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.

**MetalOxide**

Lobukia wrote:
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.

Well sorry Mr Lord of fluff.

It is natural to assume that, as Night Lords are known for terror tactics, ambush and infiltration, they would have large contingents of Raptors and Warptalons to deepstrike and take the enemy by surprise.

**Leth**

warboss wrote:
Accolade wrote:
If Privateer Press did the same thing with WM/H I think people would decry the changes as greedy. It's not us vs. GW because we are jealous or their success, it's us vs. GW trying to exploit the rules and force more purchases, when in reality if they just took steps to address customer concerns, people would buy more of their stuff anyway!

They're not just altering the rules but also the points costs. My IG army with the new AM codex just lost 200pts out of 2500pts. Now, some simple minded person would see that and post "why are you complaining!?! you get to use more stuff than just 1 month ago!!". If that same person bothered to look at the trends, they'd see that my Tau army lost almost as much with their recent update as well. My bog standard Space Marines got BOTH better and cheaper compared with 3rd edition (14pts instead of 15pts and they now get chapter rules, frags, and kraks for -1pt). Everything is getting "cheaper" sequentially in points because GW wants to make every 1500pt army more expensive in $$$. That trend is going on for over a decade but the newest extension of that is forcing apoc down our throats at the platoon(s) level of normal 40k.

I honestly have to ask, how many people do you know that buy EXACTLY x number of models and then stop? Or only have 1 army?

If marines dropped to 10 pts a model I would have enough marines just sitting around to fill in those points, or vehicles. Decreasing costs is only a problem if all you own is exactly what you need for one size of game. Here is the other thing, you can bring a tactical army and do okay against the most powerful lists, but it requires making some changes, and I am thoroughly enjoying the versatility that comes from the Alternate missions that the big tournaments are implementing.

SHOULD GW be the one trying to balance everything? Sure but they have not. So we can either sit on our thumbs pointing fingers or actively try to do something about. Being responsible for a problem does not mean they are the only ones who can give a solution.

**Mr Morden**

pretre wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.

Sisters are one of the armies best equipped to deal with Termie spam. In fact, whenever I see an all terminator army across the table I chuckle and prepare for the easy win.

Tend to agree - lots of Meltas, Rending guns and Exorcist missiles tend to kill Terminators - alot - Storm Shield armed ones are harder but they don't shoot back.

**Accolade**

Bull0 wrote:
Certainly it's pretty clear Unbound is designed to drive sales but I'm not sure about force? Is that based purely on competitive play? Are we saying only crazy unbound lists will be competitive in the brave new world? We don't know what the battle-forged bonus(es) are yet.

I would say that GW is hoping 7th will drive sales with all groups:

Unbound will let one group of people buy whatever models they want to field as an army, and those playing competitively will most likely need to adjust their armies in a significant way to approach a radically different meta...that or buy more options to have in the wings should they repeatedly come up against hard-to-deal-with lists. It could be a number of different scenarios but GW expects that all will be buying a lot of new models (including a $100 new rulebook).

I think GW sees this release as a win-win (or else why would they do it?), I believe that they are still focused on the short-term (i.e. through their current financial reports) and are negatively impacting the long-term prospects of the game.

**Claimh_Solais**

Mabey unbound can't take allies?

**Agamemnon2**

It just all looks perfectly tedious to me. What on earth could the bonuses for FOC-compliant lists be, to make running them worthwhile?

**Xca|iber**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
It just all looks perfectly tedious to me. What on earth could the bonuses for FOC-compliant lists be, to make running them worthwhile?

With the way things are going, it'll probably be some sort of random table comprised of 5 things that won't help you (or only help in one extremely specific circumstance) and one thing that might make a difference.

Or better yet, maybe just a re-roll on Warlord traits

**MWHistorian**

Mr Morden wrote:
pretre wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Well, I think if someone said "Here's my banshee spam list!" The reaction would be laughter, not frothing.
But let's go back to my example of the terminator army against my SOB army. My SOB army is pretty dang I think. I have two dominions and a squad of Seraphim led by St. Celestine. I had had all three squads DS and scout in on the enemy's back field on the same turn. My dominions fired at terminators and nurgle bikers with melta guns. The terminators lost one guy thanks to MoT invul. The nurgle bikers were just insanely durable. His terminators and bikers proceeded to butcher all three of my squads, including Celestine simply because he was in that sweet spot where I didn't have volume of fire or the uber weapons to kill him.
I did win the game but those few units of his were almost unstoppable.
If I were faced with a whole army of terminators, I'd refuse because my army isn't equipped to deal with that. It also isn't equipped to deal with an air force of any kind or a full leman Russ list. None of those are riptide spam cheese levels and could be quite "fluffy." But without the tools I simply can't compete. No one's being TFG or WAAC, just playing by the rules.

Sisters are one of the armies best equipped to deal with Termie spam. In fact, whenever I see an all terminator army across the table I chuckle and prepare for the easy win.

Tend to agree - lots of Meltas, Rending guns and Exorcist missiles tend to kill Terminators - alot - Storm Shield armed ones are harder but they don't shoot back.

I had Celestine dueling his warpsmith and I just couldn't get through his +2 armor!

Oh, it was a bad day. My exo's kept rolling one missile that usually missed and the Warpsmith killed Celestine...twice. Bad day.
But back on topic, for my army, certain kinds of armies will eat my lunch and Sisters are too expensive to just buy a gak load of whatever unit and spam the crap out of it. That's not the kind of game I want to play either. I want a game where you have to choose carefully what kind of army you want to play and play to those strengths and yet be adaptable.
GW just wants me to buy more expensive models like I'm a 12 year old rich kid with birthday money.
Edit:
Add to everything that GW won't support my favorite army, Sisters. Not even a print codex and no new models in a decade. That's inexcusable.

**warboss**

Leth wrote:
I honestly have to ask, how many people do you know that buy EXACTLY x number of models and then stop? Or only have 1 army?

I don't have a single army but I do effectively buy till exactly x number of models because every army must fit in a carrying case. My IG army I referenced earlier as well as the tau have every slot and space filled in the GW carrying case. The IG army was made back in 3rd edition and has dropped from about 2700pts give or take to 2300pts. If I want to expand the army, I'm not adding but rather replacing. The gradual but constant steady "shrinkage" is noticeable for me as my total collection size is dropping for armies that I'm effectively done with beyond just some codex update conversions of a few arms/limbs.

**WrentheFaceless**

Accolade wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
Certainly it's pretty clear Unbound is designed to drive sales but I'm not sure about force? Is that based purely on competitive play? Are we saying only crazy unbound lists will be competitive in the brave new world? We don't know what the battle-forged bonus(es) are yet.

I would say that GW is hoping 7th will drive sales with all groups:

Unbound will let one group of people buy whatever models they want to field as an army, and those playing competitively will most likely need to adjust their armies in a significant way to approach a radically different meta...that or buy more options to have in the wings should they repeatedly come up against hard-to-deal-with lists. It could be a number of different scenarios but GW expects that all will be buying a lot of new models (including a $100 new rulebook).

I think GW sees this release as a win-win (or else why would they do it?), I believe that they are still focused on the short-term (i.e. through their current financial reports) and are negatively impacting the long-term prospects of the game.

Businesses exist to make money, more at 11

Honestly, tournaments will most likely restrict it to only Battle-Forged lists, which is basically the FOC now

Not sure how more playtype options are a bad thing. That and the hinted new alliance charts perhaps this is what people actually asked for, A more fine tuned competitive set with better allies for "Battle forged" And those who want to play casually and just put everything on the table with "unbound'

**Accolade**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Accolade wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
Certainly it's pretty clear Unbound is designed to drive sales but I'm not sure about force? Is that based purely on competitive play? Are we saying only crazy unbound lists will be competitive in the brave new world? We don't know what the battle-forged bonus(es) are yet.

I would say that GW is hoping 7th will drive sales with all groups:

Unbound will let one group of people buy whatever models they want to field as an army, and those playing competitively will most likely need to adjust their armies in a significant way to approach a radically different meta...that or buy more options to have in the wings should they repeatedly come up against hard-to-deal-with lists. It could be a number of different scenarios but GW expects that all will be buying a lot of new models (including a $100 new rulebook).

I think GW sees this release as a win-win (or else why would they do it?), I believe that they are still focused on the short-term (i.e. through their current financial reports) and are negatively impacting the long-term prospects of the game.

Businesses exist to make money, more at 11

Honestly, tournaments will most likely restrict it to only Battle-Forged lists, which is basically the FOC now

Right, I stated that in the previous post, no one is ever surprised that GW is trying to make money, I'm not demonizing them for it, etc. etc. etc.

The issue comes from how they try to get money from their customers. They've had a history of up'ing the cost of models/rules, lowering the in-game point values of units, and tweaking the core rules to encourage more purchases.

That is certainly a viable tactic, but I think a much better approach would be to look at customer complaints and address them, produce models people are asking for (i.e. Genestealer Cults since Rogue Trader days), and so forth.

**Bull0**

@Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you

**MWHistorian**

unmercifulconker wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
Businesses exist to make money.

Scumbag businesses exist to make as much profit as possible.

Every business is a 'scumbag business' acording to the Internet

Most of them are since everyone wants to make as much profit as possible, that you cut corners or mold your product in a way to solely generate more profit rather than provide for the customer. Huh, kinda like GW.

I think most complaints come from GW doing things that are actually so spiteful and abusive that they actually hurt their profits, like them issuing CD's to blogs, websites and bits suppliers. That wasn't just business, those were just outright ____ moves that really only hurt GW. Also, the way GW treats independent retailers is shameful. I know a group of successful writers that chose Warmachine over GW just because of their practices. (Like trying to trade mark "Space Marine.") That's a lot of support they lost. Now Warmachine has a hugo nominated best seller in their stable.
Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.

**WrentheFaceless**

Bull0 wrote:
@Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you

Opinions are not 'explanations', especially ones based on the lack of actual facts that we have regarding the new formats that we have now. I understand their arguments, I disagree with certain aspects of them.

Sorry I dont agree with the 'hivemind' around here. But i'm not conceding anything until I see how this is actually going to happen.

**Bull0**

Sorry, when you said you "weren't sure how more options were a bad thing", I assumed you simply didn't understand, since a bunch of people have told you all about how they're a bad thing. Good and bad are by definition subjective, so you either meant to say "I think more options is a good thing" or "I disagree that more options are a bad thing but I'm not going to say why".

**Accolade**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
@Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you

Opinions are not 'explanations', especially ones based on the lack of actual facts that we have regarding the new formats that we have now. I understand their arguments, I disagree with certain aspects of them.

Sorry I dont agree with the 'hivemind' around here. But i'm not conceding anything until I see how this is actually going to happen.

How are any of my examples not based on actual facts? Please elaborate.

**pretre**

MWHistorian wrote:
Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.

People have been saying this for 20 years.

**Grot 6**

techsoldaten wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:

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.

QFT. Unbound is going to create some challenging situations.

To give people a little perspective on how unrestricted / spam lists work in the real world, there's a guy at my FLGS who started bringing a Heldrake spam list. There's a thread about it here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/571387.page

We mostly play games at 2500+ points. He was bringing double FOC with 6 Heldrakes and about 120 plague zombies. Before he switched to Tyranids, his record was something like 35 - 4.

He cleaned up against the local meta, which includes Tau, Eldar, Necrons, SMs, IG, etc. It lead to a lot of Tau / Eldar players declining games against CSMs because they thought our armies are OP. Other players and I tried to figure out ways of dealing with his lists, and we were not very successful.

The reason he was able to win so much is that no one really wants to invest in models and cheese lists just to beat this guy. We could swap models all we wanted, but that took a lot of time and effort just to prepare for a big, dumb, boring fight. The guy in question had his tactics down, he knew how to stretch a movement phase out to 45 minutes when he needed cover for everything behind the wall of zombies. It was awful playing with him, fun left the room when he set up his forces. EVERYTHING became laborious.

The advice most people had about the situation was to not play him, which is the opposite of what most clubs are about. You want more players to get in on the game. But how is that going to work when everyone can start bringing 10 Heldrakes? FOC does more than instill some sense of balance in the game, it limits people's ability to be TFG and ruin the experience. My biggest concern with unbound armies is that GW is setting the community up for a lot more of these types of guys, only they have no restrictions on what they can do.

The way this situation resolved itself, btw, was that TFG stopped playing CSMs. He felt like no one could actually beat him and he was the best of the best with that army. He plays Tyranids now and has like 160 models in his standard army. His lists are only slightly less annoying, he still drags out each phase of the game and moves everything into cover on each turn. He wins by wearing out the other player moreso than through great victories. He literally threatens to pull his CSMs back out throughout games, he constantly argues about the rules even when he knows he's wrong, he tells other players they don't know what they are doing. Like, I can't win against his Tyranids, I can barely concentrate on a plan when it's over 30 minutes to get past his turn one and with all the chatter.

Imagine a world where every other player is just like him. It really concerns me to think this is what unbound is leading to.

But.. "companies are there to make money......"

All in all, There is ALOT more merit to this story in how the local game scene will perceive the "Unbound" thing and how it opens the door to TFG style play under the guise of "bringing a hard list".

Yes, this one is only describing one mutt in 1 store, but you all as well as I can count on BOTH hands the amount of TFG thought process of "We'll just see how far we can push the envelope in the sake of a win..."

At the end of the day it will end up being the same. Either you laugh them off the table as a outright tool, or you just up and tell them- "Go feth yourself, you are plopping down a table and a half full of unfinished models, and unpainted stuff, just for the sake of wasting my time."

At either end of the spectrum, and with the price increase to the point of paying with one of your first born for the sake of a game, your seeing the death of 40K by a thousand cuts.

They aren't even being covert about how much this is going to cost you, now they are going for the impulse kills.

Its not just about making money. Its about producing a sustainable product that people WANT to buy, and not just for the lickiest and chewiest, its about playing a reasonably good game, having some fun with your mates, and not having to worry about coming into your next game ready to argue a case in the supreme court.

THIS new stuff looks like a hot mess from this Grots standpoint. rather then encourage play, encourage you to go out and have fun, it plays to the lower base instinct of gamers, and rewards Dbaggery on so many levels it really looks like they don't have a clue as to their own products.

Worst thing about it is that this crap is coming, wanted or not.

**WrentheFaceless**

Bull0 wrote:Sorry, when you said you "weren't sure how more options were a bad thing", I assumed you simply didn't understand, since a bunch of people have told you all about how they're a bad thing. Good and bad are by definition subjective, so you either meant to say "I think more options is a good thing" or "I disagree that more options are a bad thing but I'm not going to say why".

I think the options instead of one format, that two formats, one what we have now, and one to plop everything you have down and play, are good options, taken as is, disregarding competitiveness and all that, as thats not really important to the options and will be decided by the TOs as they always have been

Accolade wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
@Wren yep, you've made it pretty clear you don't understand why "more options" can in this case be a bad thing, in spite of multiple very eloquent explanations from a variety of people. I'd just bow out if I were you

Opinions are not 'explanations', especially ones based on the lack of actual facts that we have regarding the new formats that we have now. I understand their arguments, I disagree with certain aspects of them.

Sorry I dont agree with the 'hivemind' around here. But i'm not conceding anything until I see how this is actually going to happen.

How are any of my examples not based on actual facts? Please elaborate.

Yes GW is a business, some of their changes are motivated to sell more minis, I wont argue that, as if I were a business I'd make changes to sell more stuff to if my livelyhood or botom line was on the table. But jumping to the conclusions that have been thrown around here based off of a page and a half of a WD magazine, without any specifics, is a little 'chicken little' for me. And I hate trying to have rational discussions based on a 'sky is falling" albiet perhaps its my ignorance as I'm fairly new to playing 40k, but have followed it for years.

**techsoldaten**

Mr. Grey wrote:

I think that most people, thankfully, aren't like TFG you described. In every game you're going to have TFG, who will be a gigantic chore to play against because it's simply not fun to play him. It's more the player than the game(IMO).

Let's hope most people don't decide to be like TFG.

There is a psychology at work with TFG. He knows his games are not fun for other players, but defends himself by saying the army lists are legal, he bought all his models at the store, and there's no reason he should have to nerf his forces to suit the decisions other people make with their armies. He is following the rules and finding enjoyment and satisfaction in the way he plays his games. I talk with him from time to time and do understand his original motives around bringing this list. He looks at Tau and Eldar as OP, and I come away from our conversations with the sense he started this list as a punitive measure against those armies. His CSM army is a dare for those armies to try and beat him.

Just to be really clear, I think this guy is an interesting personality, he's not an irredeemable jerk nor is he someone you really want to be friends with. He clearly understands the mechanics of 40k at a high level and uses the rules in a clear and legal way. His gamesmanship is annoying but doesn't really cross the bounds to where you would just want to tell him to frag off. When he has made other players cry, he has apologized and it seemed like he genuinely felt bad. The worst things about him are the choices he makes about hygiene (which are not unique to his case) and that he may have picked up a few models that were not his after particularly brutal games.

There's an old saying, if you don't like the law, change it. TFG does go by the rules, mostly, and he certainly has put a lot of time and effort into this pursuit. There is no rule about having fun, being a good sport, or trying to make friends. It bothers me that, someday soon, he will be more in the right, and the way he plays will be even more legitimate than it was before.

Unless there's a serious liability that goes along with Unbound lists, I can guarantee you he will be playing a spam list in a couple weeks that is composed of 100% of the best units in a Tyranid army. There are people in my FLGS who do admire his accomplishments with CSMs and try to do something similar to that with their own lists. If this is the new way to win, why should we expect people will not gravitate to it?

Keeping my mind open to the possibilities, but am a little pessimistic about how it's all going to turn out.

**Troike**

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.

I think that that's stretching it a bit. Sure, GW games are likely the biggest source of "that guys" due to slack rules, but I think it's a bit idealistic to say that all other games have elimated any chance for a person to be TFG.

**WrentheFaceless**

Troike wrote:
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.

I think that that's stretching it a bit. Sure, GW games are likely the biggest source of "that guys" due to slack rules, but I think it's a bit idealistic to say that all other games have elimated any chance for a person to be TFG.

TFG exists in all games, not just mini wargames; they're in card games, they're in video games, they're in sports etc.

**Accolade**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Yes GW is a business, some of their changes are motivated to sell more minis, I wont argue that, as if I were a business I'd make changes to sell more stuff to if my livelyhood or botom line was on the table. But jumping to the conclusions that have been thrown around here based off of a page and a half of a WD magazine, without any specifics, is a little 'chicken little' for me. And I hate trying to have rational discussions based on a 'sky is falling" albiet perhaps its my ignorance as I'm fairly new to playing 40k, but have followed it for years.

I don't need the WDW to make the points I've made. Each point about revenue generation techniques has been occurring for the last couple of years, the rumors regarding 7th seem to only reinforce the paradigm I believe GW is working under.

I am also not saying the sky is falling, I am saying this: I believe GW is hurting their long-term business in hopes of boosting their short-term (this could be for a number of reasons but it's not the crux of the issue). Most of what has been discussed these last few pages seems legitimate to me and has been rationally discussed.

**Leth**

I am excited to see how they plan to implement this psychic phase. Zoanthropes make more sense being mastery 2 and one power is one and one power is two. Interesting to see how power generation happens as well. Will it be one power per level? Also how will costs of power change. If they are generating a d6 + mastery level it means that powers are probably going to get more expensive. 2-3 points for some probably. Also will there be a cap or will armies be able to go crazy with the dice?

So many unknowns it will be interesting to see what happens

**pretre**

pretre wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.

People have been saying this for 20 years.

"Basically, GW (in some areas) is seen as a money hungry monster. If a company continuously raises prices, while lowering the overall support structure, while proclaiming advances in support, you end up with very unhappy people. All this from a company that most of us remember as a bunch of nice, hardworking gamers.
Sigh, We'll just have to wait till they cut their own legs off, then maybe they'll fix things."
- Lusiphur - rec.games.miniatures.warhammer - 9/8/96

**WonderAliceLand**

The possibilities are endless; the only limit to your games now are the models you have in your collection. Thrilling stuff.

Wow, right out of the WD itself. That is haunting.

**Lobokai**

If 7th tightens down the mechanics a bit, makes vehicles a bit more survivable and gives assault armies a bit better chance... I'll be happy. The most important thing to me is fine-tuning 6th into 7th... they can do whatever they want with list construction after that. GTs will put reasonable limits on it, and so will clubs/FLGSs if they want to keep people coming.

Seriously, I couldn't care less about unbound, as it will most likely never see the light of day in any place I could ever play.

**GorillaWarfare**

Battle Forged Bonus: Your warlord causes fear.

**Accolade**

pretre wrote:
pretre wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Also, people complain when "Buying GW models" comes at the price of the actual game. That's another instance when GW's business practices are not only slimey, they're actually counter productive. Their business model is unsustainable.

People have been saying this for 20 years.

"Basically, GW (in some areas) is seen as a money hungry monster. If a company continuously raises prices, while lowering the overall support structure, while proclaiming advances in support, you end up with very unhappy people. All this from a company that most of us remember as a bunch of nice, hardworking gamers.
Sigh, We'll just have to wait till they cut their own legs off, then maybe they'll fix things."
- Lusiphur - rec.games.miniatures.warhammer - 9/8/96

Well, you could say we've seen some of the symptoms of this sort of mindset.

The loss of Games Day, bitz services, Battle Bunkers, etc. etc. could all be a result of GW not running their business optimally. I don't think GW has ever gone so far as to alienate all of its customers or anything, and they obviously have many, important positive attributes (otherwise they wouldn't exist!), but I think they have worked themselves into a much less healthy state over these last 20 years.

**techsoldaten**

Grot 6 wrote:

Its not just about making money. Its about producing a sustainable product that people WANT to buy, and not just for the lickiest and chewiest, its about playing a reasonably good game, having some fun with your mates, and not having to worry about coming into your next game ready to argue a case in the supreme court.

THIS new stuff looks like a hot mess from this Grots standpoint. rather then encourage play, encourage you to go out and have fun, it plays to the lower base instinct of gamers, and rewards Dbaggery on so many levels it really looks like they don't have a clue as to their own products.

Worst thing about it is that this crap is coming, wanted or not.

QFT. There's a real chance GW is opening a bag of worms with this new release. The worst thing they can do is make the game unenjoyable for everyone, instead of just the people with 'lower tier' armies.

I have always felt like it's important to guide new players into enjoying the hobby, moreso than just trying to win games. Imbalances make it tougher to do that, it's really hard to get someone to see the value in playing against a force that has no counter. For that matter, there's a certain kind of arrogance in setting out to build an unbeatable army in the first place, which most people can understand. 2++ invulnerable saves, D weapons, deathstars - these are what I am talking about. They don't seem like they belong in a game where the outcomes are uncertain and there's a chance for both sides. They seem more like a lock, unfair in their own way, and make you wonder why you would want to spend time on them.

These rumors about unbound armies make me think it's going to be harder to share my appreciation for 40k with other people. At their worst, these rules are going to legitimize very exclusive, almost unstoppable lists that would require a lot of time and effort to counter. There's a real chance this is going to degenerate into an arms race moreso than a chance to sell other models.

I don't know how I could get other people to appreciate that way of playing the game. I will wait and see what happens, but yeah - the risk is that we are losing the part of the hobby that made it most worthwhile.