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.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?

If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ignoring balance for a second, 40K is structurally broken. There are too many special rules. There are too many random cinematic tables. There are too many combinations of armies thanks to the dumb allies rules.

Those things are only a problem if you care about who is winning. There are other, better games if you want to care about who is winning .

So if you don't care about winning, then I guess you enjoy games where all you do is take your models off the table by the handful until they're gone at the bottom of Turn 3?

Hmm, but perhaps you don't play games against really competitive lists, seeing as how its very easy to discuss expectations with your opponent so everyone has fun. But that would mean, practically speaking, that you only play games in which you have a substantial chance at winning - but I thought winning doesn't matter. I don't really understand that logic.

As far as this whole Unbound vs. Battle-Forged thing goes, I really worry that this is going to fracture the 40k playerbase. Unbound, at its core, benefits mostly extremely casual players and extremely competitive players. The casuals get to have their perfect fluff lists without having to contort around the ungainly FOC, while competitives get to bring their hardest, most broken combos without restriction. So what I expect we may end up seeing is a lot of casual players either getting demolished in Unbound vs. Unbound games or being refused games against Battle-Forged players because of a perceived "cheesiness" of having an Unbound list.

In the end, everything may end up swinging back to where we are now, with everyone just negotiating beforehand - only we'll have 4 categories instead of Casual/Competitive: BF-Casual, BF-Competitive, Unbound-Casual, Unbound-Competitive.

 Eldarain wrote:
So the way that sounds you get to make the bound vs unbound decision at list creation? So it's not two divergent game modes.

In effect it is as there is nothing stopping tourney organizers from saying "battle forged lists only" or even friendly players from doing the same. As always the devil is in the details and we don't have those yet.

 Bull0 wrote:
...and the veiled line about there being nasty consequences of using the evil half.

Well yes, there will no doubt be a random table that you roll on, that may do something nasty, may do nothing at all, and may make your summoning even more powerful.

Because having random effects with wildly varying impact on the game somehow 'balances' things...

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?

If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.

I think the competetive scene is the only scene doing all the rigorous playtesting free-of-charge for GW but they wont listen and update their codexes and instead continue to persue the "fun evening among gentlemen" type of game that sees imperial knights pitted against helldrakes just to forge a narrative instead of balancing unit costs across the board, arguably all doable within 1 edition by less than a dozen underpaid outsourced workers

Excellent my unbound army of Imperial Knights and Just Manticores , Hyrdas , and Wyverns can finally be realized.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Again I feel this comes down to what I said (now many) pages back:

We don't need rules to "forge a narrative". We've been perfectly capable of doing that ourselves since the day 40K was invented. Unbound is unnecessary clutter. People have always been able to play with whatever they wanted, so why codify it in the rules? Why focus on creating rules that say "Do whatever you want" rather than focus on making a well written and technically proficient set of rules.

Ignoring balance for a second, 40K is structurally broken. There are too many special rules. There are too many random cinematic tables. There are too many combinations of armies thanks to the dumb allies rules. Putting in a “whatever” play-stay doesn’t help that. If exacerbates it. And then you want to and yet add another time-sucking phase to the fething game?

Bloody hell...

Exactly.

These "I'm a narrative gamer and I don't care one bit about game balance, and if you care about game balance you're just an American WAAC douche!" arguments make no sense whatsoever. If all you want is to put some dudes on the table and create a narrative about the grimdark future, then why the hell would you pay GW £50 for basically telling you to do whatever you want? Why not just spend those £50 on a night out with the missus and then do whatever you want in your next "game" of 40k anyway?

The way I read it was that you could choose to play an 'Unbound' army against a 'Battle-forged' army, but would forgo in-game bonuses. So it's not a choice of having an 'Unbound' game, but an 'Unbound' army. Therefore I don't think it's an attempt to make a competitive and casual ruleset.

I'll withhold judgement until we get more information, but what's interesting to me is that they have introduced new rules that, as far as I know, literally no-one wanted. I've read quite a lot of 'How to improve 40k' threads on this site and others and not one said "Wouldn't it be great if they just threw out the FOC and let you take what you wanted?" AFAIK no-one wanted a Fantasy style psychic phase either.

With such an enthusiastic, learned and vocal fanbase I think it's crazy not to include their input into new releases.

Somewhere, I can hear a TO feverishly scratching "bound armies only" or "no unbound armies" onto a rules packet. This scratching will eventually give rise to a chorus which will eventually entice GW to write yet another edition, omitting bound armies all together. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only APOC!

 Zweischneid wrote:
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.

You're talking about Jervis here, right?

Because 4th edition was the period where Jervis decreed that FAQs would take the side of RAW over what they had originally intended...



I'm going to ignore the absurdity of blaming the players for expecting the rules to be, you know, the rules... You're welcome.

Nah, take a bunch of cheap barebones russes to hide 5-6 deathstrike missile launchers behind. If you're on the table turn 2, you won't be there for turn 3.

gealgain wrote:
Somewhere, I can hear a TO feverishly scratching "bound armies only" or "no unbound armies" onto a rules packet. This scratching will eventually give rise to a chorus which will eventually entice GW to write yet another edition, omitting bound armies all together. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only APOC!

But that would require GW to listen to its fan base....which just doesnt happen

 Eldarain wrote:

Auswin wrote:
In 5th edition a guy moved to town who was a hardcore tournament power gamer. He took everything WAY too seriously, always wanted to gamble on games and was an ass at the table.

What?

YEP! Oh god, he was so bad. The store had to ask him to stop coming because he was harassing people for money games, at which point he spammed everyone with text messages for tournaments at his house. "$10 entry fee, winner takes the pot." One of my most treasured gaming moments was when he moved.

 Zweischneid wrote:

If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.

I'm glad you concede there are problems.

The rest of what you just said is drivel.

 Xca|iber wrote:
So if you don't care about winning, then I guess you enjoy games where all you do is take your models off the table by the handful until they're gone at the bottom of Turn 3?

I do sometime care about winning. I play Warmachine. But sometime I just want to play as an excuse to do something with a friend and have a nice time, and then who is winning does not matter much.

 Xca|iber wrote:
Hmm, but perhaps you don't play games against really competitive lists, seeing as how its very easy to discuss expectations with your opponent so everyone has fun.

Last time I played 40k, my opponent played tau+eldars+inquisition+force field from Stronghold assault . I just wish my flgs would give everyone a voucher equal to the entry price, instead of getting all the entry prices as voucher for the winner of the tournament. Apart from that… if I want a game where winning means something, I play Warmachine .

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.

You're talking about Jervis here, right?

Because 4th edition was the period where Jervis decreed that FAQs would take the side of RAW over what they had originally intended...



I'm going to ignore the absurdity of blaming the players for expecting the rules to be, you know, the rules... You're welcome.

Speak for yourself. I always know the correct interpretation of the rules! And if an FAQ says otherwise, well then GW is just caving in to the pressure from the uninformed masses!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.

I'm glad you concede there are problems.

The rest of what you just said is drivel.

Of course. I never said there were no problems.

To paraphrase Churchill, 40K is probably the worst miniatures wargame out there, except for all those other games.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
The folks who should be mad in my opinion are the TO's who are not getting paid anything to promote a game they get respect for doing. You just got you nose shoved in it and your going to continue to support it? You are going to continue for at least another 4 yrs to try and hammer out rules the company doesnt care about?

If the "competitive side" of the hobby hadn't ruined the hobby during 4th and 5th with their obnoxious "RAW/"legal-trumps-fun""-attitude to gaming, we'd not be having any problems in the first place.

I really can't tell if you're still serious or just giggling at people responding.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Those things are only a problem if you care about who is winning. There are other, better games if you want to care about who is winning

If you're going to post, please try to make sense. Nothing in the above quote has any real meaning.

Exciting changes! I'll reserve judgement until all the facts are in.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
So if you don't care about winning, then I guess you enjoy games where all you do is take your models off the table by the handful until they're gone at the bottom of Turn 3?

I do sometime care about winning. I play Warmachine. But sometime I just want to play as an excuse to do something with a friend and have a nice time, and then who is winning does not matter much.

Oh I agree, but in the case of "doing something with a friend to have a nice time" you actually want both people to be participating, rather than one person standing around picking up their models. It may not matter who is winning, but (IMHO) it absolutely matters if one player feels that they have no practical means of winning at all.

At least if the rules are clear, players can have a sense of what will be good/bad matchups, rather than finding out mid-game that there is a disagreement about how their army/unit/rule functions.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Exciting changes! I'll reserve judgement until all the facts are in.

How good of you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If you're going to post, please try to make sense.

Sorry, I am too excited with the awesome new changes to make any kind of sense . 40k too a new level of awesome now that you can make a whole army with only riptides !

It's almost as if some people think I'm being totally serious when I post things like the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia stuff...

Charlie Sheen is winning...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's almost as if some people think I'm being totally serious when I post things like the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia stuff...

You are Dakka's Jervis...

Kind of like Ghaz used to be a few years back.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sorry, I am too excited with the awesome new changes to make any kind of sense . 40k too a new level of awesome now that you can make a whole army with only riptides !

Yeah. Instead of a whole army that's mostly Riptides.

Certainly there is more to this game than winning. I have hardly EVER won a game. xD Yet it was still amazing fun. But where is the fun in the experience when the experience is getting steam rolled by a mass collection of flyers, knights and other stuff.

That White Dwarf makes it pretty clear to me that they are becoming completely unhinged and that there is very slim chance that this new edition will be better than 6th edition.

Unbound armies? 4 Riptides? An army composed entirely of Leman Russes? This is completely off the deep end. Why would anyone take Tactical Marines?

So much negativity over such little information.

What's the worst outcome of the new info in relation to where we are now?

The game will still be fethed, it will just be officially fethed. Which if you play that all GW produced stuff is allowed without opponent permission, it already is.

For the time being at least, we are aware of a handful of changes, with no idea how they fit into the broader fabric of the new ruleset.

Now, I'm as cynical as the next person (and as I write, that's HBMC) about GWs desire, or ability, to fix the issues with the current edition, but I'm not going to write things off completely until we have more info.

Pretty sure I won't be playing Unbound much though.

Why would GW even sell troops anymore?