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.

I guess I, and my little group of 40k players left after 6th decimated 7/8s of them to leave 40k, don't worry so much about the 7th edition. Why? Because we decided to work with 6th, house rule what we need to balance things and be done with the GW rules-wreck train.

Regarding 7th, so far the only information to leak out is what is being done to make sure we sell more of the big expensive model kits. The game has turned into a complete train wreck and, by the sounds of it, it is going to get worse with the upcoming edition.

As for the Unbound thing. Was never needed for campaign/narrative play. For that you could always choose to ignore the FOC and build your narrative scenario (much like a LOTR-SBG one). This is ONLY being added to allow people to spam large model, LOW styled armies. Simply put, it is not for the gamers, it is solely for the GW revenue train.

Finally, it is bad enough the rules were $75.... nobody sees a problem that the new rules are expected to be $100?!? Just for rules?!? The GW insanity just doesn't stop now a days. But who is the more insane.... the insane, or the people following the insane?

Glad my group and I are done with it, otherwise we probably would be upset at what has leaked so far. GW has officially become a one trick pony (40k) and they are going to milk it for all it is worth before the train crashes hard.

 Squidbot wrote:

 vadersson wrote:
Hey gang,

So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here, it looks like 40K will not be any fun for the casual player anymore. I don't even have a Riptide or Broadside.

It would be a real shame if 40K killed off new players after less than a month. I hope someone writes a good review of the new rulebook so I can determine if I really want to keep getting into this game. Otherwise, looks like my models go back on ebay where I found them...

Thanks,
Duncan

I wouldn't make any decisions yet, Duncan. Internet forums tend to be quite.... what's the word... unbalanced (Go ahead, people, take that joke). Wait until; the new edition has been out a while, and people have settled down, and had a read/play of the new stuff.
This could be a storm in a teacup. Or it could be awful. It's really too early to say, despite all the negativity being thrown around here.

The rumor from 5/5 says you can mash forged detachments together (within allied chart allowances) or play whatever you want.

Frankly, that is not good news at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Arun wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
The fear right now is the unknown. Will 7th edition "break" WH40k for too many players as they find out there are too many unreasonable hurdles to overcome?

you know whats gonna do it for me? If the next codexes they release start looking different than the current line.

Depends on what they intend to achieve. If they decide to toss out random charts for more random charts and say bye bye to FOC as a whole, it will look very strange indeed.

Sigh. No it doesn't.

 Squidbot wrote:
Sigh. No it doesn't.

 Kroothawk wrote:


via another anonymous source on Faeit 212
Additional information that a Battle Forged list can take as many detachments as they wish, and still get bonus's.. The Unbound lists, is very much whatever you want to throw in to do a battle, and you get to choose which you want to play, and your opponent can do the same.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Wouldn't this then put a simple ally list (which can be fluffy) at a disadvantage against the entire armies shoved together as well though?

Possibly. Though I can't say I've ever personally played against an allied army that was constructed and intended to be as balanced as a single codex. It doesn't need to be power gamer stuff, but naturally people ally in units that fill the gaps in their own. It allows an allied force to have far fewer weaknesses than a mono force, at least that's my experience.

StarTrotter wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Bahaha, I just had a thought:

Necrons are now the Dwarves of 40k. There is an entire phase that they essentially don't get to take part in!

Along with Tau and DE you mean

unmercifulconker wrote:And any self-respecting BT player.

MWHistorian wrote:And SOB.

WarOne wrote:And Khorne 'zerker armies....

Hah, I did in fact forget about those! BT at least should get some bonus on the defensive end hopefully!

Although, depending on changes to the Allies chart, many of those can still ally in a psyker (Farseers for DE/Tau, Inquisitors for BT/SoB).

Do Necrons get any decent allies that are psykers?

Either way, yeah, looks like there are a decent number of armies that basically ignore the psychic phase. I wonder if SoB Acts/Priest Hymns will get moved to the psychic phase via FAQ.

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.

I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..

I can't speak for others, but my view is I don't need or want frequent changes of the game. I play other games if I want variety. I would greatly prefer GW to "finish" 40K, stop messing around with the rules and codexes, and make campaign books and optional rules for people who want even more variety.

I'd prefer them to finish 40K and make some other new interesting games to go alongside it for variety, rather than trying to sell me the same product over and over again with a reducing time period between each version.

Beautifully said and exalted! This is what GW HAS to do now that they made the decision they are a one trick pony. Should work well for them, not so good for the customers.

Oh, that rumour, I thought you were referring to the WD leaks. Well, good job that Faeit rumour is totaly reliable, written in stone, and totally negates my reply to the new guy.
Oh wait....

What I meant is that if the new codexes look different - either different size (length, breadth) compared to the current ones, or book jackets instead of hardcover, no longer the traditional interior layout etc.

I'm an OCD kid and them not managing to update all armies via 1 format before moving on to the next would really make me pull my hair out. At least the previous formatting prior to the 6th edition codexes was more or less the same layout from Eldar (November 2006) all the way to the last 5th ed dex (late 2011 Necrons I think).

That sounds awful. It's essentially just Unbounded but with a troops tax each time you need more slots than the FOC allows.

I guess it can be easily house ruled though to only allow 1 detachment per 2000 points.

 vadersson wrote:
Hey gang,

So I just played my first ever game of 40K a week ago. Now I am not so sure I will continue in this game. I had invested a bit (too much) in my Tau army, but with things I am reading here...

Please stop there. Don't judge the future, present or past of 40K on Dakka's news&rumours section, just please don't! You'll be believing that the sky's falling any second now and that things were amazing yesterday. The jadedness is infectious

No psyker armies are the cool kids anyways.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment; you can't say "nothing was stopping you outside of your opponent" as if that's an impediment so minor as to be unworthy of even a moment's consideration. Lots of people who play 40K are pedants who refuse to think outside the box GW puts them in; remember the "40K Approved" stamp appearing in FW books? I remember exactly the argument you're using here being used by people then as well - there's no need for FW to explicitly say this or that unit is allowed, because all you need is opponent's permission anyway, and technically anyone could still refuse to play FW units even with the stamp. It sounds logical, but it doesn't account for the reasons why people refuse to play FW(or non-FoC games), and a major one is "s'not in da rulez, is it guv". Put it in the rules, and the majority of those people will accept it, and that's generally a large enough number to shift the direction of social pressure from "no" by-default, to "yes" by-default - for anyone who already games with people capable of thinking outside the rules, it makes no difference, but for anyone else, it's not giving them permission, it's making it more likely their opponent will.

I don't deny that there are some very pedantic people out there who refuse to vary from the rules even slightly (represented most clearly by the type of person who was fine with facing a Griffon the day before the new Guard 'Dex hit, but not ok with it the next day despite the FW rules being exactly the same), but at the same time I don't like people acting as if GW's new "Unbound" mode is like they've removed some sort of highly restrictive shackle from their legs. This can only lead to bigger problems.

I personally don't have a problem with no FOC. I do have a problem with it though when it's done because fixing the problems with 6th got thrown into the "too hard basket" because it was taking too much dev time away from forging more narratives.

Constrained rules are great for tournaments that need a defined structure. Heck, if people want to play that way too it is totally up to them.

Causally though, it has to be by consent what you do but I agree with HBMC that you can do whatever you want, but make sure if your going to have fun with doing whatever you want at least try to have the other people have fun too. You cannot please everyone so make sure what you play is okay with your friends and fellow hobbyists.

 Squidbot wrote:

Auswin wrote:

I don't think there's anything "very clearly" in any of this. We're all taking two vaguely-written pages and drawing huge conclusions from them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this.
The hysteria is quite amusing.

It's not one of Dakka's finest moments, that's for sure. And I've been around a long time. Things will calm down after the community figures out that "Battle-Forged" and "Unbound" won't actually change much. Hell, "Battle-Forged" games might be an improvement over 6th, depending on the new allies chart, etc. Until then, you might need to strap yourself in. Or just avoid certain Dakka boards/threads for the next 2 weeks. That might be my plan.

IMO, some of this reaction has less to do with 7th and more to do with built-up angst over various aspects of 6th.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/10-crazy-legal-40k-armylists-soon-enough.html

Some lists made, some seem really fun which would be a site to see on the table, particularly 187 pink horrors or 30 thunderwolves.

Others, like the 10 riptides, as previously said, both players should be having fun, not just the guy who spent the most to get 10 riptides.

Honestly I'm starting to think the pendulum is swinging both ways a bit too far in terms of reactions.

The idea that a person could, even if it was legal, force anyone to play something they don't want too, is ridiculious.

On the other hand the idea that this update will completely break the game and make it unplayable is (a lot) less ridiculious, but I am holding out hope that we're not looking at the full rules here and that the overall interactions are more complex than what they gloss over in the article.

I think the largest issue with Battle-Forged vs Unbound is that Unbound was squarely the province of Apocalypse armies. Apocalypse was literally designed with a "Throw every model you have on the table" mentality. Certain other things were also squarely the province of Apocalypse: D strength weapons and super heavy vehicles to name two examples. Escalation and SHA were both met with grumblings because they basically began the bleed of Apocalypse into "regular" 40k games by introducing the afore mentioned rules. BUT, regular 40k was at least still limited by FOC to a certain degree.

Now that is gone. In an almost literal sense, the game of 40k is gone. Dead and buried. Now there is only Apocalypse.

My initial reaction is now calming down a bit since you are not forced to play with some nasty unbound lists and you would be unlikely unable to find a game if you showed up with 10 riptides.

However is this what the hobby is getting pushed towards then, segregating certain players and forcing you to pick your battles more?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
2nd edition was a long time ago. The majority of people playing today have been brought up on 3rd, 4th and 5th editions.

When you look at the amount of whinging and moaning™ that has arisen through 6th edition, it is clear that on DakkaDakka at least, there is a strong resentment of the changes in the rules from the 3/4/5 paradigm, and that is hardly going to be assuaged by changing even further in the "wrong" direction.

From what I have seen there was just the same complaining during 5th. There are also allot of people who like 6th, and people who are still optimistic about 7th. Unfortunately they are shouted down as white knights™ or insults about being new players.

It seems to me most of the complaining is coming from people who are worried about tournaments (who will ban unbound army's if they don't work) and people who play with strangers. Many people who play with groups seem to be enthusiastic about these new rules. I know I am. I also know there is one person who won't be, he is also the one person in the group who list tailors, plays WAAC lists and math hammers the hell out of everything. Personally I think this is an edition for people who want a narrative war game rather than a competitive game. A game that gives you structure to do what you want, rather than a strict rules set that may ban you from doing many things.

I have much less problems with playing against an unbound list that I did against a perfectly legal Drago Star in 5th that just stomped anything I put down on the table.

Well as long as they don't make Psykers complete crap I'm fine with a new phase. It'll be just my luck to recently start collecting Daemons and have them neutered before I ever get to play a game though.

It is literally just playing with toy soldiers now. No need for the rulebook, just start practicing making pew-pew shooting noises ready for the end of the month ...

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:

leth said: 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.

That's fine if you're playing in a club of guys who all know each other well. But, in places where gaming is a bit more sparse and you have to rely on pickup games or conventions to get some matches in, this stuff really hurts. You pretty much gotta take whatever games you can get, but you never know what you're going to face. Maybe it will be 7 Heldrakes and a transcendent C'tan. Because that will be fun. I understand that GW seems to think that the entire gaming community exists within their corner store and adults can pick up the baton and negotiate or fix their rules in an improvised way. For those of us who don't live in that world, it'd really be nice to just simply be able to show up and play a game with someone according to existing rules and know that you won't have to potentially face the decision of taking your gear and going back home or engage in a very unfun, one-sided match.

This is exactly right. If you don't have a regular club or gaming group where you can make plenty of house rules, somewhat clearly written rules are very important if you just want to pick up and play. I was in a club for years, now people(like myself) have changed to different games than 40K and mostly play at home. Picking up and playing a game of 40K is going to get even harder if this update is going to be like it sounds.

I have only been away from 40K for some months because other games (FoW and WM) took my time. When I got back, I found out that my army had its name changed (IG to AM), that some of my units wasn't usable in the regular codex anymore (two Medusa tanks, several special characters that I used to field), that super heavies were now allowed in regular games, and we are getting a new edition in a month, effectively invalidating the large Apocalypse expanision book that I purchased only year ago.

When I took a break from 40K, I was longing for tighter and better written rules and especially somewhat balanced codexes. It only looks like GW has been taking the game in the opposite direction.

I have sat on the sidelines for about 6-8 years at least, playing a different system with a good ruleset (FOW). Every now and then I would look at GWs website and see what was going on and always the same...rehash, rehash, rehash. This is not something new, it's been going on for years, not sure why there is disappointment or surprise involved for anyone.
I don't really care about the changes to the FOC, it won't affect our group and as gamers, you have the power to dictate how a game is played. If you like tournies, then you follow those rules or run your own. Still not forced to play, I'm sure tournies will develop that have certain restrictions to spice it up (at least they should).
I just want a decent ruleset that creates a fun game for approx 2-3 hours that I can enjoy with friends. If GW cannot provide that, then it loses my business, no big deal, i have other stuff (need to finish my Israelis and Jordanians anyway). I am actually looking forward to seeing what 7th entails, and I may just be getting back in to 40K at the right time...

Unbounded armies are a fine idea for when you want to have an unstructured throw down. It won't break the game because from a strict viewpoint it isn't a rule, it is an absence of a rule. Just ignore Unbounded and the problem goes away.

The problem will only occur if some people want to play Unbounded lists against Bounded lists, relying on the as yet unknown advantages that accrue to the Bounded side in that situation to create a balance that GW have not only signally failed to achieve with any of their other material but in fact made worse in 6th edition by Allies and Flyers, etc.

I saw on other news and rumors posts throughout the internet that there will be a new rulebook but the changes and errata and faqs will be printable, so people with present rulebook won't need to buy the new one. Is that so?
I guess it may be logic due to so many people buying stronghold and escalation..

My thoughts on the rumor concerning the "free" .pdf upgrade of your 6th edition rulebook to 6.5/7 is NOT an upgrade to the rulebook (BRB) per se.

Rather, a whole set of "new" FAQs bringing all of the existing codexes/dataslates/supplements into line with 7th edition rules.

I believe we saw something similar when 6th edition dropped.

To the folks that think they are going to be screwed over by the psychic phase because there army does not have psykers...

I believe you will still get to participate in the psychic phase. Obviously you are not going to get to CAST powers but you will get a pool of points to resist psychic powers with.

Whether you will get the chance to prevent your opponent from casting "blessing" type powers is obviously up in the air.

However, even psychically "null" races have a chance to prevent offensive powers or maledictions from affecting them.

I am anxious to see if there are any other rules changes. Any tweaking of USRs, what about tweaks to CC to make it a little bit better.

2.5-3.5 weeks or so...

 Steve steveson wrote:

It seems to me most of the complaining is coming from people who are worried about tournaments (who will ban unbound army's if they don't work) and people who play with strangers. Many people who play with groups seem to be enthusiastic about these new rules. I know I am. I also know there is one person who won't be, he is also the one person in the group who list tailors, plays WAAC lists and math hammers the hell out of everything. Personally I think this is an edition for people who want a narrative war game rather than a competitive game. A game that gives you structure to do what you want, rather than a strict rules set that may ban you from doing many things.

Except this can be done better with tighter rules, not lax rules. More so, $75 - $100 for a "narrative" rule set? Asinine.

Here's a spoiler: Any edition of Warhammer 40k can be run as a narrative game. You don't need special rules to do it. And by making them, you are polluting your game further. Kilkrazy has long ago identified actual historical narrative games and how they build games around the idea a pre-set winner and loser of the "game" but still allowing for the loser to win based on narrative events. These new rulecards may be just that, but the thing already reeks of a cash grab.

Warmachine allows you to play whatever you want and considered to be far more balanced and tighter that Warhammer 40k. Instead of asinine restrictions on force organization, they provide bonuses to folks who want to play a narrative game. Meaning they have themed tier lists that provide proper bonuses. Games Workshop, from what we can tell so far, is trying to do this concept, but I doubt it will happen. Force Organization lists aren't the "fluffy" ones are they? Or is the Unbound lists?

The funny this is... Warmachine's rules for large games of anything goes are called "Unbound." I hope they trademarked that so they can sue Games Workshop. Would be hilarious:

http://privateerpress.com/files/NQ/36/teaser04.pdf

Edit: This new edition is why we haven't received any new FAQs for a year, it would seem. Now here's the test. Are we going to see a grand design strategy that clicks with all the 6E releases into 7E? How long does it take for pre-planning a revision like this?

 avedominusnox wrote:
I saw on other news and rumors posts throughout the internet that there will be a new rulebook but the changes and errata and faqs will be printable, so people with present rulebook won't need to buy the new one. Is that so?
I guess it may be logic due to so many people buying stronghold and escalation..

after 6th edition released, all armies got extensively faq'd / errata'd (e.g. to determine HPs for vehicles). But that doesnt mean you didnt need the 6th ed rulebook to make the transition. I'm guessing it will be the same in 7th. And, given the absence of a full fledged mini rulebook in the upcoming starter kit...

...have fun placing a $100 note in the grubby hands of a beaming redshirt at your local GW to get your copy of 7th edition exactly 23 months after 6th edition's release..