opponent has hundreds of bugs, too many to kill using a balanced list? No problem, just drop bricks Landraiders on them. Literally.
Your opponent can't complain - you're Forging a Narrative.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
 Sihdhartha wrote: Sigvatr wrote:When was the last time you had to ask allowance for someone to use Farsight Enclave?
I wouldn't know I've never used it , but yes I get your point, but that has to do more with perception of power than anything else. Hell, an opponent could choose not to play anything. So having a rule that specifically says that x is now legal doesn't mean all groups or places will allow it.
You got it exactly
FW rules are very hit and miss. There obviously are a few stupidly overpowered things, but most of it is actually even underpowered. Granted, as usual, guess what a lot of people get. And yes, FW keeps up with the insane marine favorism...but Xenos get some nice things too. Sentry Pylons e.g. are amazing.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Desubot wrote:"Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Lilith, black widow
Warp spider exarc or some nid thing, spidermam
Vindicare, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america "
Make it happen right now.
Someone has done something similar to that before:
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Does anyone have that screenshot where it specifically mentions psychic powers not stacking on top of each other if it's the same psychic power? I think its a video screencap.
Thanks a bunch, went throug the thread and apparently it got taken down.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Hollismason wrote:Does anyone have that screenshot where it specifically mentions psychic powers not stacking on top of each other if it's the same psychic power? I think its a video screencap.
Thanks a bunch, went throug the thread and apparently it got taken down.
53744
Post by: rollawaythestone
ClockworkZion wrote:Hollismason wrote:Does anyone have that screenshot where it specifically mentions psychic powers not stacking on top of each other if it's the same psychic power? I think its a video screencap.
Thanks a bunch, went throug the thread and apparently it got taken down.
Is this text even different from how it is currently worded in the rulebook? I am of the opinion that Blessings / Maledictions don't stack unless they specifically allow it, but many people rule that different castings of the same power can stack. I don't see anything about the new wording that clears up this ambiguity.
4884
Post by: Therion
barnowl wrote: Therion wrote:
a) Titans and other crazies in 1500 point standard games.
b) Are Forgeworld units finally legal without a tournament rules package or the opponent's permission or an endless debate on the internet about it?
c) Are data slates legal? Are data sheets legal? Are all the fortifications in Stronghold Assault legal in small points values?
d) Why is the tabletop size for the battle still the exact same size it was 15 years ago, considering now we have 5 times more models on the table?
e) Lastly the unbound vs. battle forged, which is a stupid debate altogether. Unbound means you pick and choose any models/units from any codex and match them together to make the ultimate army. If you're so new or completely unimaginative and only copy a tournament winner's list for yourself before you can assemble an army, you won't understand, but for the regulars, unbound is like 10 tiers above battle forged in overall strength. And how can you say it's not legal, if it's a part of the core rules?
Who the heck cares about snap fire when all of the above issues are going on? Can we actually talk about the game of 40K instead of one or two universal special rules? Thanks.
a) They have been several pages of it
b) No change to FW rules yet so still oppenents okay
c) DataSlates have been legal for a while, just not liked and there for banned at some tourney. Datasheets are APOC things so still APO only no change, SA has been since book hit if you use it so no change there.
d) IT has changed rather a lot. At one point there were 3 official sizes 4x4 Alpha boards, 4x6 Delta boards and 4x8 Omega boards now there is just 4x6 standards and 4x8 or bigger apoc boards so they have changed.
e) That is the general view of Unbound. And it is very easy to say it's not legal: "This is my event, and I am making Unbound illegal do to imbalance for it. You can agree and play, disagree and not play". See that, pretty easy to do and TO's been doing it for years.
There we go. I got a response. And the response is: Yeah, 7th edition hit, and it made everything legal and fixed zero of the glaring issues in this game, and we're still going to house rule everything and not follow the official rules at all because they're imbalanced as gak. Of course we're all still going to pay hundreds of dollars for the new edition and changes in army composition, but it'll still be the same gak game, or worse. So essentially all 7th edition will change for the people who house rule everything anyway is a few universal special rules and the psychic phase. Gotcha. What did those marvellous developments cost in real money again?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
rollawaythestone wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Hollismason wrote:Does anyone have that screenshot where it specifically mentions psychic powers not stacking on top of each other if it's the same psychic power? I think its a video screencap.
Thanks a bunch, went throug the thread and apparently it got taken down.
Is this text even different from how it is currently worded in the rulebook? I am of the opinion that Blessings / Maledictions don't stack unless they specifically allow it, but many people rule that different castings of the same power can stack. I don't see anything about the new wording that clears up this ambiguity.
I've attached the current version. The stacking thing was FAQ'd for 6th and allowed them to stack as long as they weren't from the same caster.
1
53744
Post by: rollawaythestone
I don't remember a FAQ that said anything of that sort. Am i just crazy?
It seems the new wording is less ambiguous, just not perfectly clear.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
It was just a very specific question as the Blessing Cursed Earth specifically says it is cumulative but I don't think that means cursed earth is cumulative with itself since blessing says it won't effect it twice, but who knows.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
rollawaythestone wrote:I don't remember a FAQ that said anything of that sort. Am i just crazy?
It seems the new wording is less ambiguous, just not perfectly clear.
It's not in the current ones but I clearly remember it being in the FAQs at one point that let Grey Knights stack Hammerhand as long as they were from different sources.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Whoop whoop first rules question of 7th , lol.
76130
Post by: Shingen
Desubot wrote:"Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Lilith, black widow
Warp spider exarc or some nid thing, spidermam
Vindicare, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america "
Make it happen right now.
Dark Eldar Lhamean as Loki
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Seriously it's a rules question regarding a rumor. Let the rules come out before we start deciding if we need to flood YMDC with questions about them.
I don't really see how there is any confusion on the new one because it says "The benefit of any one paticular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn" meaning that you can't, say Hammerhand multiple times anymore and then it goes on to say "but benefits from different plessings are cumulative" so if you have different blessings that give the same effect they can stack.
That's a lot clearer than the old version which didn't say anything about using the same blessing from different sources on a unit.
85001
Post by: Sihdhartha
Sigvatr wrote: Sihdhartha wrote: Sigvatr wrote:When was the last time you had to ask allowance for someone to use Farsight Enclave?
I wouldn't know I've never used it , but yes I get your point, but that has to do more with perception of power than anything else. Hell, an opponent could choose not to play anything. So having a rule that specifically says that x is now legal doesn't mean all groups or places will allow it.
You got it exactly
FW rules are very hit and miss. There obviously are a few stupidly overpowered things, but most of it is actually even underpowered. Granted, as usual, guess what a lot of people get. And yes, FW keeps up with the insane marine favorism...but Xenos get some nice things too. Sentry Pylons e.g. are amazing.
The best thing Tau got from FW : Tetra's, luckily my group allows FW
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously it's a rules question regarding a rumor. Let the rules come out before we start deciding if we need to flood YMDC with questions about them.
I don't really see how there is any confusion on the new one because it says "The benefit of any one paticular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn" meaning that you can't, say Hammerhand multiple times anymore and then it goes on to say "but benefits from different plessings are cumulative" so if you have different blessings that give the same effect they can stack.
That's a lot clearer than the old version which didn't say anything about using the same blessing from different sources on a unit.
So you can Hammerhand and then Iron Arm, but you can't Hammerhand and Hammerhand.
Looking at the picture of the psychic power cards, it looks like Iron Arm just adds a straight +3 Strength and Toughness and then some other one word rule i couldnt make out.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Eternal Warrior hopefully, or DPs just took a small nerf.
19754
Post by: puma713
Sihdhartha wrote: Sigvatr wrote:When was the last time you had to ask allowance for someone to use Farsight Enclave?
I wouldn't know I've never used it , but yes I get your point, but that has to do more with perception of power than anything else. Hell, an opponent could choose not to play anything. So having a rule that specifically says that x is now legal doesn't mean all groups or places will allow it.
Yes, but people, in general, like to go to a place knowing that they won't be told "Hey, half your list is illegal." Sure, you can call ahead to any venue you are going to and build a new army list for each event, but before all these muddy waters, you knew what the gaming scene would look like. Now you don't, so much.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Crazyterran wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously it's a rules question regarding a rumor. Let the rules come out before we start deciding if we need to flood YMDC with questions about them.
I don't really see how there is any confusion on the new one because it says "The benefit of any one paticular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn" meaning that you can't, say Hammerhand multiple times anymore and then it goes on to say "but benefits from different plessings are cumulative" so if you have different blessings that give the same effect they can stack.
That's a lot clearer than the old version which didn't say anything about using the same blessing from different sources on a unit.
So you can Hammerhand and then Iron Arm, but you can't Hammerhand and Hammerhand.
Looking at the picture of the psychic power cards, it looks like Iron Arm just adds a straight +3 Strength and Toughness and then some other one word rule i couldnt make out.
Unless I completely forgot how to English, yes that's how it reads to me and frankly it makes the most sense to me that way too.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
They kind of deserve it. Especially with the other buffs FMCs may be getting. (I say as I own a FMC CD army...)
I'm also finding myself more interested in the FAQs that will be coming out instead of the actual rulebook; how will this effect, say, Tigurius' Hood of Hellfire? Will it make any difference to the White Scar special rules? Or any HQ that makes a certain type of unit scoring - while it count them as troops instead?
19754
Post by: puma713
I browsed the OP, but didn't see any information on the randomness of things. Maybe I missed it, but are random charge ranges and random psychic powers still in?
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
I'm assuming since the Psychic Powers are still numbered, that they are still random. And there's been no talk of Charge changing beyond instead of rolling 3 and dropping the highest, instead it's just a flat -2". Which is good and bad, I suppose... (With bad luck, you can now fail a 2" charge!)
44272
Post by: Azreal13
puma713 wrote:I browsed the OP, but didn't see any information on the randomness of things. Maybe I missed it, but are random charge ranges and random psychic powers still in?
Almost definitely on Powers, I'm sure I've read references to rolling for powers in some of the WD articles, assault range has been stated as remaining the same (but only -2" for charging through terrain) but not sure of the provenance on that.
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
unmercifulconker wrote:Didn't know unbound allowed any unit from any codex always thought it had to be same army. What hero teams should there be then:
Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Assassin, black widow
?, spidermam
?, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america
Painted in their colours it must be done the emperor wills it
X-Men:
Marneus Calgar = Professor X
Commissar Yarrick = Cyclops
Sanguinor = Angel
Eldrad = Jean Grey
Shrike = Wolverine
Nemesor Zahndrekh = Rogue
The Masque of Slaanesh = Dazzler
Tigurius = Emma Frost
Vulkan He'stan = Forge
Ezekiel = Cable
And villains:
Tyranids (all) = The Brood
Necrons (Canoptek stuff) = The Phalanx
Fabius Bile = Mr. Sinister
Orikan the Diviner = Apocalypse
Abaddon = Horseman of War
Typhus = Horseman of Pestilence
? = Horseman of Famine
Mephiston = Horseman of Death
Sevrin Loth = Magneto
Epidemius = Mojo
Wraithlord = Sentinel
Riptide = Nimrod
Eldar (faction) = Shi'Ar
Karanak = Predator X
The Changeling = Mystique
? = Sabretooth
Jain Zar = Lady Deathstrike
ClockworkZion wrote:Someone has done something similar to that before:
there's even a Deadpool! love it Automatically Appended Next Post: Crazyterran wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously it's a rules question regarding a rumor. Let the rules come out before we start deciding if we need to flood YMDC with questions about them.
I don't really see how there is any confusion on the new one because it says "The benefit of any one paticular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn" meaning that you can't, say Hammerhand multiple times anymore and then it goes on to say "but benefits from different plessings are cumulative" so if you have different blessings that give the same effect they can stack.
That's a lot clearer than the old version which didn't say anything about using the same blessing from different sources on a unit.
So you can Hammerhand and then Iron Arm, but you can't Hammerhand and Hammerhand.
Looking at the picture of the psychic power cards, it looks like Iron Arm just adds a straight +3 Strength and Toughness and then some other one word rule i couldnt make out.
May you tell me where are the pics of the psychic powers? I only know the Malefic ones...
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Seems like my post got skipped over... Do we have any conjecture on how psychic powers that are cast in the assault phase will work, more so ones that could be cast in either opponents turn. Also,how do force weapons work now?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
ClockworkZion wrote: BlaxicanX wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:You cut part of my post off there in your rush to look right. I did mention all flyer armies were legal. That alone makes the idea of "not models = instant lose" questionable.
I really don't think it does. I've seen rumors that Unbound armies ignore the FOC. Where are you seeing that an all-flyer army is possible?
I don't get how you don't see that they are. If someone doesn't have to follow FOC they can easilly take an army of nothing but Stormtalons, Heldrakes or Doom Scythes (to name a few).
As noted by Peregrine, there are already armies you can take that start everything in reserve (Elysian lists, DoA etc). You just lose turn 1. =| So players simply having the option to use an all-reserves list is in no way shape or form indicative that they're going to change the rules for tabling.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
TheKbob wrote:Seems like my post got skipped over... Do we have any conjecture on how psychic powers that are cast in the assault phase will work, more so ones that could be cast in either opponents turn. Also,how do force weapons work now?
None yet.
70053
Post by: GrimDork
Gah, even if I do fork over the money for the book and apparently the cards now too... this would probably generate hours of me trying to figure out what's good again... Do I still bother with my biker troops, do I go back to tacticals, in rhinos? Gah head asplode.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Yeah, the weirdest thing that I see happening is that there has to be some errata or straight up rewriting of some of the Psyhic Powers in the books presented just because functionally they don't work. Also, special abilities that give a bonus to leadership no longer work as well.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Therion wrote:
There we go. I got a response. And the response is: Yeah, 7th edition hit, and it made everything legal and fixed zero of the glaring issues in this game, and we're still going to house rule everything and not follow the official rules at all because they're imbalanced as gak. Of course we're all still going to pay hundreds of dollars for the new edition and changes in army composition, but it'll still be the same gak game, or worse. So essentially all 7th edition will change for the people who house rule everything anyway is a few universal special rules and the psychic phase. Gotcha. What did those marvellous developments cost in real money again?
Correct. 7th appears to be fully reliant on house rules to be working on a level higher than "Shoving stuff around". It will make 40k games even longer than before - which is a terrible thing.
77477
Post by: Wilson
Please can we go back to discussing the new rules and bring possitive about how awesome this all is? I really think they are on the right track to making the game more;
a.) fun
b.) unpredictable and capturing
C.) balanced!
It'll never be completely balanced- if it was, it'd just be another game of chess and people who play 40k are the ones who are looking for more than that.
Edited by AgeOfEgos--no
14
Post by: Ghaz
I believe someone needs to read the forum rules.
56040
Post by: Basimpo
Heres an idea for my first tourney unbound army list. Feedback appreciated!
Dark angels codex
1500 points
15 chaplains w/ combi melta @100pt ea.
1500 points.
I figure to attack like 2 girls 1 cup: 15 chaplains 1 squad.
They are are all independent chars so any movement leaving any chaplains out of coherency simply forms their own unit.
Well, thats it for strategy so far. Meltas for tank damaging i suppose. Still working on usefulness.
Im excited for unbound, now i dont have to call some of the local players in my town cheats for fielding more than the foc, i can just say ahhhh unbound nice. 
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Basimpo wrote:Heres an idea for my first tourney unbound army list. Feedback appreciated!
Dark angels codex
1500 points
15 chaplains w/ combi melta @100pt ea.
1500 points.
I figure to attack like 2 girls 1 cup: 15 chaplains 1 squad.
They are are all independent chars so any movement leaving any chaplains out of coherency simply forms their own unit.
Well, thats it for strategy so far. Meltas for tank damaging i suppose. Still working on usefulness.
Im excited for unbound, now i dont have to call some of the local players in my town cheats for fielding more than the foc, i can just say ahhhh unbound nice.
The worst description of a battle plan ever written.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Basimpo wrote:
I figure to attack like 2 girls 1 cup: 15 chaplains 1 squad.
15 chaplains defecate into the squad and then start slowly eating them? O_o
Not sure if that works.
77477
Post by: Wilson
 Ghaz wrote:I believe someone needs to read the forum rules.
Amended slightly for the delicate minds out there.
My bad!
60546
Post by: conker249
I Dont really mind the new edition. I was perturbed at first, then I thought more about it. For 6th edition(for me) bought for $80. I got 22 months use out of it, averaging 3 games a month, averages close to $1.22 a game. Not parading saying "Hail to the next edition!" but Ive gotten a fair amount of use from my rulebook. I know some people will have worse averages. I am pretty excited over all the new stuff, except the rumor to jink for my ravenwing
77477
Post by: Wilson
Double post.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Sigvatr wrote:Basimpo wrote:
I figure to attack like 2 girls 1 cup: 15 chaplains 1 squad.
15 chaplains defecate into the squad and then start slowly eating them? O_o
Not sure if that works.
I thought the idea was it'd be so horrible everyone who witnessed it would have their stomachs churn in protest.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Yeah, Mr. Wilson sounds very "head in the sand" and chooses to be or isn't keen on the competition that now exists in the year of our Lord Emprah 2014.
Games get fixed at the speed of internet these days. Nothing about Games Workshop games can be described as balanced. And balanced games are more fun and no they are not chess... Having played a great majority of them these days.
There's a very good reason why those games are seeing an increase in their market share and GW is seeing a decrease*. But sure, let's all pile on the positive train without a single critical thought.
Choo - Choo!
*Discussed in other threads that provide the facts, can't be bothered to go link them.
11988
Post by: Dracos
I find it very strange that one would think that customers owe gratitude to a company they purchase from. IMO, paying for the product means you owe them nothing, including gratitude.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
 Dracos wrote:I find it very strange that one would think that customers owe gratitude to a company they purchase from. IMO, paying for the product means you owe them nothing, including gratitude.
I'm gonna go out in a limb and say an $85 BRB + $50 Splat book shouldn't require house ruling or amateur game designing to make functional.
You can have a good starter army and the rules for any other game at that price. But hey, those don't count. We should be thankful for the opportunity for new (and required, if you want updates and product support) rules for the game!
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Honestly I am kind of wondering how many armies we will actually see that are unbound.
4179
Post by: bubber
Re Mortarion - NEED but can wait until he's on general release rather than paying a whopping £110 from Ebay! I like the scythe - remember that they were probably first used as weapons by farmers fighting off raiders. + this is awesome: Oops - 2nd part is in the wrong thread!!
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
double post
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
bubber wrote: Re Mortarion - NEED but can wait until he's on general release rather than paying a whopping £110 from Ebay! I like the scythe - remember that they were probably first used as weapons by farmers fighting off raiders.:
How about this as a Mortarion? Dunno if the scale is right for gaming though... http://www.kabukimodels.com/en/knights-of-legend/81-steam-knight.html
56040
Post by: Basimpo
Heres another list Id like to play for fun
1500 point game
27 x Warlocks w/ singing spear and jetbike @55pt ea.
1485 points (Taking a 15 point handicap. Hey, I dont want to be TFG you know!)
Also I was pondering along the lines of the far future of 40k (Get the pun...far future of 40k years in the future...but still you know, just 40k in like a few months) in 8th edition (which I predict to emerge from warped space in approx 16 months) what GW is going towards for unbound: Any unit/model/char from any codex, any game. Yes, when 8th ed comes out you can quote me free of charge. Heres what my so called "theoretical" list will be (which because this will certainly happen it wont actually be theoretical)
1500 point game
3 helldrakes
1 BT chaplain (for preferred enemy everything)
Azrael (I mean, he'd give everyone invuln saves. Holy throne man!)
Ghrazkhul Thraka (To Waaagh! The helldrakes)
My maxed out char from legendary edition skyrim w/console cheats activated
Super Mario with the fire flower
Imotekh the Stormlord to zap everyone with his lightning powers
This dudes 3rd level character from 4th ed D&D I overheard them talking about (I mean, his char got 50k gold pieces from killing a goblin! Wow!)
4 Wave serpents
2 more wave serpents
10 warlocks on jetbikes w/singing spears.
Still got a hundred points to play with, hmmm.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I think the rules about conjuring are going to be really important and can't wait to see those. There's no way conjured units can assault the turn they come into play, or at least one would hope.
I'm just wondering if they can cast psychic powers.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
I think my reaction to 7th edition will be to buy Valkia the bloody (from the WFB range), paint her, play my usual SoB list with her added on top as a chaos lord proxy, and then never buy anything else from GW.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
While a nice sculpt, the Kabuki sculpts are about half the size of the FW ones, so while they make good counts as Captains/CMs or display models, they don't make very good Primarchs!
56040
Post by: Basimpo
Hollismason wrote:Honestly I am kind of wondering how many armies we will actually see that are unbound.
Even though im saying sort of sarcastic stuff, I really am excited for unbound armies. But Id really only have them ready to play against people I contact beforehand. Id never show up to a shop and do a pickup game like Oh want to play a 1500 point game? What do you got? I already have a 1.5k list. Oh youre playing nilla IG ccs and platoons that equals 1500 points? Yeah, Im bring 6 bland Iron Hands landraiders bro. Good luck.
When escalation first came out I played a pickup game against a dude that brought a khorne killer or A khorne shucker or whatever that super heavy is. He asked me fair and square before the match if I wanted to play against it (courtesy) and I said by all means! He wiped me out. Was I mad at him for playing a super heavy? Nope, he gave me a chance to play him on even terms and I chose to have the odds stacked against me. I lost but I had fun.
If pickup games were like that, then cool. Some people really are TFG. Theyll be the type to tell you that they are playing this such and such unbound army and youre like Sure! Sounds great just let me get my models from my car! Then you get in your car and drive away. Cause you know, theres no way youre going to be able to beat 9 transcendent ctans with your 4 squads of guardians, 2 warwalkers etc etc.
But for super fun games its going to be AWESOME!
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Hollismason wrote:I think the rules about conjuring are going to be really important and can't wait to see those. There's no way conjured units can assault the turn they come into play, or at least one would hope.
I'm just wondering if they can cast psychic powers.
This help ? "The Pink Horrors are an even more terrifying prospect. If your unit is big enough, they will
generate two psychic powers. If they get Sacrifice, blast one of their number into the Warp
and turn it into a Herald. Make it a Herald of Tzeentch and you get even more psychic powers
with which to summon more Pink Horrors, which can then also be turned into Heralds.
There’s a bit of luck involved, but if you’ve already turned to Daemonology then your
immortal soul is already damned, so what’s the harm in trying, eh?"
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
I rather the one with the cape. You get flyer type, vector strike and a spinning attack!
44272
Post by: Azreal13
loki old fart wrote:Hollismason wrote:I think the rules about conjuring are going to be really important and can't wait to see those. There's no way conjured units can assault the turn they come into play, or at least one would hope.
I'm just wondering if they can cast psychic powers.
This help ? "The Pink Horrors are an even more terrifying prospect. If your unit is big enough, they will
generate two psychic powers. If they get Sacrifice, blast one of their number into the Warp
and turn it into a Herald. Make it a Herald of Tzeentch and you get even more psychic powers
with which to summon more Pink Horrors, which can then also be turned into Heralds.
There’s a bit of luck involved, but if you’ve already turned to Daemonology then your
immortal soul is already damned, so what’s the harm in trying, eh?"
They can generate two powers whatever, as if you generate powers from one discipline them you get the Primaris for free. This helps, as you've got FFoF as anti infantry and then the Tzeentch Lore has a good chance of giving some sort of anti armour choice too.
As for the recursive daemon thing, yes it is possible, but there are a lot of things that need to fall into place. Take it from someone using daemons regularly, even getting off one PSA has enough points of failure to not be something you rely on, and that when your opponent can only DTW on a 6 on one dice.
8520
Post by: Leth
Also just because you summoned them does not mean you get more warpcharge points that turn as they are generated at the start of the phase. if conjured units cant score then you are basically building a lot of models that cant do anything for the win conditions.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Leth wrote: if conjured units cant score then you are basically building a lot of models that cant do anything for the win conditions.
Unless the win condition is "kill things", then they can do plenty for it.
4179
Post by: bubber
Thought of that, bought him, really don't like it. Way too small + his hands are tiny - smaller than a standard SM :(
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Alex C wrote: Leth wrote: if conjured units cant score then you are basically building a lot of models that cant do anything for the win conditions.
Unless the win condition is "kill things", then they can do plenty for it.
Your remains, even if a troops choice, still cannot score. Neither can your smoldering ash or defiled corpses.
Automatically Appended Next Post: bubber wrote:
Thought of that, bought him, really don't like it. Way too small + his hands are tiny - smaller than a standard SM :(
Kabuki uses true scale. Most mini makers do this instead of the exaggerations of heroic scale. It's a design choice. I've found that heroic can make models a bit too cartoony at times, IMO. Doesn't stop me from liking them, but it's a thing.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
TheKbob wrote: Alex C wrote: Leth wrote: if conjured units cant score then you are basically building a lot of models that cant do anything for the win conditions.
Unless the win condition is "kill things", then they can do plenty for it.
Your remains, even if a troops choice, still cannot score. Neither can your smoldering ash or defiled corpses.
And if Slaaneshi Daemons are summoned, there will be much defiling of corpses...
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Alex C wrote: TheKbob wrote: Alex C wrote: Leth wrote: if conjured units cant score then you are basically building a lot of models that cant do anything for the win conditions.
Unless the win condition is "kill things", then they can do plenty for it.
Your remains, even if a troops choice, still cannot score. Neither can your smoldering ash or defiled corpses.
And if Slaaneshi Daemons are summoned, there will be much defiling of corpses...
Was thinking Dark Eldar, but close enough.
8520
Post by: Leth
Alex C wrote: Leth wrote: if conjured units cant score then you are basically building a lot of models that cant do anything for the win conditions.
Unless the win condition is "kill things", then they can do plenty for it.
Unless you start summoning troops that actually do damage which is going to eat into this magical un-ending supplies of warp charges. While you are also summoning some of the weakest models in the game. Unless you were assuming that your opponent was just sitting there the entire time.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
I don't buy into this whole "yo dawg, I'm summoning Daemons who can summon Daemons who can summon Daemons" line of thinking anyway. Overly reliant on perfect circumstances and inaction of your opponent.
83418
Post by: Sledgehammer
So i was talking to my store manager today, and he said that flyers now no longer get jink saves unless you command them to dive or evade. You cannot shoot (im not sure if he meant at full ballistic skill or not at all) whilst doing defensive maneuvers, unless you upgrade your pilots skill. So there are also ranks to your pilot's skills now.
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
 Sledgehammer wrote:So i was talking to my store manager today, and he said that flyers now no longer get jink saves unless you command them to dive or evade. You cannot shoot (im not sure if he meant at full ballistic skill or not at all) whilst doing defensive maneuvers, unless you upgrade your pilots skill. So there are also ranks to your pilot's skills now.
nowadays flyers can take a jink save, but will fire snap shots in their next turn. this upgrade pilot skill is a new thing, though
56277
Post by: Eldarain
 Vector Strike wrote: Sledgehammer wrote:So i was talking to my store manager today, and he said that flyers now no longer get jink saves unless you command them to dive or evade. You cannot shoot (im not sure if he meant at full ballistic skill or not at all) whilst doing defensive maneuvers, unless you upgrade your pilots skill. So there are also ranks to your pilot's skills now.
nowadays flyers can take a jink save, but will fire snap shots in their next turn. this upgrade pilot skill is a new thing, though
Wasn't that in Crusade of Fire and Death from the Skies?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Eldarain wrote: Vector Strike wrote: Sledgehammer wrote:So i was talking to my store manager today, and he said that flyers now no longer get jink saves unless you command them to dive or evade. You cannot shoot (im not sure if he meant at full ballistic skill or not at all) whilst doing defensive maneuvers, unless you upgrade your pilots skill. So there are also ranks to your pilot's skills now.
nowadays flyers can take a jink save, but will fire snap shots in their next turn. this upgrade pilot skill is a new thing, though
Wasn't that in Crusade of Fire and Death from the Skies?
Would it surprise you if GW shoehorned it in?
56277
Post by: Eldarain
Not at all. Just commenting on whether or not it's a new creation (assuming it's in at all)
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
Eldarain wrote: Vector Strike wrote: Sledgehammer wrote:So i was talking to my store manager today, and he said that flyers now no longer get jink saves unless you command them to dive or evade. You cannot shoot (im not sure if he meant at full ballistic skill or not at all) whilst doing defensive maneuvers, unless you upgrade your pilots skill. So there are also ranks to your pilot's skills now.
nowadays flyers can take a jink save, but will fire snap shots in their next turn. this upgrade pilot skill is a new thing, though
Wasn't that in Crusade of Fire and Death from the Skies?
There's a upgrade called Fighter Ace, that gives each flyer-owning faction (you have to buy this for EACH flyer) a d6 table and a chance to get something generally useful, but quite expensive. If Fighter Ace becomes cheaper, it would be nice.
44994
Post by: Maddermax
Alex C wrote:I don't buy into this whole "yo dawg, I'm summoning Daemons who can summon Daemons who can summon Daemons" line of thinking anyway. Overly reliant on perfect circumstances and inaction of your opponent.
The thing that makes it all tick over is that the entire force could easily have a 3++ or possibly even 2++ invuln save while doing this, thanks to one of the other powers. With saves like that, yeah you can pretty much ignore the enemy for the most part while you build up your army of doom.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
 Maddermax wrote: Alex C wrote:I don't buy into this whole "yo dawg, I'm summoning Daemons who can summon Daemons who can summon Daemons" line of thinking anyway. Overly reliant on perfect circumstances and inaction of your opponent.
The thing that makes it all tick over is that the entire force could easily have a 3++ or possibly even 2++ invuln save while doing this, thanks to one of the other powers. With saves like that, yeah you can pretty much ignore the enemy for the most part while you build up your army of doom.
You can't spend the first 2 or 3 turns of your game using your spellcasters to simply summon more demons. There's a huge amount of firepower tied up in deamon spellcasters, summoning means you aren't splatting stuff. And I seriously doubt you can win any game by spending your first 2 or 3 turns not killing anything.
And the entire force could not "easily have a 3++ or possibly even 2++". A single squad can have an amazing invul but the rest of the army will be 5++ base, reliant on divination to bump that to 4++. But of course you'll be using all your spellcasters to summon more demons, so you won't be pulling that off. I guarantee you that any competant enemy can kill those t3 5++ demons far quicker than you can summon them.
8520
Post by: Leth
Unless there is another bubble power they can only get +1 reliably. So they are looking at a 4+ with re-roll 1s.
Any army with some decent ranged shooting will be removing mastery levels on horrors all over the place.
I honestly am not worried about it. It will be a gimmick army that might do well against bad players or when the dice are really hot.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Leth wrote:Unless there is another bubble power they can only get +1 reliably. So they are looking at a 4+ with re-roll 1s.
Any army with some decent ranged shooting will be removing mastery levels on horrors all over the place.
I honestly am not worried about it. It will be a gimmick army that might do well against bad players or when the dice are really hot.
Or.
Twenty pink horrors as bubble wrap with 2++ rerolls because grimoire is still a thing and not FAQd or, realistically, should be a roll of a 6 on a table somewhere as it's too powerful for what it does.
The new daemon spells further makes 2++ rerollable saves a solidified thing. Now you don't need divination, but spam daemonology stuff, crap out new units as you lock up he opponents army with infantry that's incredibly hard to kill.
And here's hoping hit and run is nerfed to not pass on to the unit from an IC.
56122
Post by: Perfect Organism
You can used Cursed Earth to get up to a 4++ easily enough, I think.
It's still not going to be spawning faster than it dies in most cases though.
8520
Post by: Leth
TheKbob wrote: Leth wrote:Unless there is another bubble power they can only get +1 reliably. So they are looking at a 4+ with re-roll 1s.
Any army with some decent ranged shooting will be removing mastery levels on horrors all over the place.
I honestly am not worried about it. It will be a gimmick army that might do well against bad players or when the dice are really hot.
Or.
Twenty pink horrors as bubble wrap with 2++ rerolls because grimoire is still a thing and not FAQd or, realistically, should be a roll of a 6 on a table somewhere as it's too powerful for what it does.
The new daemon spells further makes 2++ rerollable saves a solidified thing. Now you don't need divination, but spam daemonology stuff, crap out new units as you lock up he opponents army with infantry that's incredibly hard to kill.
And here's hoping hit and run is nerfed to not pass on to the unit from an IC.
Okay.....so the unit that is grimoired has a 2++, guess what you can shot past it and they are not going to be getting a better save than their invul so a bubble wrap is meh in that case. If you cant kill two-three horror units in a turn then your army has some short comings that are beyond my help.
Will it baffle unskilled players with bad lists? possibly. However I dont see it being a competative list at all. It banks on too many dice going your way to be effective.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
Leth wrote: TheKbob wrote: Leth wrote:Unless there is another bubble power they can only get +1 reliably. So they are looking at a 4+ with re-roll 1s.
Any army with some decent ranged shooting will be removing mastery levels on horrors all over the place.
I honestly am not worried about it. It will be a gimmick army that might do well against bad players or when the dice are really hot.
Or.
Twenty pink horrors as bubble wrap with 2++ rerolls because grimoire is still a thing and not FAQd or, realistically, should be a roll of a 6 on a table somewhere as it's too powerful for what it does.
The new daemon spells further makes 2++ rerollable saves a solidified thing. Now you don't need divination, but spam daemonology stuff, crap out new units as you lock up he opponents army with infantry that's incredibly hard to kill.
And here's hoping hit and run is nerfed to not pass on to the unit from an IC.
Okay.....so the unit that is grimoired has a 2++, guess what you can shot past it and they are not going to be getting a better save than their invul so a bubble wrap is meh in that case. If you cant kill two-three horror units in a turn then your army has some short comings that are beyond my help.
Will it baffle unskilled players with bad lists? possibly. However I dont see it being a competative list at all. It banks on too many dice going your way to be effective.
Not to mention we don't know everything about DtW, among other changes not yet known.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yeah, Im suspecting you will be able to DTW on more spells now,
not just ones targeting your units directly.
so might affect GOTN
9158
Post by: Hollismason
It makes screamerstar even more incredibly powerful now, you don't have to take those 9 Screamers, you can summon them. You don't need to take Daemonettes, you can summon them which leaves you more points for more Pink Horrors etc. It will absolutely be a top tier army. Especially when you realize that Soul Grindrs can get a 4+ invulnerable that rerolls 1s and are now more resilient.
Also, you are forgetting that one of the summons Heralds, can become mini screamer stars, and are Psykers at Level 1 so they'd get a free spell + another spell and can cast more than one Witchfire in a turn. Heralds auto come with 30 points of options.
Oh you have D6 + 3 Warp Charge for your dispells? Great I have 40 Warp Charge, and 8 copies of the same spell. Oh are you saving your dispells? I'm going to be casting Cursed Earth while you do that. Oh you stopped my herald? Okay possession.
With everything that has been written it absolutely will be a really great army to play, not unbeatable but really great. I'm sure they're will be some caveats to the spells.
5601
Post by: Kelly502
I'm wondering what the Inquisition thinks about this demonology?
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Also there's the rumour floating around that there in fact will be affinities for certain schools.
We have not seen Sanctum, but even if Sanctum is OH MY GOD AWESOME, you still have way more Dispel dice than they will so you will still dominate and hopefully be able to stop those spells.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
It will hinge on how widely available and effective the Sanctic chart is.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Absolutely it's not game changing but it certain is making an already powerful army more powerful. I know personally i don't want to go up against a AV13 4+ reroll 1s Walker that has a battlecannon.
Someone better at math than I can figure out the percentages on that working. I mean its a 50% reduction, i thnk?
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Leth wrote: TheKbob wrote: Leth wrote:Unless there is another bubble power they can only get +1 reliably. So they are looking at a 4+ with re-roll 1s.
Any army with some decent ranged shooting will be removing mastery levels on horrors all over the place.
I honestly am not worried about it. It will be a gimmick army that might do well against bad players or when the dice are really hot.
Or.
Twenty pink horrors as bubble wrap with 2++ rerolls because grimoire is still a thing and not FAQd or, realistically, should be a roll of a 6 on a table somewhere as it's too powerful for what it does.
The new daemon spells further makes 2++ rerollable saves a solidified thing. Now you don't need divination, but spam daemonology stuff, crap out new units as you lock up he opponents army with infantry that's incredibly hard to kill.
And here's hoping hit and run is nerfed to not pass on to the unit from an IC.
Okay.....so the unit that is grimoired has a 2++, guess what you can shot past it and they are not going to be getting a better save than their invul so a bubble wrap is meh in that case. If you cant kill two-three horror units in a turn then your army has some short comings that are beyond my help.
Will it baffle unskilled players with bad lists? possibly. However I dont see it being a competative list at all. It banks on too many dice going your way to be effective.
I'm operating off the assumption that the daemons player isn't dumb. He's pushing forward a wall of pink horrors for cheap with plenty of other nasties abound, like Tzeentch princes and what not. You will have to shoot the pink horros or face getting locked in combat with a rerollable 2++ pink wall or.shoot them and not prioritizing other, more lethal targets. He can the do threat overload in the psyker phase making you burn dispel dice on more game changing spells and leaving the little one, like 2++ save one to linger since I believe it's WC1.
None of this precludes a daemon prince from poopin out more horrors in your backfield making FMC circus into an MSU list if they focus entirely on daemonology.
We still have more to learn, but anytime you can get new units for free with little recourse or an effective means of stopping it,it's going to end poorly for the game.
Warmachine has a similar mechanic in Cryx, but you are either using a casters feat (once per game special) or a limited select few units who fart out new guys, Bane Lord Tartarsauce being the prime culprit.
And he's target priority one!
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Anytime you can exceed the point value of the game through mechanics automatically is a powerful ability. Regardless of drawbacks.
We are both playing a 2000 point army, but now I have 3000 points on the table. it's just an automatic benefit.
I don't understand why people don't understand that. Anytime you can trade up for something that is more powerful and more expensive. For example a Herald turning into a Bloodthirster, it is piwerful regardless.
37470
Post by: tomjoad
Hollismason wrote:I don't understand why people don't understand that. Anytime you can trade up for something that is more powerful and more expensive. For example a Herald turning into a Bloodthirster, it is piwerful regardless.
Oh! Now I get it! Heralds are worse than Bloodthirsters! Thank you for putting it so plainly! See, I thought that, since there's just a damn ton of information we don't have yet, it would be ignorant to jump to conclusions about how good summoning will be. I mean, nobody is saying it will be bad, exactly; just a bit skeptical that it will be broken. Buuuuut, now that the Metatran has sent you here to point out that Bloodthirsters are better than Heralds, I finally GET it. I now renounce GW and am selling my collection and will only troll forums as a hobby from now on!
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
 tomjoad wrote:Hollismason wrote:I don't understand why people don't understand that. Anytime you can trade up for something that is more powerful and more expensive. For example a Herald turning into a Bloodthirster, it is piwerful regardless.
Oh! Now I get it! Heralds are worse than Bloodthirsters! Thank you for putting it so plainly! See, I thought that, since there's just a damn ton of information we don't have yet, it would be ignorant to jump to conclusions about how good summoning will be. I mean, nobody is saying it will be bad, exactly; just a bit skeptical that it will be broken. Buuuuut, now that the Metatran has sent you here to point out that Bloodthirsters are better than Heralds, I finally GET it. I now renounce GW and am selling my collection and will only troll forums as a hobby from now on!
His point is valid, you're trading one unit for a much more powerful one. Unless there's some sort of *serious* downside to doing this which hasn't been revealed (possible, but doubtful), it's extremely powerful and basically adding free points to an army. No different than getting to trade up a Leman Russ for a Baneblade.
99
Post by: insaniak
Hollismason wrote:Anytime you can exceed the point value of the game through mechanics automatically is a powerful ability. Regardless of drawbacks..
Although less so than it might be, given that the current iteration of this game was written by people who think that points limits should be optional anyway...
30005
Post by: demontalons
Let's all step back from the ledge. All summoning powers are on a level3 power. That means you have to roll 3 4+'s. To reliably get that you need to roll 6 power dice. You still perils on double 6's. So for your standard Demon Army with no one interfering you might be able to get 3 summonings off, this also means youre not buffing anyone or shooting anyone and Demons die quickly without buffs.
As for the 2++ rerollable we don't know how the FAQ's will shake out.
68182
Post by: Wayshuba
 Flashman wrote:
Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.
Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.
After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.
Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
This is the fantasy 40k edition.
Fantasy because GW thinks it will fix the game imbalance.
Fantasy because GW thinks it will save the companies financial problems.
Fantasy because GW thinks merging two game systems is a good idea.
Fantasy because GW thinks making things more random, forges a narrative,( It will but not one they will want to hear).
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
Hollismason wrote:Anytime you can exceed the point value of the game through mechanics automatically is a powerful ability. Regardless of drawbacks.
We are both playing a 2000 point army, but now I have 3000 points on the table. it's just an automatic benefit.
I don't understand why people don't understand that. Anytime you can trade up for something that is more powerful and more expensive. For example a Herald turning into a Bloodthirster, it is piwerful regardless.
I find Tervigons to be an horrible unit as well, under this light. Factory units shouldn't exist
demontalons wrote:Let's all step back from the ledge. All summoning powers are on a level3 power. That means you have to roll 3 4+'s. To reliably get that you need to roll 6 power dice. You still perils on double 6's. So for your standard Demon Army with no one interfering you might be able to get 3 summonings off, this also means youre not buffing anyone or shooting anyone and Demons die quickly without buffs.
As for the 2++ rerollable we don't know how the FAQ's will shake out.
Herald summon power (Sacrifice) is WC 1
85299
Post by: Spoletta
Much depends on the peril table.
With all those dices going around if there is a detrimental effect for the whole unit then i foresee troubles for the pink guys.
26519
Post by: xttz
loki old fart wrote:This is the fantasy 40k edition.
Fantasy because GW thinks it will fix the game imbalance.
Fantasy because GW thinks merging two game systems is a good idea.
GW have never stated anywhere their intent is to fix game imbalance. If anything, their design philosophy is the exact opposite; they're creating a 'sandbox' game where balance is set aside for story purposes. If you're expecting carefully balanced rules and stats from 40k, you're playing the wrong game, because that's not what they're selling. Try chess instead.
As for merging two games... 40k had a psychic phase before, it's hardly something they just took from fantasy. In fact I'd say 40k is rapidly moving away from WHFB (it did start out based on that) as they keep scaling up to ever large games with bigger units like flyers and super-heavies. Best save the whining about "merging two game systems" for when Fantasy sees vehicle squadrons and 12" tall units become a regular occurrence.
It's really sad to see so many old-school players bitch and moan when a good chunk of the extra features in this release are founded in some degree of nostalgia. Some people wouldn't be happy even if the manager of the design studio made a personal visit to their house, implemented their entire wishlist of terrible rules ideas and orally pleasured them afterward.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I am still sorta expecting the next edition of WFB to be a supplement for 40K more crossover sales.................
|
|
