Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So my biggest question...is the game balanced now? Balanced enough for tournament play? Or is it still a beer and pretzel game?

Wont know until a few months after people have had a good number of games played. Doom and gloom does get old after a while though

I don't think unbound will be in tournaments unless it's a no holds bar type, and that would be pretty dang fun, but not all the time.

I suspect battle forge rules will be pretty untouched, since each detachment requires a troop an hq to be legal, and loses the benefits of having more obj sec troops since they dump more points into other stuff.

We shall see. I did see battle forge and unbound can play each other...don't think that's balanced at all.

Unbound is for casual play by how they worded it in the book. Besides, you and your opponent need to agree on which one you want to play.

it will always be a beer and pretzel game. This is GW were talking about, they have stated multiple multiple times they will never balance the game for tournament play because it was not meant for it. This is why so many rules tend to have massive loopholes, because if you read it RAI it makes sense, if you try to go RAW then you go "waaaait....what if *insert BS here*" alot more than you'd think.

Friendly wise, the game isnt that bad imo. Defining the line between friendly and WAAC is pretty difficult, and subject to opinion lol.

Page 14 of the new rulebook, The Spirit of the Game, The rules are just a framework, if you want more 'balance' (code word for complaining about some codex's power) then feel free to house rule all you want. GW doesn't make this game for the competitive tournament scene, they have tournaments only because some of their customers want them, frankly they could care less about em. Leave others to organize competitive play, they make the rules for the beer and pretzel crowd. I couldn't like Vineheart's post more if I tried.

Orktavius wrote:
Page 14 of the new rulebook, The Spirit of the Game, The rules are just a framework, if you want more 'balance' (code word for complaining about some codex's power) then feel free to house rule all you want. GW doesn't make this game for the competitive tournament scene, they have tournaments only because some of their customers want them, frankly they could care less about em. Leave others to organize competitive play, they make the rules for the beer and pretzel crowd. I couldn't like Vineheart's post more if I tried.

House ruling pick up games is problematic at best. And yes, balance refers to the power levels of codexes, units, powers, etc. Having a blood angle army against a Tau army is almost cruel for the BA player. That's not fun because its so one sided. That's poor balance. Make it closer to a fair fight and its much more enjoyable. Hence, better balance = more fun.
GW doesn't make rules for tournaments because customers don't want them? You know this how?

J0kerrMT wrote:
So my biggest question...is the game balanced now? Balanced enough for tournament play? Or is it still a beer and pretzel game?

It's 40k. You might as well ask if a new coat of paint on my 2003 chevy malibu will make it a space-worthy craft suitable for near earth orbit.

If you want a game that's suitable for tournament play, then it might be possible to houserule the HELL out of 40k (require both players to show up with the same army list and play on symmetrical terrain for a start), but it's still a dice game, and there's no way that any edition of 40k is ever changing that. Otherwise, if what you want is a serious tournament game, then go play one of those games that's already a serious tournament game. 40k is unlikely to ever be that, no matter what the number is on its edition.

40k has never been a "Beer and Pretzel" game, its far too complex and badly out of balance. And now they've added even more charts and fiddly bits to keep track off. So if anything its even further from a "Beer and Pretzel" game than before.

GW says 40k is just a game to have a laugh and some fun, but you actually spend more time going "WTF just happened?" and "I can't believe that in the rules?"

Looks like it's at least, if not more, unbalanced as 6th going by preliminary reports. It's a shame, really. Imagine a more balanced and better written 40k where more options were viable, no codices were left behind and people could have easier games.

Ah, well. Off to greener pastures then. At least if the errata doesn't help fix the major rules issues.

J0kerrMT wrote:
So my biggest question...is the game balanced now? Balanced enough for tournament play? Or is it still a beer and pretzel game?

The rules are alright for competitive play (if a bit insane with what a legal army can look like now), mostly because they're more refined than 6th's in a lot of places, but the codexes are the real make or break on that front.

Most of the changes I hear are clearly pushing the game towards 'more stuff' and 'more madness'. I think you need restrictions to get a balanced system, and they are moving the opposite way.

Too early to tell though.

Then I will wait till 8th to see if I play this game...so long GW for a few more years

 MWHistorian wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Page 14 of the new rulebook, The Spirit of the Game, The rules are just a framework, if you want more 'balance' (code word for complaining about some codex's power) then feel free to house rule all you want. GW doesn't make this game for the competitive tournament scene, they have tournaments only because some of their customers want them, frankly they could care less about em. Leave others to organize competitive play, they make the rules for the beer and pretzel crowd. I couldn't like Vineheart's post more if I tried.

House ruling pick up games is problematic at best. And yes, balance refers to the power levels of codexes, units, powers, etc. Having a blood angle army against a Tau army is almost cruel for the BA player. That's not fun because its so one sided. That's poor balance. Make it closer to a fair fight and its much more enjoyable. Hence, better balance = more fun.
GW doesn't make rules for tournaments because customers don't want them? You know this how?

How the hell did you twist "GW doesn't make this game for the competitive tournament scene" into "GW doesn't make rules for tournaments because customers don't want them"? Genuinely curious as to how you f***ed that up. As for how I know they don't make rules with the tournament scene in mind...oh I don't know, dozens of statements by GW game designers over the years or hell.....practically being flat out stated in rulebook after rulebook.

Orktavius wrote:



Genuinely curious as to how you f***ed that up.

Was this necessary?

Orktavius, is every comment you make insulting and angered? I think you need to work on your communication, it's hard to appreciate your input while you're being a jerk.

As for the question, it is far, far too early to tell. A lot of things have been hurt by 7th, but we don't know whether this is for the better or worse.

All I know is, they didn't reduce the possibility of 2+ re-roll-ables physically, although they made the 4++ much more accessible, and thus screamers even more accessible.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Orktavius, is every comment you make insulting and angered? I think you need to work on your communication, it's hard to appreciate your input while you're being a jerk.

As for the question, it is far, far too early to tell. A lot of things have been hurt by 7th, but we don't know whether this is for the better or worse.

All I know is, they didn't reduce the possibility of 2+ re-roll-ables physically, although they made the 4++ much more accessible, and thus screamers even more accessible.

The preliminary reports about summoning daemons isn't inspiring, to say the least. We'll see what happens when everything shakes out in a week or two, but Psyker heavy armies seem to have a pretty significant leg up over other armies.

The game won't be balanced unless the codex books get balanced.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Page 14 of the new rulebook, The Spirit of the Game, The rules are just a framework, if you want more 'balance' (code word for complaining about some codex's power) then feel free to house rule all you want. GW doesn't make this game for the competitive tournament scene, they have tournaments only because some of their customers want them, frankly they could care less about em. Leave others to organize competitive play, they make the rules for the beer and pretzel crowd. I couldn't like Vineheart's post more if I tried.

House ruling pick up games is problematic at best. And yes, balance refers to the power levels of codexes, units, powers, etc. Having a blood angle army against a Tau army is almost cruel for the BA player. That's not fun because its so one sided. That's poor balance. Make it closer to a fair fight and its much more enjoyable. Hence, better balance = more fun.
GW doesn't make rules for tournaments because customers don't want them? You know this how?

Don't count BA out yet. Since you can now score in vehicles they got some measure of power back. Razorspam just might be good again