40k 7th Edition release 24th may - All info in 1st post, psychic power cards added (5/21)

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.

**streamdragon**

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.

>snipped for brevity<

I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.

**ClockworkZion**

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.

Don't ignore FOC, and are still squishy ML1s. I'm not saying they'd be horrible to spam, I just don't know if they'd be enough to really win a game with, even if you went all in on an Unbound army with them.

**hotsauceman1**

Wait, Arent PRiests also Psykers

**ClassicCarraway**

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.

This is both true and false. Its true in that ulta-competative players will break down a rule book and try to purposefully find the most busted builds possible. Its simple human nature, and its been going on since gaming was a thing. Its nothing new, and its certainly not exclusive to Warhammer.

However, its false to put the blame solely on the players, because GW should know by now that their customer base has a significant population of WAAC players and plan accordingly. Yes, its more difficult with 40K than some other tabletop games because of the sheer variety of armies and units, but some of the more abusive units had to have been planned that way (seriously, how could they not have foreseen the Riptide, Heldrake, and Wave Serpent debacles???).

Anyway, back on topic, to me, the sky is not falling, there is no reason to sell my stuff yet. The small bit from WD hardly gives enough detail to create a well-informed opinion, and all this random speculation is just fanning the flames. Nobody seems to be talking about how these all-Riptide, all-Heldrake armies are going to score VPs, especially since the new missions seem to allow you to collect VPs at the end of the turn instead of the game (and if this gets carried over to the Eternal War missions, I'll be very happy). What if holding an objective gives you 1 VP for every turn you hold it? What if being wiped is no longer the auto-lose it used to be? What if the Battle Forged bonus is something akin to veteran abilities, so maybe the army can choose between Tank Hunter, Monster Hunter, and Shred USRs? Suddenly those all-Riptide lists don't look so bad to play against if every model you field has Monster Hunter! Again, there is still not enough info to really know how its all going to shake out.

**jasper76**

Accolade wrote:
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.

40k is all but dead at my FLGS...every once in a while, a player will have an army out in their car. If you ask around, the reason why is that none of the kids want to spend time bringing in an army for a pick up game just to get mowed down by the rich kid with more toys. So "Unbound" would probably be the death knell for 40k as a pick up game at my FLGS...this is totally why these rumors are disconcerting to me, because I like playing and meeting new people, but I don't like MtG or that Star Wars game.

**Samurai_Eduh**

If the psychic phase is anything like the Fantasy magic phase, you can only use 6 dice max per cast, with a significant chance of a miscast (perils).

Each power would have a casting value, with each psyker able to add his ML to the dice roll's total in an attempt to beat the casting value. I don't forsee leadership being used for psykers at all. If they did, in order to cast a power you would need to first pass a LD test, then you would need to make your casting attempt and even if you succeed, your opponent has the option to dispel.

**MWHistorian**

streamdragon wrote:
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.

>snipped for brevity<

I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.

I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.

**Lobokai**

MetalOxide wrote:
The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I love this shift from stale competitive play full of cookie-cutter lists, to more of a free for all style of play, where anything (up to a certain extent) can go. I think that this is the golden age for 40k.

Why are chaos players so poorly tuned into their own fluff? Night Lords =/= all raptors, not by a long shot.

**Azreal13**

I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

**streamdragon**

Ghaz 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.

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

I did. But as Clockwork points out:

ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I'm still basing all my thoughts on the current rules, only because I don't know the new rules. Believe me. I've got a metric crapton of spare IG bodies, genestealer arms and old school metal genestealer hybrid models ready to go if I can indeed pair the two forces together.

**ClockworkZion**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wait, Arent PRiests also Psykers

No. They have War Hymns which are not Psychic Powers but them leading sing-a-longs. Basically like this:

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, I still stand by that the psychic phase for IG will be Ok then. Better then what SM or other armies can do.

**streamdragon**

MWHistorian wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
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.

>snipped for brevity<

I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.

I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.

Warboss was commenting that certain "unfun" armies being allowed by rules means (such as Unbound) will mean having to play those. I suppose in my mind I was automatically lumping those players into TFG category unfairly. Replace instances of "TFG" with "TFA" (Those Frelling Armies). My point was that Unbound doesn't change the existance of broken armies. And for every broken army it adds, it adds an unknown number of not broken but still fun FOC breaking armies. Is that ration 1 broken to 1 not-broken? Who knows? Given that there are nigh-infinite lists out there, I'm thinking in the end the existance of Unbound is not going to really change the overall ration of TFA to not-TFA games.

**Accolade**

jasper76 wrote:

Spoiler:

Accolade wrote:
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.

40k is all but dead at my FLGS...every once in a while, a player will have an army out in their car. If you ask around, the reason why is that none of the kids want to spend time bringing in an army for a pick up game just to get mowed down by the rich kid with more toys. So "Unbound" would probably be the death knell for 40k as a pick up game at my FLGS...this is totally why these rumors are disconcerting to me, because I like playing and meeting new people, but I don't like MtG or that Star Wars game.

That's pretty sad, and I definitely sympathize. I really like 40k models, they're some of my favorite. But the game around the miniatures seems like it's turning into something I don't feel will be sustainable in the long run.

MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

streamdragon wrote:
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.

>snipped for brevity<

I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.

I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.

Yeah, TFGs won't be getting a whole lot of games in 7th any more than they did before; they aren't really the issue.

The issue is the massive grey area between acceptable and "cheesy" lists. People are going to disagree to a noticeable extent. Someone with all drakes will be easily enough turned-down, but armies of drakes and daemon princes will be defended as "fluff-driven." It's not exceptionally different from the current ally system, just way way more exacerbated.

That being said, ally abuse seems to be something people were universally asking to have dealt with in 7th, so I can't see why people would be excited about ally abuse being turned up to 11.

azreal13 wrote:I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

This.

**unmercifulconker**

azreal13 wrote:
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.

Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.

**warboss**

Accolade wrote:
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.

Thanks. The guy in my example wasn't a TFG but simply someone who built and painted up armies at an incredible rate. He literally had a new 1500-2000pt army every month (or two max) completely painted up for years. If they made rules for it, he tried it as long as it was 3rd edition legal (no grey partly built hordes for him EVER). He wasted his time and money on two armies that no one wanted to play against and I wasted two of my weeks worth of play finding that out. I'd rather not have that become the default. I don't play much now (I barely make a trip to the FLGS every 6-8 weeks roughly and half the times I don't play) so showing up and seeing some abomination of an 8 proxy Transformer Riptide unbound list as my only choice of a game wastes my only game time for the month or even longer. If that list wasn't "legal", that same guy might show up with 3 riptides (whether proxy or real) plus a bunch of normal stuff as his army instead. If you allow it to be built, they will come and cheese it out.

This isn't a black and white thing as you said as someone like the guy I mentioned above from my 3rd edition days might actually spend dozens of hours building up a 10 riptide list complete with a backstory and painted up/converted to look like voltron lions... he may not be a TFG but that doesn't make the force any more fun to play against. The WD article mentioned some sort of a benefit when you have a warforged lists but who knows what that benefit will be. If we again default to experience with the escalation rules, a reroll on seizing plus a special warlord table doesn't IMHO counter the other guy using multiple strength D large blast templates on a nigh unkillable platform in any fair way. That is however what GW feels is a "fair" counter to someone having a $500 apoc figure with rules no one else gets and the other guy having a standard list. That is the only thing we have currently to go on but obviously that will change in about two weeks.

**WrentheFaceless**

azreal13 wrote:
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

Sounds like that guy would be "That guy' regardless of the rules.

**fishy bob**

Lobukia wrote:
Why are chaos players so poorly tuned into their own fluff? Night Lords =/= all raptors, not by a long shot.

And where does it say Night Lords can't be all Raptors?

unmercifulconker wrote:
Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.

As long as no one is playing, 40K is great

**MWHistorian**

streamdragon wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
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.

>snipped for brevity<

I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.

I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.

Warboss was commenting that certain "unfun" armies being allowed by rules means (such as Unbound) will mean having to play those. I suppose in my mind I was automatically lumping those players into TFG category unfairly. Replace instances of "TFG" with "TFA" (Those Frelling Armies). My point was that Unbound doesn't change the existance of broken armies. And for every broken army it adds, it adds an unknown number of not broken but still fun FOC breaking armies. Is that ration 1 broken to 1 not-broken? Who knows? Given that there are nigh-infinite lists out there, I'm thinking in the end the existance of Unbound is not going to really change the overall ration of TFA to not-TFA games.

Fair enough, but for the tac-list type player, it means their chances of fighting a broken army has risen dramatically. Sure, that all terminator army sure sounds cool but it would eat my SOB for lunch without much effort. If I faced that at my store, I'd refuse it. It seems that my percentage of refusing games will rise more than I can accept. (We'll see once all the details are out, but as it is, that's how it looks.)

**PhantomViper**

unmercifulconker wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.

Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.

No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.

If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.

**warboss**

MWHistorian wrote:
Fair enough, but for the tac-list type player, it means their chances of fighting a broken army has risen dramatically. Sure, that all terminator army sure sounds cool but it would eat my SOB for lunch without much effort. If I faced that at my store, I'd refuse it. It seems that my percentage of refusing games will rise more than I can accept. (We'll see once all the details are out, but as it is, that's how it looks.)

As a side note, the only person I've ever gotten to agree to play against my Deathwing army in 6th edition with the nerf to power swords is a guy who also plays Dark Angels. I'm not a TFG (although I used to be a rules lawyer admittedly but not a munchkin... there is a significant difference) and I built the army back in early 5th edition when they sucked simply because I was happy to finally have new blood angel models (I used space hulk figs) as this was months before rumors of the current codex/figs. Everyone else just sees terminators and says, nah... I've got to go do something else... whistle...

**PhantomViper**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

Sounds like that guy would be "That guy' regardless of the rules.

Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.

**AlexHolker**

Right. The sole purpose of the points mechanic is to make the game fair. If the points mechanic does not make the game fair (and it doesn't), Games Workshop is not doing their job.

**WrentheFaceless**

PhantomViper wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.

Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.

No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.

If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.

In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.

**Sharkvictim**

GW will carry on, but I most likely won't be in the ranks. It seems too soon for a full new edition. The rules are going to be streamlined to sell more models. I understand it's a business, but if the rules are solid the models will get bought anyway. Warmachine is looking better everyday.

**Blacksails**

PhantomViper wrote:

No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.

If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.

Absolutely this.

Attitudes and general personality issues are where the blame lies for players.

**Azreal13**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.

Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.

No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.

If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.

In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.

The specific individual in question isn't really "that guy." In fact, when playing a game, he can be very fair, pointing out things you may have overlooked in your turn etc..

The only issue is that, relative to the majority of the rest of the club, he is more focused on winning. Therefore he takes the best units he can.

Were all the units priced in line with their efficacy in game, the problem goes away, he can still be just as keen to win, but the opportunity to pick the most efficient units to facilitate that simply disappears.

**PhantomViper**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I keep getting little squirts of excitement when I think of a cool army concept (most recent? Some FW Red Butcher Terminators and a couple of WE Land Raiders with some sort of Bezerker Lord as the basis for a ~1000 point list, or a Daemon list comprised entirely of Daemon Engines, Decimators, Plague Drones, Soul Grinders, Brass Scorpion etc)

Then I think of the guy at my club whose justification for playing Waveserpent spam with multi Wraithknights was "that he wasn't using a Jetseer Council.." and I get a bit sad again.

This ladies and gentlemen, is the main problem.

Its also quite shocking when the main part of this problem probably lies with the players rather than with GW. Everyones to blame yipeeeee.

No, the problem can never lie with the players when they are just following the rules.

If the rules allow the players to create un-fun play experiences, then the problem lies squarely with the rules, not the players.

In every competitive game every that has rules, there will always be those who try to bend them so far as to make the rules absurd and unfun to compete against. Thats not a rules problem, thats a player problem.

Go to the Infinity forums, go to the Malifaux forums, go to the WMH forums, go to the FoW forums, go to the X-Wing forums (and those are just the game that I currently am involved with), see how many accusations of "TFG" are thrown around in those compared to any GW game forum.

The fact is that "TFG" accusations, except for people that actually cheat and break the rules to win a game, are almost non-existent in any game other than 40K or WHFB. Its not a problem with the players, the players are the same in every miniature wargame, its a problem with the rules.

**warboss**

PhantomViper wrote:
Its funny how "That guy" only seems to exist in GW games because other miniature game systems don't allow "That guy" type lists to exist in the first place.

Come now.. don't be ridiculous. Every game has power lists, issues, etc to some extent. Some simply have more than others but a black and white T/F statement like your's is instantly recognizable as false. Plenty of people consider TIE swarm lists to be broken in x-wing and that is a very nicely balanced and elegant game. Other games like Heavy Gear have plenty of TFG lists that abuse poorly written rules. Warmachine fully embraced the cheese with its play like you've got a pair rule for years. The point is whether or not the company addresses those issues after they create them. We're getting a premature editon swap in 40k this month... it will be telling whether GW learned something from the last two years of unrestricted forcefeeding apoc into 40k that turned a half dozen years of stagnant sales/profits into a decrease or whether the new edition is just the latest in a series of $$ cashing in immediately at the expense of long term health of the game.

**streamdragon**

MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

streamdragon wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
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.

>snipped for brevity<

I get what you're saying, I do. But broken games already exist. Unbound doesn't create solely broken lists. Unbound will also create silly lists like the Ork Road Warrior list someone mentioned. I suppose it will all come down to the player pool at your FLGS, and how many of them tend to be TFG, but I really do think people are only looking at "Unbound will create broken lists" while refusing to also acknowledge "Unbound will allow fun lists that FOC would prevent". Do I agree that some players out there are tools and will always be bringing the latest most broken sensation? Yes. Do I think those players, without access to Unbound, will be upstanding good for-fun gamers? No, even with FoC they'll still be TFG. I just don't see the huge difference (and admittedly this is probably because I don't do PUGs) between the existance of Unbound and the FOC armies. Both can be used to create fun, balanced armies that are a blast to look at and play with/against. Both can also be used to create soul crushing, wiped out by turn 1 armies that are inherently not fun to play against. It will always come down to the players, that hasn't changed in 6 editions of the game.

I thought you said you got what he was saying. You're talking about TFG's and he's not and that distention is very important.

Warboss was commenting that certain "unfun" armies being allowed by rules means (such as Unbound) will mean having to play those. I suppose in my mind I was automatically lumping those players into TFG category unfairly. Replace instances of "TFG" with "TFA" (Those Frelling Armies). My point was that Unbound doesn't change the existance of broken armies. And for every broken army it adds, it adds an unknown number of not broken but still fun FOC breaking armies. Is that ration 1 broken to 1 not-broken? Who knows? Given that there are nigh-infinite lists out there, I'm thinking in the end the existance of Unbound is not going to really change the overall ration of TFA to not-TFA games.

Fair enough, but for the tac-list type player, it means their chances of fighting a broken army has risen dramatically. Sure, that all terminator army sure sounds cool but it would eat my SOB for lunch without much effort. If I faced that at my store, I'd refuse it. It seems that my percentage of refusing games will rise more than I can accept. (We'll see once all the details are out, but as it is, that's how it looks.)

You've never faced Deathwing or Draigowing with SoB? Meltas > Termies

Jokes aside (I havent faced either with my Sisters and one guy in my grouo plays both GK and DA!), I can see your POV and being worried about TFAs showing up. But I stand by the idea that Unbound isn't really any better or worse than FOC armies over the totality of armies it suddenly allows.