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.

 yakface wrote:

valace2 wrote:

Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.

Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?

The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.

I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.

This. Based upon the article, unbound is not a game type, but a list choice. So yeah, you could refuse to play against an unbound list, just as you could refuse to play against Riptides, or Ultramarines because they suck. I would have to ask why anyone would still want to play 40k at all if they have to refuse to follow a large part of the core rules to make it fit into their idea of how it should be played.

Unbound was created so GW could sell more models, obviously. That said, we don't know what bonuses having a battle-forged army gives. For all we know, unless there are some really really broken unit combinations outside of the FoC (which IMHO is kinda doubtful considering the crazy gak you can do inside the FoC right now if detachments like Inquisition are staying in, along with allies), going with Unbound might not be worth it if the bonuses from going Battle-Forged are really really high.

Given the way GW seems to think are "buffs" in supplements I wouldn't be surprised if the bonuses you get from Battle-forged are rolled randomly on a D6 with a variety of useless army-wide affecting buffs like causing Fear, re-rolling failed characteristic tests or getting Move Through Cover.

There was a set of rumors of special rules getting nerf batted.

Ignores Cover would reduce cover by -2 as an example.

I am not citing anything, but I remember there was a discussion somewhere about special rules tweaking. This would more than likely be in this edition? Also, since we have a magic phase, perhaps cover begins to operate like fantasy, as well?

I just had a thought about this battle-forged vs. unbound concept. What if instead of a VP modification if your battle-forged force comes up against an unbound force, you were to get the ability to restructure your list within the bound of your codex.

So it looks like this: you go to a tournament with your list. If you play against another, balanced battle-forged list you both play the list you brought. If instead you face an unbound opponent, for each unit it off-bounds taken, you can make a unit swap, staying within the limitations of your codex/FOC and points.

Maybe there would even be options for FOCs that would include reasonable, selections for allies, but at the cost of flexibility when re-tailoring your list.

I think this would be a great play by GW as it would encourage purchasing a full range of models.

For example, as an eldar player, I bring my list and come up against a full riptide force, which gives me a number of unit swaps equal to say, 3. So, I know that the dark reapers I brought with their AP3 can't get through a riptides armor, so I swap them out for a similar points cost of war walkers with starcannons. I brought a full size scorpion squad, but not a scorpion claw - well that claw would help out a lot if I could get the exarch into CC, so, drop a couple scorpions and add in the claw. Similarly, I splurged and bought a 5 man squad of D-scythe WG in a WS...well, there aren't any hordes to worry about, and I'm more concerned about wounding on a 2+ and getting a little extra range than I am about ignoring cover, so, I drop the D-scythes on my guard and use the spare points to fill them out to a 6 man squad. Suddenly, that unbound list is much more manageable, and GW just made sure that I'm going to buy a lot more models...

 Grimskul wrote:
Given the way GW seems to think are "buffs" in supplements I wouldn't be surprised if the bonuses you get from Battle-forged are rolled randomly on a D6 with a variety of useless army-wide affecting buffs like causing Fear, re-rolling failed characteristic tests or getting Move Through Cover.

Well, that would be warlord traits. Cautiously optimistic the bonuses would be more substantial.

More hoping that using a Battle-forged army entitles you to select up to another 25% of your points in additional units (the sidebar thing everyone has been talking about). That's about the only thing that would make this worth it.

TerraFirst! wrote:

For example, as an eldar player, I bring my list and come up against a full riptide force, which gives me a number of unit swaps equal to say, 3. So, I know that the dark reapers I brought with their AP3 can't get through a riptides armor, so I swap them out for a similar points cost of war walkers with starcannons. I brought a full size scorpion squad, but not a scorpion claw - well that claw would help out a lot if I could get the exarch into CC, so, drop a couple scorpions and add in the claw. Similarly, I splurged and bought a 5 man squad of D-scythe WG in a WS...well, there aren't any hordes to worry about, and I'm more concerned about wounding on a 2+ and getting a little extra range than I am about ignoring cover, so, I drop the D-scythes on my guard and use the spare points to fill them out to a 6 man squad. Suddenly, that unbound list is much more manageable, and GW just made sure that I'm going to buy a lot more models...

The sideboard notion had been rumored and further debunked. Not saying it isn't possible, though. The issue with that is that 40k just costs too much to do this effectively. A sideboard or list change may be a handful of models in another game. I cannot imagine 500pt style sideboards for the game with hard swings between 3 Russes or a pile of dudesmen.

To me it seems like Unbound (or rather the concept of armies getting buffs if they are Bound) is a concept ripped straight from Warmachine tier lists. In Warmachine you can take anything in your faction with very few restrictions but then can get benefits if you deliberately limit yourself within a certain themed force. This is a great system and rewards people for taking themed lists to the point that they are still very competitive. The problem is that this is very tricky to implement in 40k, the existing FOC system had no concept of army buffs for restricting yourself (it was just a framework for the army to be built in). It seems like we are moving from the existing system that sat roughly in the middle of the 'use whatever you want vs theme/balance' scale, to a dual system with one on each extreme of the scale and nothing left in the middle as a reference point.

I think people are getting way too worked up over this though. If they implement 'Bound' armies properly to the point that the buffs balance things out nicely then we get the best of both worlds - its pretty much the definition of balance (take anything against anything and its a fair fight). If the Unbound system ends up being stupidly powerful in comparison (which tbh based on GWs track record is more likely) then again its no issue because a) competitive tournaments won't allow it and b) casual gamers will still be able to refuse to play pick up games if they don't want to face Unbound armies. The ONLY people that it effects are the people who literally don't care about the rules anyway, people who play at home with their mates and want to use Orks and Sisters of Battle and Nids have always been able to use their models like this and have never needed GW to produce official rules stating this.

Long time supporter of 40k, been around since RT.
I actually think 6th had a lot going for it. There was codex imbalances that came close to ruining it for me, but as long as I was with friends I had a ton of fun.

But if what that WD article said is true and anyone can just bring anything they want, then I'm out. I'll be done. Sure, I could work around the gaky rules and stupid people with their stupid lists, but its more about how the GW game designers have no clue what they're doing and don't really care. They're like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, oblivious of everything around them. They don't listen to their customers and don't care to.

Every time I see these "This is Great News" pronouncements from GW I feel the desire to put my head in an oven.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Well, from the small bit we read in the white dwarf, you can run your army two ways in the next rulebook, so I don't see how one gamer will be able to tell another "you can't do that." I have a legal unbound list, you have a legal battle forged army, their both correct points, let's game. If it is in the rule book, it is legal. Like it said

"The only limit to your games now, are the models you have."

3rd edition had a similar example in the Catachan jungle fighters subcodex and IG armored company lists. I played against each exactly once and they were some of the least fun games I played exceeded only by the easily abusable 3.5 chaos codex. The entire premise of both was to basically take most of your army and make them almost useless which doesn't lead to a fun interactive game. I simply told the guy "no thanks" when he offered them on future game days (as did pretty much everyone else in the group after playing against them or spectating a game versus them). I suspect the same thing will happen with unbound lists outside of planned events like apoc days at FLGS. If you don't think that players self select opponents currently then you must have an incredibly forgiving local meta or are not very perceptive. Hell, I can't even get most people to play my deathwing army created back in mid 5th edition when they sucked!

Excited for the new revision. As a Warhammer Fantasy player the changes to psychic powers and the Psychic Phase worry my slightly. The Magic Phase is a huge time sink in Fantasy games, as players think about which spells they are going to cast, and with how many dice, and whether they will dispell or not, etc. This could really bloat the time it takes to play a game of 40k. For my Tyranids, it is particularly troubling, as my movement phase is already longer than most armies - and now my heavily Psychic army is going to require lots of time in the Psychic Phase. I really hope that dispelling (denying) is quite modest in scope, as most powers (aside from Eldar and Divination) aren't powerful enough to really warrant the need to be dispelled. Particularly, I feel this way with my Tyranid powers.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.

HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...

No one thing is killing WoW, just as no one thing will kill 40k. But make no mistake WoW is on a firm decline, just as 40k may be on the cusp of doing itself. Just as WoW has seen a very notable decline in its playerbase (from over 12 million at its peak to 7 million or so now and dropping every year, closing in on half it's peak subscription base) as the market moves towards different types of games (as opposed to yet another Class based Fantasy MMO), so to is 40k facing a similar situation with more competition providing a larger array of game types than ever before, and doing it far more competently than ever before. Eight years ago your options in most game stores were 40k, Fantasy, and maybe Warhahordes. Now Fantasy is almost nonexistent many places and Warhamhordes far outselling it, and other games have gained real traction, such as XWing, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Malifaux, Infinity, Dropzone Commander, etc.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.

HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...

I will believe GW is going to go away when I see it. Right now, the financials show a ~10% drop off in revenue occurred, and the company burned some cash.

If they are coming out with a new edition, there are going to be some new sales. Is it going to be enough to restore them to where they were? That's a long shot. Is it going to be enough to rectify some of the issues? Of course.

More likely, this is going to be a learning experience for the company. Releasing a new edition so close to the release of the last one is going to erode some consumer confidence. It's going to teach them how frequently they can make major rules changes, for good or for ill.

When I put down $100+ for a book, I want to have the confidence that the book will be useful for a while. No matter what I read about the new ruleset, I am going to hang off and get a mini edition when it becomes available on eBay. And I have no plans on buying more models, at least from GW. I believe I have at least one of every CSM model that's currently available, and most of my other armies are complete enough as is.

There's a lot of people who are going to do the same simply because they have already plunked down enough on 6th edition + supplements + dataslates + whatever. I don't see this being a great thing for GW, if the idea is that people are going to spend more money on models they may have hit a wall.

Powerguy wrote:
If the Unbound system ends up being stupidly powerful in comparison (which tbh based on GWs track record is more likely) then again its no issue because a) competitive tournaments won't allow it and b) casual gamers will still be able to refuse to play pick up games if they don't want to face Unbound armies. The ONLY people that it effects are the people who literally don't care about the rules anyway, people who play at home with their mates and want to use Orks and Sisters of Battle and Nids have always been able to use their models like this and have never needed GW to produce official rules stating this.

Except that will be a problem for players who want to play with an Unbound List. Say someone who wants to play an all-tank IG (sorry, AM) list just for the fun/fluff of it. No one will want to play with him, citing "it's too OP". Now, every player who made an Unbound army gets alienated by everyone else except for each other. This might create a schism between those who play unbound and others who play battle-forged, and thus divide the fandom into two hostile camps.

Could it also be that Unbound armies utilize a percentage based system rather than the FOC? That would resolve some of the conflicting rumors floating around prior to today.

rollawaythestone wrote:
Could it also be that Unbound armies utilize a percentage based system rather than the FOC? That would resolve some of the conflicting rumors floating around prior to today.

I can't imagine what those percentages would be after reading the example of an army of all Leman Russes or All ForgeFiends Defilers etc.

 Eldarain wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
Could it also be that Unbound armies utilize a percentage based system rather than the FOC? That would resolve some of the conflicting rumors floating around prior to today.

I can't imagine what those percentages would be after reading the example of an army of all Leman Russes or All ForgeFiends Defilers etc.

Well, taking a hint from Fantasy, up to 50% of an army could be drawn from Heavy, Elite, FA, etc. 1000 points of Leman Russes? 1000 points of Daemonforge units? I'm not an AM player, but the statements made in the White Dwarf don't seem to disconfirm that this could be possible. Maybe the Tau claim does. Four Riptides and some Broadsides adds up to more than 1000, right?

Buckle your seatbelt Dorothy because Kansas is going bye bye...

Unbound sounds like a cool idea. I only hope that battle-forge army bonuses can match up to unbound rules, or I might have to run me an army of 6 wraithknights.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.

HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...

This is a bit off topic, but....

There is a big difference between this and a MMO. With an online game, anyone can go online at any time and find someone to play. Not so with a tabletop game. Your time frame for play is limited, the location is limited and you have to actually find someone to play with.

The online games don't require the players to agree what the rules mean, how many points to play or what is legal to bring to a game.

If you cannot find people that you get along with in your geographic area..... that also play the game.... that also have the time to play.....and your schedules line up..... and agree with you on the rules....and agree on what to play, then you have no reason to buy anything. Even if you had those things, the group would be pretty small.

If the rules changes that have been rumored or alluded to continue to follow the trend there will be fewer and fewer people to play with. It doesn't have to drive everyone off to cause a corporate disaster, just enough to cause a serious disruption in people being able to find games.

I know, personally, many Warhammer 40k players that haven't played or bought anything in the last six months to a year. (I'm one of them) These weren't fair weather fans either, I'm talking about guys with 40k tattoos, decades of playing, thousands of dollars worth of books and models and what had been a true passion for the game and the background.

These rumored rules combined with the known rules from the latest releases have turned the game into something that is a completely different type of game. This is the problem that GW is facing. Not some flash-in-the-pan, new/shiny that is distracting everyone. It's their own bloat and rot that is causing the problems. People aren't rushing to some new thing, they are drifting off and finding new things.

Honestly, I dont have a problem with unbound, as long as I dont feel like I am bringing a knife to a gun fight.

IF someone is like "Hey dude I want to play an unbound game, you ready for some hi-jinks." "Sure thing"



If little timmy wants to use his riptide, with dante and jump troopers with terminators I will happily play against that list with no problems. If old john wants to play his night lords army with all raptors I am cool with that too. Sure we could always do that before but now it is nice that there is a structure in place that we can reference when we want to do such things. I like that they are giving us rules for OPTIONS that we can decide to use or not.

I just assume that for most adults they can pull on their big boy pants and assume some measure of responsibility for who they are playing and planning ahead.

Also most of those BS lists that people list are laughable in how threatening they actually are. 8 riptides is nothing. What makes the riptides threatening is the buff commander, guess what you are still limited by the rules of the army and you are limited to one. A white scars biker army will rip 8 riptides to shreds. So on and so forth. A balanced FOC army can deal with a lot of the spam reasonably well and then win on missions.

I can't wait for this book to come out. So many new and interesting rules are rumored for it that there might be some fun in games again. I can't imagine tournaments letting unbound armies in because they like their rose tinted glasses.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.

HAHAHA yeaaaah we been hearing that for years... and guess what MMO is still king with no sight in end, every mmo thats come along since is dead and buried.... every blockbuster that would kill wow... had a large chunk of that playerbase return to wow... so if thats the case it makes GW mightier... the only difference is that changing formats in 40k or its ocmpetition is MUCH more expensive and a 80$ CD key...

I will believe GW is going to go away when I see it. Right now, the financials show a ~10% drop off in revenue occurred, and the company burned some cash.

If they are coming out with a new edition, there are going to be some new sales. Is it going to be enough to restore them to where they were? That's a long shot. Is it going to be enough to rectify some of the issues? Of course.

More likely, this is going to be a learning experience for the company. Releasing a new edition so close to the release of the last one is going to erode some consumer confidence. It's going to teach them how frequently they can make major rules changes, for good or for ill.

When I put down $100+ for a book, I want to have the confidence that the book will be useful for a while. No matter what I read about the new ruleset, I am going to hang off and get a mini edition when it becomes available on eBay. And I have no plans on buying more models, at least from GW. I believe I have at least one of every CSM model that's currently available, and most of my other armies are complete enough as is.

There's a lot of people who are going to do the same simply because they have already plunked down enough on 6th edition + supplements + dataslates + whatever. I don't see this being a great thing for GW, if the idea is that people are going to spend more money on models they may have hit a wall.

thing for me though is this, cars is my other passion, now my car will get me 300km on a tank for fuel 65-70L... and at $1.60 a L or more... a rule book for 2 years not a bad deal compared to going for a nights driving.

as to armies. i am glad my csm is fully magnetized up now, because its all going to change again. and im ok with that. i have i think every model in the codex. except for possesed and defiler... so really when you have this and other things cost way more... 50 a year for a rulebook... not so bad.

and even losing some revenue GW is far in the green here, its not like they are losing money, just making less... and as every man and his dog pops up kickstarters for models etc that WIL pull money away from GW. so when GW financials shows them Losing money rather than a solid profit, thats when i will be worried about them.

now with 7th around the corner and on limited info i can say im not worried about things like this unbound shenanagins because if people are struggling to pay for the rulebook they sure as hell arent buying 6 more riptides. its just not a major concern. 40k has always been an arms race, now its getting bigger and more expensive, but as i have said before with the points structure in place there is still only so much you can jam in. and those BS deathstars... well lets be real honest here, NOTHING in the FOC was even slowing them down, now you have the option to if someone plays that kind of stuff take a nice nasty list of your own and thrash them, then when they decide its not funyou can go back to normal games where the douchebaggery is left at home

MWHistorian wrote:Long time supporter of 40k, been around since RT.
I actually think 6th had a lot going for it. There was codex imbalances that came close to ruining it for me, but as long as I was with friends I had a ton of fun.

But if what that WD article said is true and anyone can just bring anything they want, then I'm out. I'll be done. Sure, I could work around the gaky rules and stupid people with their stupid lists, but its more about how the GW game designers have no clue what they're doing and don't really care. They're like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, oblivious of everything around them. They don't listen to their customers and don't care to.

+100 I feel exactly the same mate. If all this crap is true I am out of the playing side of the hobby. For sure GW people don't listen and don't care.

Harriticus wrote:Every time I see these "This is Great News" pronouncements from GW I feel the desire to put my head in an oven.

Please also notice that there was usage of the following expressions, "The possibilities are endless ", "the only limit to your games now are the models you have in your collection", "Thrilling staff" .... That last one got me on my toes...

With this Exciting news, I can now run the All-Pyrovore army I have always wanted!

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

thing for me though is this, cars is my other passion, now my car will get me 300km on a tank for fuel 65-70L... and at $1.60 a L or more... a rule book for 2 years not a bad deal compared to going for a nights driving.

as to armies. i am glad my csm is fully magnetized up now, because its all going to change again. and im ok with that. i have i think every model in the codex. except for possesed and defiler... so really when you have this and other things cost way more... 50 a year for a rulebook... not so bad.

and even losing some revenue GW is far in the green here, its not like they are losing money, just making less... and as every man and his dog pops up kickstarters for models etc that WIL pull money away from GW. so when GW financials shows them Losing money rather than a solid profit, thats when i will be worried about them.

now with 7th around the corner and on limited info i can say im not worried about things like this unbound shenanagins because if people are struggling to pay for the rulebook they sure as hell arent buying 6 more riptides. its just not a major concern. 40k has always been an arms race, now its getting bigger and more expensive, but as i have said before with the points structure in place there is still only so much you can jam in. and those BS deathstars... well lets be real honest here, NOTHING in the FOC was even slowing them down, now you have the option to if someone plays that kind of stuff take a nice nasty list of your own and thrash them, then when they decide its not funyou can go back to normal games where the douchebaggery is left at home

I get what you're saying about the cost of new books. Yeah, I spent more than that at dinner last night.

I am not that worried about Unbound, we only have a small piece of the puzzle so far and it might actually work out to be something enjoyable. I am reserving judgement.

How many other people feel the same way we do? Sure, I can afford to get a new book, but that doesn't mean I want to. I am used to the rules lasting a long time, and I would only want a new set if they address the problems I see in 6th edition (assault, hull points, finding ways to nerf Tau and Eldar). I bet there are a lot of people who think the same way, and I bet the new rules don't do much to address those concerns.

TBH, I think GW just sees this as a way to sell more models, and are betting on a new edition leading to a lot of sales for things besides books. We're going to see how much this affects their sales, there's a good write up of their current financials over here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540/578355.page#6799517

My guess is that they will break even with where they were, or lose a little on account of this.

Long time supporter of 40k, been around since RT.
I actually think 6th had a lot going for it. There was codex imbalances that came close to ruining it for me, but as long as I was with friends I had a ton of fun.

But if what that WD article said is true and anyone can just bring anything they want, then I'm out. I'll be done. Sure, I could work around the gaky rules and stupid people with their stupid lists, but its more about how the GW game designers have no clue what they're doing and don't really care. They're like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, oblivious of everything around them. They don't listen to their customers and don't care to.

*sigh. Just breathe a little? So new ed makes you want to leave the game, not because of the game per se but because of the designers?? I was around for 2nd, then broke until 5th and now started 6th. Tried a few other systems but the quality and lore of 40k keeps drawing me back (my subjective experience).

Why not just stick with 6th? Stick to the rules that as you say 'had a lot going for it'. Hell, I bought the digital rulebook 1 week before it was pulled from iTunes (thanks for the heads up GW, great use of the release blackout!! ) so they sure as hell are not getting any more money from me for a compiled ruleset with a few changes to FOC (if that's all they are doing).

Channel some Jack Sparrow and peruse the new rules then decide to toss it or use it.

Don't forget that Dakka is a hotbed of resentment that happens 99% of the time GW farts. Don't buy into it. We don't have the full rules and the possibility exists these new rumors are fake.

 snowman40k wrote:

We don't have the full rules and the possibility exists these new rumors are fake.

At this point the odds of it being fake are pretty low, wouldn't you say?

My army of GUOs will finally be realized. Very, very, very slow death shall come to all.

At this point the odds of it being fake are pretty low, wouldn't you say?

My army of GUOs will finally be realized. Very, very, very slow death shall come to all.

Perhaps. Like someone mentioned earlier though we've got 2-3 pages from a supposed WD article.



We just don't know how it's all going to fit in.

One question I have, is will core concepts change? ie, will shooting/assault work differently? if it's just psychic phase, i couldn't care and will stick with 6th. GW will most-likely try and milk more cash from us by releasing psychic and mission cards, and as long as the core concepts don't really change, then i'll keep 6th, buy the cards, and be sitting pretty with the updated rules.