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.

 skink007 wrote:
I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.

Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.

Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.

One thing I do like about the idea of unbound armies is for small games. There are days where I'm in a crunch and only have 1.5 hours to burn.

My current options are:
1. Don't head to the store and have no game.
2. Try and find a way to make a semi-interesting 1,000 point list.

No.1 often happens, No.2 very rarely. Only because there are certain armies I feel like using (like GK) that simply can't adhere to force org while taking the units in that codex that interest me.

Yes, technically we've always been allowed to break force org and do our own thing, but oftentimes people don't like the idea of playing something that's not spelled out in the book.

This scenario would allow me to take elite choices and interesting HQs to fill 1,000 without being shackled to the force org and still get a game.

For those who rely on primary pick-up games, how often do you actually have a game against "That guy" who brings a super competitive netlist to a pickup game. And do you actually agree to play that guy?

Not sure how Unbound is any different than agreeing or not agreeing to play a cheese list, its purely optional

Loopstah wrote:
I've been thinking about this and have come to the startling conclusion that there are zero problems with 7th edition until you introduce players into the equation.

Players break the game, not the rules. Unfortunately people are always going to be gits so whatever GW do people will spoil the fun.

Being able to do what you want doesn't mean you should.

Please tell me that you didn't just put the blame of having a broken rule set on the players for actually finding the parts that are broken?

 streamdragon wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.

Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.

Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.

Well make the Genestealer Cult list anyway. Because why not? It'll be fun.

The thing about apocalypse is that you pretty much could not play without planning to play apocalypse ahead of time with your buddies. It took planning and set up. I feel that the "normal" rules should be usable for when you're at your buddies house, and the two of you suddenly want to throw together a quick game. There need to be guidelines for that.

PhantomViper wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I've been thinking about this and have come to the startling conclusion that there are zero problems with 7th edition until you introduce players into the equation.

Players break the game, not the rules. Unfortunately people are always going to be gits so whatever GW do people will spoil the fun.

Being able to do what you want doesn't mean you should.

Please tell me that you didn't just put the blame of having a broken rule set on the players for actually finding the parts that are broken?

You, 40k player! How dare you purchase our high quality (and high price) rulebook and not play to our specifications!

It's your fault those rules aren't better defined, you should have known better than to try to play competitively!

 skink007 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.

Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.

Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.

Well make the Genestealer Cult list anyway. Because why not? It'll be fun.

The thing about apocalypse is that you pretty much could not play without planning to play apocalypse ahead of time with your buddies. It took planning and set up. I feel that the "normal" rules should be usable for when you're at your buddies house, and the two of you suddenly want to throw together a quick game. There need to be guidelines for that.

See, I disagree with you re: Apocalypse. It might seem like it takes tons of planning, but it's really not any different than setting up a normal game.

Decide points, make a list.
Set up the board (which doesn't have to be a monster board if you're only playing, say, 2,000 points.)
Set DZs and objective markers.

Play.


All apocalypse (at least the old book, I haven't really read the new book) gave you was a different ruleset for deployment and objectives. Sure, it COULD be used to field massive 15,000 point armies, but it didn't have to be. I used it to play a 2v1 game at 4,000 points simply because it allowed me to field 2k Nids + 2k IG on the same side vs 2k Eldar and 2k Tau. I didn't have enough models ready to field either army at 4k. We did it at a friend's house on a 6x4 table.

I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

Auswin wrote:

Yes, technically we've always been allowed to break force org and do our own thing, but oftentimes people don't like the idea of playing something that's not spelled out in the book.

This scenario would allow me to take elite choices and interesting HQs to fill 1,000 without being shackled to the force org and still get a game.

I feel exactly the same way, even my close friends who I play with cannot easily be persuaded to go by a rule that isn't in the book. Not everyone is flexible, and this becomes even less so at an FLGS against someone who you don't know very well (or at all).

On the second point, I am particularly excited about how this ruleset will affect Grey Knights. Obviously this won't be competitive, but I am absolutely going to take a manly war council filled with independent characters, inquisitors, librarians, etc... I always feel hamstrung by the 2 HQ choice with GKs unless I am playing certain lists, because that is by far my favorite part of the Codex and who doesn't want a gang of Psycannon wielding, deep striking, divination psykers? It would also be kind of funny to cover the entire board in servo skulls...

PhantomViper wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.

I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.

If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?

We have.
As for the book, we will do what we always do, put out a donation Jar and we as a group buy the new book.

So if you already did this, why do you need a new edition again? In fact, if you already disregard the rules anyway, why didn't you and your buddies kept playing Rogue Trader?

What do you have aginst my group buying the book?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

All of my Grey Knight units will be generating Warp Charges, I'm excited about that, everything's a psyker, even my vehicles!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

I'd also say the Flying Circus would be up there - With Fatey, LoC, and 2-3 Tzeentch DPs at ML3, and 2 squads of Horrors you're looking at 15-18 + D6 warp charge points per turn. IG can't get anywhere near that.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

All of my Grey Knight units will be generating Warp Charges, I'm excited about that, everything's a psyker, even my vehicles!

Hopefully my Adepta Sororitas will be doing the opposite as everything has Adamantium Will, even my vehicles

What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?

Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.

I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"

Yakety Sax playing the whole time...

Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.

 Alex C wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?

Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.

I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"

Yakety Sax playing the whole time...

Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.

They only go away if you discard the card or complete the objective.

 Alex C wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?

Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.

I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"

Yakety Sax playing the whole time...

Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.

I read it slightly differently, where you claim objectives at the end of each turn (keeping a running tally of VP, I assume). When you claim an objective, you then draw a new one to replace the one you already finished. Or, you could discard an objective (presumably with some limit on number discarded per turn) to draw a new one if the one you had was not doable or just not worth the effort.

I think that's a pretty interesting break from "calculate VP at the end"; although those missions are still in the rule book also from the sound of it.

 Alex C wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new objective system?

Seems a bit wonky to me. All that work you did to ensure you could secure the objective next turn, only for it to disappear and the new one is on the other end of the table.

I can just imagine my commander; "Kill the enemy leader! Oh wait, never mind, take that hill! Forget it, take that other hill! Ooops, cancel that, just get your ass off this end of the battlefield!"

Yakety Sax playing the whole time...

Seriously, that gak makes Lt. Gorman look like a tactical genius.

From what I am reading, you can keep a card until you complete it, then you can get another. If you can't/dont want to do that card, next turn you can discard and get another. For example, if you get the "Cast a Psychic power" objective and you cast a power, next turn you get a new objective. If you get blocked, you can keep the card until you are able to cast if you want. If you don't have a psyker, next turn you can discard and get a new objective.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Hopefully my Adepta Sororitas will be doing the opposite as everything has Adamantium Will, even my vehicles

I'd forgotten about them putting that into Shield of Faith until you mentioned it!

Probably would have remembered if my Sisters were ever on the table anymore...

 Anpu42 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.

I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.

If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?

We have.
As for the book, we will do what we always do, put out a donation Jar and we as a group buy the new book.

So if you already did this, why do you need a new edition again? In fact, if you already disregard the rules anyway, why didn't you and your buddies kept playing Rogue Trader?

What do you have aginst my group buying the book?

Did I say that I had anything against your group buying the book? Stop trying to put words in my mouth, please.

What I don't understand is why you wrote a fairly lengthy post praising Unbound when in reality this change seems to be completely irrelevant to the way that your group plays the game...

Which is what all these arguments boil down to. To all the players that prefer to play narrative battles without any semblance of balance or competitiveness involved, this rule is irrelevant since they could just ignore the FOC and play like they wanted in any previous edition anyway (and I did it several times myself in the context of narrative campaigns, its quite fun).

To all the people that just wan't to head down to the shop, find a random opponent and play the game, this rule is detrimental because it will just add another barrier to be negotiated before the game can be enjoyed.

And to all the TO's it is also detrimental because it means that they need to add further restrictions to their events, meaning that more players will have a reason to disagree with the tournament rules with the potential lower turn out that that entails.

This rule is BAD for the game, no matter what way you look at it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.

Ah, comprehension fail on my part then...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
For those who rely on primary pick-up games, how often do you actually have a game against "That guy" who brings a super competitive netlist to a pickup game. And do you actually agree to play that guy?

Not sure how Unbound is any different than agreeing or not agreeing to play a cheese list, its purely optional

I don't understand why it is so hard to understand be here we go again... alot of people don't have a choice in who they play in pick up games. I frequently arrive at the store and find a single person to play against that isn't already in a game or have one prescheduled. It is a choice of playing that person or going home and wasting the 25 mile trip each way. Having the "core" rules exclude armies that are not fun to play against as standard eliminates alot of the risk in playing against the types of armies that are not fun to face. I don't care about losing but I don't want the result determined largely before I roll any dice either.

In 3rd edition (when I last faced a "competitive" crowd of any sort), no one brought an army of leman russ tanks for years. Why? Because it wasn't standard 40k and they'd have to "ask" to use it and in all likelihood they'd be rejected. When the armored lists came out and made armies of mostly AV14 tanks "legal", they appeared. Why? Because it was now standard. I played the guy once and then had to tell him I didn't want to play (along with everyone else) which ended up hurting his feelings and causing uncomfortable scenes for weeks. The same thing happened with the stupid catachan jungle fighter codex with the same guy. He wasn't a bad guy nor a power gamer and he really was a great hobbyist who painted up armies simply for variety (we even called him "army of the week" *insert name here*)... but some of the armies he chose were not fun to play against. You could ALWAYS chose to deploy 3x the normal amount of terrain in a very lopsided fashion and give one side bonuses to ignore them while the other side had to deal with it... but you had to ask first and you'd likely be told no. With the catachan jungle fighter codex, it became standard and when it did someone showed up wanting to use it. I again tried it once and it was a waste of an evening and never wanted to play it again (and others didn't even bother when they read the terrain rules).

The simple fact is that if you make it legal someone eventually will want to use it and you may have no choice but to either play against it or go home. Yes, you can always refuse to play any one for any reason but making crap unfair and unfun lists "legal" means intrisically that you're more likely to face them or waste your time. It doesn't even have to be a TFG who wants to use it (the guy above wasn't one but simply an avid hobbyist) either but I don't doubt that more than a few TFGs will take advantage of this. I want to play a large skirmish game when I go to the store and not have to potentially negotiate a 40k pre-nup before every game complete with a checklist of what we're not potentially using. As in all things opinion, YMMV.

Again, for the folks who are wondering why people are complaining, the above is obviously contigent on the exact rules regarding the use of "unbound" armies which we don't have yet. In the end, I'm defaulting to experience both in 40k in particular and tabletop gaming in general. The "screw you" nonstandard armies in 3rd edition that became "standard" weren't fun to play against in my experience. The ally rules worried me from the second I saw them (both in terms of immediate abuse as well as a portent for the future) and my fears were indeed founded and expanded upon with future non-permission additions like dataslates, escalation, etc. When I look at the blurb GW has chosen to give us regarding Unbound armies, I will default to what has actually occured both in the past and just recently instead of putting my head in the sand. I certainly hope that I'm proven wrong though and that GW hasn't prioritzed sales over any semblance of fairness and balance yet again like with allies, dataslates, and detachments... but I'm not holding my breath.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.

IG only get 3 per Astra Militarum Detachment that ignore FOC.

 streamdragon wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
I
To me, Unbound sounds like laziness. Even ignoring the possibility of the crazy mega deathstar lists that will undoubtedly pop up, Unbound lists are simply GW refusing to make a rule set that supports narrative battles. Because it is not a rule set. It is a lack thereof. Yes, it is now technically legal to field your genestealer cult + PDF list. And it is legal to field Mad Max's warbuggy list as well, but there is nothing that will make a battle betweenfun in the rules because these rules such as they are don't actually have a game in mind. They have a display case army in mind that will look great and seem really cool, but play like crap.

Sadly, as was pointed out, my Genestealer Cult + PDF list is in fact illegal. Slipped my mind that Unbound still has to function along unit and ally matrix lines.

Which is funny, as that makes Unbound armies STILL more limited that actual Apocalype armies, and I don't see people complaining that Apocalypse is some unplayable nightmare where Riptides rule the earth with an iron fist and cockroach twinkies.

You did see where it said there was a new allies matrix?

 Ghaz wrote:
You did see where it said there was a new allies matrix?

Even then it's better to assume that Nids won't get anything for allies than get your hopes up and only have them crushed later.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.

IG only get 3 per Astra Militarum Detachment that ignore FOC.

Wyrdbane Psykers.

 warboss wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
For those who rely on primary pick-up games, how often do you actually have a game against "That guy" who brings a super competitive netlist to a pickup game. And do you actually agree to play that guy?

Not sure how Unbound is any different than agreeing or not agreeing to play a cheese list, its purely optional

I don't understand why it is so hard to understand be here we go again... alot of people don't have a choice in who they play in pick up games. I frequently arrive at the store and find a single person to play against that isn't already in a game or have one prescheduled. It is a choice of playing that person or going home and wasting the 25 mile trip each way. Having the "core" rules exclude armies that are not fun to play against as standard eliminates alot of the risk in playing against the types of armies that are not fun to face. I don't care about losing but I don't want the result determined largely before I roll any dice either.

In 3rd edition (when I last faced a "competitive" crowd of any sort), no one brought an army of leman russ tanks for years. Why? Because it wasn't standard 40k and they'd have to "ask" to use it and in all likelihood they'd be rejected. When the armored lists came out and made armies of mostly AV14 tanks "legal", they appeared. Why? Because it was now standard. I played the guy once and then had to tell him I didn't want to play (along with everyone else) which ended up hurting his feelings and causing uncomfortable scenes for weeks. The same thing happened with the stupid catachan jungle fighter codex with the same guy. He wasn't a bad guy nor a power gamer and he really was a great hobbyist who painted up armies simply for variety (we even called him "army of the week" *insert name here*)... but some of the armies he chose were not fun to play against. You could ALWAYS chose to deploy 3x the normal amount of terrain in a very lopsided fashion and give one side bonuses to ignore them while the other side had to deal with it... but you had to ask first and you'd likely be told no. With the catachan jungle fighter codex, it became standard and when it did someone showed up wanting to use it. I again tried it once and it was a waste of an evening and never wanted to play it again (and others didn't even bother when they read the terrain rules).

The simple fact is that if you make it legal someone eventually will want to use it and you may have no choice but to either play against it or go home. Yes, you can always refuse to play any one for any reason but making crap unfair and unfun lists "legal" means intrisically that you're more likely to face them or waste your time. It doesn't even have to be a TFG who wants to use it (the guy above wasn't one but simply an avid hobbyist) either but I don't doubt that more than a few TFGs will take advantage of this. I want to play a large skirmish game when I go to the store and not have to potentially negotiate a 40k pre-nup before every game complete with a checklist of what we're not potentially using. As in all things opinion, YMMV.

Again, for the folks who are wondering why people are complaining, the above is obviously contigent on the exact rules regarding the use of "unbound" armies which we don't have yet. In the end, I'm defaulting to experience both in 40k in particular and tabletop gaming in general. The "screw you" nonstandard armies in 3rd edition that became "standard" weren't fun to play against in my experience. The ally rules worried me from the second I saw them (both in terms of immediate abuse as well as a portent for the future) and my fears were indeed founded and expanded upon with future non-permission additions like dataslates, escalation, etc. When I look at the blurb GW has chosen to give us regarding Unbound armies, I will default to what has actually occured both in the past and just recently instead of putting my head in the sand. I certainly hope that I'm proven wrong though and that GW hasn't prioritzed sales over any semblance of fairness and balance yet again like with allies, dataslates, and detachments... but I'm not holding my breath.

I think warboss presents a well thought-out scenario here.

The argument that it will just be TFG's bringing cheesy un-fun lists is a little too black-and-white. People playing pickup games will be facing shades of grey in terms of the unbound armies. It won't always be clear whether they are facing a facestomper or just particularly effective list. And a lot of people fielding these lists won't necessarily be looking to cream opponents, but instead will be building lists thinking "well, these guys in my list are really cool so they should have the best rules." It's a lot like crazy characters in the rules proposal forum, where people feel their own particular force is special and is worthy of better rules.

Declining these sort of games is a bit more difficult; people will want the rational for why you're not playing them, and there evolves a whole lot of back-and-forth that frankly shouldn't be necessary for playing 40k, IMO.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suspect IG and Eldar too dominate the psychic phase

IG through quantity, and Eldar from Quality?

I'd put Nids on the list, at the very least for shutting down enemy powers (maybe getting a bonus to their denial rolls, or the enemy Psyker getting a negative modifer for SitW)

Well, IG and Eldar can put alot of FOC ignoring psykers on the board, gaining more Mastery LVLs.

IG only get 3 per Astra Militarum Detachment that ignore FOC.

Wyrdbane Psykers.

They don't ignore the FOC. In any case, I suspect the brotherhood of psyker rule will likely just count the unit as a single psyker instead of getting extra dice for each model.

I think the objective cards could be absolutely fascinating and precisely what I want in a game of 40k, provided the tasks are meaningful.

I hope it's not rudimentary stuff like "cast a pyschic power" and more game-modifying stuff. I'd love to see a gunline army be pressured into going to linebreaker, or an in-your-face assault list be forced to find a way to fall back and cap objectives on turn 2.

It's a wrinkle in the game. Sometimes these things hamper games, sometimes they improve them. I really hope it's the latter.

Right now there's a fairly standard way of winning objective based games. Stick a high toughness troop choice on it, or mass a large number of bodies on one. If that's switched up by forcing an elite choice or heavy support to end the turn on an objective we could see some really interesting cat-and-mouse micro gaming where one player could ignore the cards and play their strat for the over-arching objective, while the other is player on their heels but racking up points for small victories along the way.