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.

 Lobukia wrote:
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.

My hope exactly but I know that GW won't make my wish true!

 Lobukia wrote:
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.

Quite probably what will happen to me as well. Though I can imagine a few one offs with one of my friend to "Narativelly" tell a story between his Nidz and my marines. Other than that, it will be FoC as usuall.

But, we still have a whole rule book to digest first!

Not knowing all the facts/rules yet in regards to Unbound.....

Watch Unbound be some rare, gotta role for it to get it, certain scenarios only, must be 25% less in points based of opponents army points to fight a battle forged army, and/or can not score/win unless it annihilates the opponent.

That'd be funny after all these pages of rage & debate if it had some crazy limitations afterall.

Thought I would drop this in here and see what people thought

http://www.torrentoffire.com/4576/were-over-8000-by-the-numbers

It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.

Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread

*Looks at White Dwarf leak*

That's all I have to offer really. As a painter/modeller, rules don't really affect me and passing editions do nothing to entice me back, in fat they actively kill what little desire I have to play and encourage me to avoid giving GW money.

I feel bad for those who do game and are sick of seemingly constant attempts to spoil something they enjoy.

 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

I am impressed.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Battle Forged Bonus: Your warlord causes fear.

If only half the available armies weren't immune to it... Not sure if you're joking about the above btw or if Pretre needs to record a rumor for you in the tracker.

 Leth wrote:
Thought I would drop this in here and see what people thought

http://www.torrentoffire.com/4576/were-over-8000-by-the-numbers

It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.

Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread

You're talking about a company that has no respect for its customers (as evidenced by court records and employee statements and other stuff that I'm too lazy to site a the moment) and whose battle reports show a fundamental lack of knowledge about the game itself and rules and units that come out that have clearly not been play tested.

The idea that GW has some kind of secret strategy to make everything awesome in an intelligent and subtle way is laughable. I'm going to be skeptical until they prove otherwise.
(Though admittedly, plastic SOB might lure me back. Shame that'll never happen.)

sockwithaticket wrote:
*Looks at White Dwarf leak*

That's all I have to offer really. As a painter/modeller, rules don't really affect me and passing editions do nothing to entice me back, in fat they actively kill what little desire I have to play and encourage me to avoid giving GW money.

I feel bad for those who do game and are sick of seemingly constant attempts to spoil something they enjoy.

If these rules turn out to make me want to play less that's all I'll be doing with 40k: finishing my Flesh Tearers Battle Company (just ordered 20 Chain Axes for my Assault Marines, and 2 sets of brass icons for the vehicles from FW to help round this army build off) and moving on to another game and waiting for 40k to get better. I last played a game last year when Apoc came out (I'm also dealing with college stuff so it's not that big of a surprise, I have to choose one or the other and the one I need to pay for to take classes trumps the one I need to buy models for) so stepping out of 40k all the way wouldn't be that hard right now. I'm already considering building a Skaven army for Fantasy and give me something to work on between working on Flesh Tearer units (I'm not committed to them just yet, but I am considering them pretty strongly).

That Torrent of Fire link was interesting to look at though. Apparently things are better than I've been thinking lately, but expectations as low as mine that's now hard right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Battle Forged Bonus: Your warlord causes fear.

If only half the available armies weren't immune to it... Not sure if you're joking about the above btw or if Pretre needs to record a rumor for you in the tracker.

I assume that was a joke. But if it's right I wouldn't be too surprised.

It'd invalidate a lot of Warlord Trait options though.

 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

That is basically every publicly traded company, and probably most private ones.

 Lobukia wrote:
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.

Completely agree with the first bit, but 40k players are strange in that they feel entitled to ignore certain rules. This just doesn't happen in any comparable tabletop games. If it's in the core rules, why should anyone feel they can ban it and are somehow morally right in doing so?

Superheavies I get, as it is impossible to bring a TAC list equipped to deal with superheavies too, but they're not core rules.

I think it's unfair to impose limitations on how people play the game just because it may not fit in with the way that others feel the game 'should' be played.

For me, if there is any 'split' in the 40k playerbase it's caused by those that feel they are entitled to pick and choose rules and impose those beliefs on others.

 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.

Why are you guys going on about being able to win against Terminators? Since when are Terminators good? Reading you guys brag about being able to kill Terminators is like reading about a 40 year old bragging about beating up a baby.

 undertow 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

That is basically every publicly traded company, and probably most private ones.

I think it's because people forget that Capitalism runs on Greed and that companies have to be greedy to successfully make profits. No company can operate at a loss (unless you're Uwe Boll and can us legal loopholes to make the government fund your endeavors). I don't feel this excuses the actions of a company towards its player base, just that it's a really poor argument to start complaining that a company is "greedy" when there are so many other, better arguments to make.

 Kimchi Gamer 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.

Why are you guys going on about being able to win against Terminators? Since when are Terminators good? Reading you guys brag about being able to kill Terminators is like reading about a 40 year old bragging about beating up a baby.

Because I'm using them as an example of something that's not considered OP but certain armies won't be able to cope with them when spammed en masse like the new rules will allow. Keep up.

 undertow 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

That is basically every publicly traded company, and probably most private ones.

I am sure that the fact that GW is public is the source of a lot of decision that I wouldn't take at GW.
Growth drives everthing for the share holders.

In the world of table top gaming, growth must be difficult to attain simply with a new influx of players. So you have to bleed your current customer base and its a vicious circle once you go down that path...

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Thought I would drop this in here and see what people thought

http://www.torrentoffire.com/4576/were-over-8000-by-the-numbers

It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.

Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread

You're talking about a company that has no respect for its customers (as evidenced by court records and employee statements and other stuff that I'm too lazy to site a the moment) and whose battle reports show a fundamental lack of knowledge about the game itself and rules and units that come out that have clearly not been play tested.

The idea that GW has some kind of secret strategy to make everything awesome in an intelligent and subtle way is laughable. I'm going to be skeptical until they prove otherwise.
(Though admittedly, plastic SOB might lure me back. Shame that'll never happen.)

If you think GW is different from other companies in that regard I find that laughable. Also you are assuming that they are not play-tested. The number of different interactions that can occur is beyond anything that one small team could hope to prepare for. Its easy to say its obvious once someone else pointed it out to you. There might be a team of 15-20 people testing a rule set and thousands of people trying to break it. Not saying they couldnt do better but even for all those *good games* people will find ways to break them as well.

Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand

I never said it was some secret strategy, however the imbalance is not to the same extent people are portraying on the internet. Working with the assumption that people coming to tournaments are bringing competative lists for their books then even the bottom tier is getting a 30% win rate and the top tier is getting a 70% win rate with a gradual rate of decline in between shows that the imbalances are not as bad as people are saying.

 Leth wrote:
Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base.

I recall venomous hatred towards the concept of digital codexes when they started coming out, and while I can understand some of the dislike for some of the things that come with them (for instance the ePub version's poor formatting) the concept is sound and at a lower price point (like half the cost of the codex) they'd be much better received.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base.

I recall venomous hatred towards the concept of digital codexes when they started coming out, and while I can understand some of the dislike for some of the things that come with them (for instance the ePub version's poor formatting) the concept is sound and at a lower price point (like half the cost of the codex) they'd be much better received.

33 vrs 50 for most codexes, close enough for me.

Also I use the .mobi format so no idea on the epub

 techsoldaten wrote:

 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.

I don't disagree with the concerns that have been raised but I think the focus is getting a little too narrow in this discussion. While WAAC uber lists and TFGs are going to continue to exacerbate some of the imbalance issues with the 40K and that GW definitely had a revenue spike as a primary goal with 7th Ed I think we're failing to see some of, IMHO, the likely motivations behind the creation of unbound lists.

I'm going to go with Hanlon's razor and try not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. (I'm sticking with stupidity for the sake of the quote but I'm not trying to disparage any of GW's designers personally it's more to point out their inability to see the unintended consequences of their actions). All we know for sure about unbound armies from the WDW leak is that it allows players to field an army without the constraints of the FOC. To my mind the lifting of that restriction was probably geared toward little Timmys and collectors trying to get them playing more. One of the complaints I often see about starter sets, bundles, etc. is that they don't fulfill the FOC and require additional purchases to become tabletop legal. With unbound armies a new gamer can buy whatever they want and not worry about being told that their army isn't legal until they add more troop kits/whatever. The new gamer is no longer forced to purchase kits for the sake of FOC compliance. Likewise older gamers who are more hobbyist/collectors no longer have to feel forced into making additional purchases to be able to field a legal army. I don't have to update/reorganize my IG army with every new codex or edition or not play with all of my Russes because I have more tanks than heavy support slots. I can play with whatever I have and only be constrained by current point values. As previously stated by others, it also takes narrative scenarios/campaigns that benefit from breaking the FOC and makes them officially sanctioned by the BRB.

That all strikes me as stuff that the GW designers would consider to be awesome improvements to the game since, as others have already discussed, those designers seem to be somewhat cocooned in an echo chamber of ideal friendly gaming conditions. I don't think the obvious opening for intentional abuse by players because that kind of player interaction or competitive mindset isn't even on their radar as evidenced by their disdain of tournament support and emphasis on narrative friendly play. I think they don't see the unintentional abuse(both newbies and collectors could bring unbalanced armies for a pickup game simply because those are the models they have and they want to play and the BRB says its ok) as a problem because they assume players are approaching the game with a certain attitude that fits their ideal vision for the game.

I think the worst case scenario that has caused so much angst among players in this thread was probably shrugged off by the design team as not worthy of concern because if a small minority of players were going to abuse unbound armies, well, jerks are gonna be jerks no matter what you do. IMHO, the big trending problem for GW right now is the deliberate lack of communication and seemingly vast disconnect between the game they think they're making and the game that is actually being played.

This summed up much of my attitude with all the changes of late:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Mr. Grey wrote:

There is no rule about having fun, being a good sport, or trying to make friends.

Er, yes there is. There is a rule, called "the most important rule". Its in the rulebook!

 Leth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Thought I would drop this in here and see what people thought

http://www.torrentoffire.com/4576/were-over-8000-by-the-numbers

It was very interesting from the point of view of someone who thought that things were more inbalanced than they were on the tournament scene. They are still imbalanced but not to the extent that I thought it was.

Maybe GW isn't as incompetent as everyone seems to think in this thread

You're talking about a company that has no respect for its customers (as evidenced by court records and employee statements and other stuff that I'm too lazy to site a the moment) and whose battle reports show a fundamental lack of knowledge about the game itself and rules and units that come out that have clearly not been play tested.

The idea that GW has some kind of secret strategy to make everything awesome in an intelligent and subtle way is laughable. I'm going to be skeptical until they prove otherwise.
(Though admittedly, plastic SOB might lure me back. Shame that'll never happen.)

If you think GW is different from other companies in that regard I find that laughable. Also you are assuming that they are not play-tested. The number of different interactions that can occur is beyond anything that one small team could hope to prepare for. Its easy to say its obvious once someone else pointed it out to you. There might be a team of 15-20 people testing a rule set and thousands of people trying to break it. Not saying they couldnt do better but even for all those *good games* people will find ways to break them as well.

Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand

I never said it was some secret strategy, however the imbalance is not to the same extent people are portraying on the internet. Working with the assumption that people coming to tournaments are bringing competative lists for their books then even the bottom tier is getting a 30% win rate and the top tier is getting a 70% win rate with a gradual rate of decline in between shows that the imbalances are not as bad as people are saying.

Ah, there they are Statistics raising their ugly head. First of all, what is a top tier army anymore? You can field an army with a huge variety of units from just about any codex, making the term "army" too amorphous to truly define. Despite that, lets look at the numbers.

So, an amalgamation of the best armies has a 70% chance of winning. A statistic garnered from playing all levels of armies. Which includes mid level and top armies as well as the lowest level armies.

An amalgamation of the worst armies has a 30% chance of winning. A statistic garnered from playing all levels of armies. Which includes mid level and top armies as well as the lowest level armies.

The statistics are deceiving. What is the percentage of wins for a top tier army against a group that doesn't contain other top tier armies? It has to be higher than 70%

What is the winning percentage of bottom tier armies against top tier armies? It has to be lower than 30%, it has to be substantially lower than 30%. If a lower tier army were to play 20 games each against each of the tiers. 10 wins (half) against other lower tier, 7 wins against mid level, and 3 wins against top tier would be a 30% victory rate. That gievs you a 30% win rate and an 85% chance of losing against a top tier army, a terrible prospect.

Using the same numbers for a mid level army... 13 wins against a lower tier, 10 wins against a mid level, 7 wins against a top tier. That gives you a 50% win rate (I'm supposing this percentage) Gives you a 65% chance of losing to a top tier army. Better but still rotten.

Top tier....18 wins against bottom tier, 16 wins against mid level, 10 against top tier. That gives you a 70% win rate. ( I awarded the two extra wins needed to reach 70% at the expense of the lower tiers, keeping the 50% win ratio for a equivalent level army.)

These are the statistics that would matter.

Okay so the new 7ED;

The good;
- Unbound / Battle-Forgerd = New player friendly, allows flexibility but it's going to be very tricky to balance an UB vs BF with the benefits each could bring.

- GW is trying.. umm

The Bad;
- The psychic phase - Is it adding more complexity? I hope Nids don't get shafted.

- Tactical Objectives... adding more complexity?!

The Unknown;
- The Balance or screw up of Allies

- Psychic Powers, I could almost put money on a automatic take re-roll to hit power NOT being included.

 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?

The bonus is that we have rulebook precedent for "Bound" tournaments. While I don't need precedent for gak the vast majority of players seem to hate playing 'homeruled' 40k.

Single biggest change to the game will be what they make Bound into, because god knows the players won't suffer any added regulation beyond that even as they simultaneously bitch about Taudar. Can it take allies and gak up 'the narrative' like it can now? Or are they making it legitimately straight and narrow?

feth the psychic phase, this is the big question and the big game changer for 7th.

I started playing during 2nd so some of the recent changes and stuff like a Psychic phase and mission cards are a nice jump back to the good old days.

Now all they need is to make vehicles much more survivable and scrap the AP system for -'ve armour mods and we're sorted.

 Leth wrote:

Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand.

Out of curiosity, what benefit do you forsee with an all digital switch that you consider it a panacea for the woes of current 40k? Do you think they'll just update the book files for free when they change? They didn't when they updated the Space Marine codex last year to my knowledge. Folks who bought the digital codex a few months earlier didn't get an upgrade to the new one but instead had to pay the full price just like with the paper copies. Do you relish the day when you can "rent" the rules and pay $14.99 per month like a WOW subscription to GW for two years, miss a payment, and then lose access to your codex collection? Digital has its benefits but the switch to entirely digital without a massive change to the price structure (which, if you follow what GW actually does is almost impossible) benefits only one side and that is GW. I'm not sure why you think it'll be such a benefit from the consumer side to completely abandon physical copies. Don't get me wrong... there are numerous benefits to digital copies as an option and they're the right choice for lots of gamers but they're not perfect or even good for plenty others.

 warboss wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Battle Forged Bonus: Your warlord causes fear.

If only half the available armies weren't immune to it... Not sure if you're joking about the above btw or if Pretre needs to record a rumor for you in the tracker.

Causes fear AND it weapons do soul blaze: best USRs ever!

 Lobukia wrote:
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.

Unfortunately gw has shown no ability to do any such thing such as tightening the rules. Maybe my lack of faith will turn out wrong but I just don't see them actually fixing anything, just throwing more models at us and confusing the rules even more.

Evidence > hope

 warboss wrote:

 Leth wrote:

Personally I cant WAIT for GW to go all digital, I think a lot of problems people have will go away once we reach that point. However until then with people clinging to their physical copies there is limited amounts that GW can do without pissing off a significant portion of their player base. Not saying they cant improve but I understand.

Out of curiosity, what benefit do you forsee with an all digital switch that you consider it a panacea for the woes of current 40k? Do you think they'll just update the book files for free when they change? They didn't when they updated the Space Marine codex last year to my knowledge. Folks who bought the digital codex a few months earlier didn't get an upgrade to the new one but instead had to pay the full price just like with the paper copies. Do you relish the day when you can "rent" the rules and pay $14.99 per month like a WOW subscription to GW for two years, miss a payment, and then lose access to your codex collection? Digital has its benefits but the switch to entirely digital without a massive change to the price structure (which, if you follow what GW actually does is almost impossible) benefits only one side and that is GW. I'm not sure why you think it'll be such a benefit from the consumer side to completely abandon physical copies. Don't get me wrong... there are numerous benefits to digital copies as an option and they're the right choice for lots of gamers but they're not perfect or even good for plenty others.

It see it being an opportunity to provide those constant updates that everyone here seems to be complaining about. Being able to provide small tweeks here and there to points costs and the like without making it a big hassle. I get the ebooks, not the interactive ones from apple so no idea on that. The ebooks are cheaper, more convenient and easy to search and find the things I am looking for. It would be easy to integrate new units over the course of the codex instead of having to wait years in between editions. Digital gives them a good platform to do all this from.

It has been to my benefit to get rid of the physical side, especially with the option to bring two-three books I can just throw my tablet in my bag and have all the rules I need on the go.

Also I never said they were perfect for everyone, I am saying that a lot of the current issues people have would be easily solved via a digital platform.

What company does not have a subscription model for updates? It is just a matter of the scale. Privateer press constantly releases FAQs and new rules inside their magazine. Eventually they release a new book or compilation. That sounds like a subscription model to me. Everything is a subscription model if you really think about it. It is just a matter of time and scale.

Everything I have ever bought from GW I could still use today. I could still play with my third edition codexes and third edition rulebooks if I wanted to. Nothing is preventing me from doing so. However I want to play with the current rules and so I need to pay for them.

I guess the best analogy I can come up with is that I could still use my CRT TV and it will do everything it used to, but I want to see things in HDTV and so I need to upgrade or buy a new edition to do so.

The bottom line is that two players should be able to make lists that are both fluffy and have a chance of winning. This should be able to occur without having to look over each others shoulders and say, "oh you don't have any AA I had better take out my fliers."

The problem does not lie with the FOC or lack thereof, it is an inherent problem with the balance of the points system.

Razerous wrote:
Okay so the new 7ED;

The good;
- Unbound / Battle-Forgerd = New player friendly, allows flexibility but it's going to be very tricky to balance an UB vs BF with the benefits each could bring.

- GW is trying.. umm

The Bad;
- The psychic phase - Is it adding more complexity? I hope Nids don't get shafted.

- Tactical Objectives... adding more complexity?!

The Unknown;
- The Balance or screw up of Allies

- Psychic Powers, I could almost put money on a automatic take re-roll to hit power NOT being included.

Huh...

I would have put the Good: Psychic Phase, Tactical Objectives and the Bad: Unbound armies looking quite silly...

But really, what we have here, is a freakin' massive hunk of Unknown.

I am a bit worried about this whole update though, because my friends and I have been having some good times recently, having not played in years. We grew up on 2nd Ed and pretty quickly lost interest in 3rd. I'll be really sad if interest wanes again... Hopefully, if it is really bad, we'll just stick in 6th. And I have to say, much as I hoped it was a rules update, it looks much more like a new edition. I believe he even says new edition in that White Dwarf article...

The problem is, there are still Codices that haven't been updated to 6th. I was really expecting that they would finally complete the goal of getting them all updated with the speed they were going at. How many non 6th codices were left? About 5? So one more year and they could have done it? If they had, we probably would have been content to sit in 6th for a long time...

I suppose we're playing more 2nd again, so we can just keep doing that too.