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.

 Leth wrote:

 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.

So tell me how you're enjoying the MT ebook... oh wait

In all seriousness, I agree in general that there are some significant advantages to the digitization of GW's rules documents, but the way they are handling it does not instill much confidence that these benefits will be passed to the consumer in the long run. Most telling is the fact that the MT book has not been released on a non-apple platform, with no apparent intent to ever do so. Not to mention the fact that tweaks and updates have seemingly been distributed inconsistently (from what I hear), and many of the prices are the same as print. If the future of GW digital is nothing but over-costed, ipad-exclusive "mini-dexes" with limited or inconsistent attempts to provide updates, then I doubt anyone will find the service worthwhile.

I think people are getting too nervous about this unbound thing. Complete guess here but I'm going to guess that an unbound army is an army with out FOC slots. That means no troops, no HQs none of that. So even if you play with models that would be troops in a battle forged army they won't count as troops and won't be scoring. No HQs would mean no warlords. If you are playing an eternal war mission with out these things you will find it a difficult battle no matter what you bring.

I'm more concerned with how formations will work. Will you be able to play a battle forged army with formations?

 skink007 wrote:
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.

Hear, hear!

The main rules (other than mechanics that seemingly contradict and poor wording choices) have very little to do with balance. They could use Unbound or Battle Forged or Apocalypse or what ever they wanted. If a unit that is twice as good costs twice the points it would all even out in the end. The biggest problems is when a model that is twice as good only costs 1.3 to 1.

 skink007 wrote:
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.

Fluff is very subjective and usually a casualty of ignorance. For example, those who think a fluffy ba army I
Is only assault troops when in reality blood angels have 10 companies and use the codex astartes. Imo everything in a codex is fluffy, but unbound armies and allies are where the problems happen.

Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

2) better take a battery charger with you.

Books may be bulky, but with some light, you can read them regardless.

3) Yep, added costs of updates and they may make them more frequently to the point your digital copy became far more pricey than just a new book.

4) it encourages GW to get lazy and greedy

 DJGietzen wrote:
I think people are getting too nervous about this unbound thing. Complete guess here but I'm going to guess that an unbound army is an army with out FOC slots. That means no troops, no HQs none of that. So even if you play with models that would be troops in a battle forged army they won't count as troops and won't be scoring. No HQs would mean no warlords. If you are playing an eternal war mission with out these things you will find it a difficult battle no matter what you bring.

I'm more concerned with how formations will work. Will you be able to play a battle forged army with formations?

No Warlords would mean no "Slay the Warlord" and seeing as even Apoc has Warlords I'd assume that it'd still be a think in "Unbound".

 Kirasu wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
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.

Fluff is very subjective and usually a casualty of ignorance. For example, those who think a fluffy ba army I
Is only assault troops when in reality blood angels have 10 companies and use the codex astartes. Imo everything in a codex is fluffy, but unbound armies and allies are where the problems happen.

Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"

 skink007 wrote:
Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"

Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"

Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.

That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.

It's a points balance problem.

I like the idea of people having to buy a new edition every two years. Hopefully this time they'll put a stripped down incomplete rulebook in the starter set so people won't just be able to get a copy of the rules off eBay for cheap. I want people to get hit with a nice "pay $100 to keep playing this game" tax as often as possible. Hopefully also GW will short independent retailers on the rulebooks so the only reliable way to get it is to buy it direct from GW. More money for GW, less for parasite online discounters.

Now that I think about it, they should probably do an edition change every year. They can stop talking about 6th, 7th, etc., and just give the rules a designation based on the year they are produced. Like core sets in Magic: The Gathering but 100% not optional. Warhammer 40k (2014). The beginning of a new era.

GW needs as much money as possible from each player before they quit in order to survive. They can sell them a starter or a battleforce, a codex, some paint, hobby stuff, etc., and then have the customer make a couple more unit purchases before they quit and anything after that is gravy. Now they can also have them buy the rules again even more regularly.

This new edition after two years is a start, but we need 40k players everywhere paying extra every year for the new rules. And we also need the changes to be minor. Keeps development and studio costs down.

The changes should also create new sales opportunities. Maybe making a psychic phase and some variable objectives. After all, there's an opportunity for each person to have to spend $20+ for psychic cards and objective cards.

Designing games for profitability first and foremost is what good game design is all about. Game considerations should definitely be secondary to business concerns. The core act of the hobby is, after all, the purchasing of GW products.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 skink007 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"

Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.

That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.

It's a points balance problem.

The problem is there is no standard points costing system. They don't, say, add a point to the total for each additional point of toughness they add, or they increase the armour save by. Without that the points will never be "balanced" completely because each thing is points costed subjectively instead of based on any kind of system.

 skink007 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"

Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.

That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.

It's a points balance problem.

Agreed. If points were close to what units actually perform as, Penitent Engines would be waaay cheaper and Riptides would be a lot more expensive. (for some examples.)
If points were close to accurate, the FOC unbound thing would be much much less of a problem.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I like the idea of people having to buy a new edition every two years. Hopefully this time they'll put a stripped down incomplete rulebook in the starter set so people won't just be able to get a copy of the rules off eBay for cheap. I want people to get hit with a nice "pay $100 to keep playing this game" tax as often as possible. Hopefully also GW will short independent retailers on the rulebooks so the only reliable way to get it is to buy it direct from GW. More money for GW, less for parasite online discounters.

Now that I think about it, they should probably do an edition change every year. They can stop talking about 6th, 7th, etc., and just give the rules a designation based on the year they are produced. Like core sets in Magic: The Gathering but 100% not optional. Warhammer 40k (2014). The beginning of a new era.

GW needs as much money as possible from each player before they quit in order to survive. They can sell them a starter or a battleforce, a codex, some paint, hobby stuff, etc., and then have the customer make a couple more unit purchases before they quit and anything after that is gravy. Now they can also have them buy the rules again even more regularly.

This new edition after two years is a start, but we need 40k players everywhere paying extra every year for the new rules. And we also need the changes to be minor. Keeps development and studio costs down.

The changes should also create new sales opportunities. Maybe making a psychic phase and some variable objectives. After all, there's an opportunity for each person to have to spend $20+ for psychic cards and objective cards.

Designing games for profitability first and foremost is what good game design is all about. Game considerations should definitely be secondary to business concerns. The core act of the hobby is, after all, the purchasing of GW products.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

...Are you Tom Kirby?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 skink007 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 skink007 wrote:
Okay then instead of fluffy I meant "an army that is composed of units I think are cool"

Incredibly subjective. Someone out there thinks an army of Riptides is "cool" for example.

That's entirely my point. You should be able to create an army of anything you think is cool without it being laughably under-powered or so OP that you're branded as TFG.

It's a points balance problem.

The problem is there is no standard points costing system. They don't, say, add a point to the total for each additional point of toughness they add, or they increase the armour save by. Without that the points will never be "balanced" completely because each thing is points costed subjectively instead of based on any kind of system.

You are right. It has to be subjective or otherwise we get units that are all copy-pastes of each other. I never expect the game to be perfect, but it could be better than it is now.

Nah, he is being cheeky

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.

 insaniak wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.

I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital

Razerous wrote:

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

- Tactical Objectives... adding more complexity?!

I don't see this as bad at all. As I read in the scan, they'll be for Maelstrom of War missions, not Eternal War ones. So the present-day missions will not sport any kind of cards. If you don't like then, don't play the new missions. I am, for one, very interested in combat cards. Dynamic objectives are more interesting than 'these 3-5 objectives are worth each 3 VP. Have scoring people near them in the end and you win'.

I like the inclusion of a psychic phase as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I think people are getting too nervous about this unbound thing. Complete guess here but I'm going to guess that an unbound army is an army with out FOC slots. That means no troops, no HQs none of that. So even if you play with models that would be troops in a battle forged army they won't count as troops and won't be scoring. No HQs would mean no warlords. If you are playing an eternal war mission with out these things you will find it a difficult battle no matter what you bring.

I'm more concerned with how formations will work. Will you be able to play a battle forged army with formations?

No Warlords would mean no "Slay the Warlord" and seeing as even Apoc has Warlords I'd assume that it'd still be a think in "Unbound".

On'y if they don't change the wording on slay the warlord. If it was changed to "If, at the end of the game, the enemy does not control a Warlord, you score 1 Victory Point." or "If, at the end of the game, your Warlord is still alive, you score 1 Victory Point." Either would do the same thing in terms of points spread as the current rule.

I actualy expect warlords to still be in unbound armies even if I'm right about the no HQ thing. It would probably be the model with the highest leadership like we have seen in Codex: LoTD

 Mr Morden wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.

I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital

You know in the argreement for all their digital products you are allowed to print off a copy for personal use right as well as place it on as many platforms as you own. At least from black library. Apple has different requirements that are wonky to use their platform.

In addition I got a tablet for less than 10 bucks a month added on to my plan(tablet was free with 2 year). If I turn on airport mode it will last for an entire weekend(as it did during adepticon). I was hesitent at first until I tried it.

 skink007 wrote:
You are right. It has to be subjective or otherwise we get units that are all copy-pastes of each other. I never expect the game to be perfect, but it could be better than it is now.

I don't think they'd be exactly the same, but they'd have a very similar base points cost for certain things perhaps.

I was playing with a system for points costing a model for example (it's not perfect but it does outline a kind of means something like this could be done). It still had some subjectivity (how much I valued certain things at for instance) but changing the cost of those options would change the cost for all the models with that option and rebalanced everything more easilly.:

ClockworkZion wrote:
...Are you Tom Kirby?

shasolenzabi wrote:Nah, he is being cheeky

I just decided to really commit to the sarcasm.

I'm still just shocked that there's a new edition after only two years. I know GW had a bad financial report recently, but I didn't think things were so bad they'd have to move up a revenue generator like a new version of 40k so soon after the last one.

 MWHistorian wrote:
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.

As I pointed out, the rules already allow for them.

 skink007 wrote:
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.

I agree point balance could be better (and the walker/MC distinction better defined), but I have to disagree with the underlined. List making is part of the game, a rather important part at that. If you aren't prepared for something, and your opponent brings it, no amount of points balance is going to save you. In a perfectly point-balanced game, if I don't bring any anti-tank weapons and my opponent drops even a single Land Raider or something, the points didn't mess up. The same with flyers and AA. If you wanted to complain about Escalation or SHA bringing in things outside the main book that people didn't necessarily know to account for, you might have an argument. By things like tanks and flyers are in the main book now, for better or worse, and you should expect to see them.

By all means, if you know your opponent and/or their list, and you want to make comments like "you won't need AA, I'm not bringing any flyers", go for it. It's sporting to your opponent and is more likely to get you another game. But expecting to be able to take just any unit and always have a chance of winning the game completely defeats the purpose of each unit in each army having a specific role. It almost defeats the purpose of a wargame entirely.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Nah, he is being cheeky

Fair enough.

 insaniak wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.

EPubs however are horrible, ugly mess. I really like the new high quality colour hardbacks, digital books (not even iBooks) just are not the same.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.

EPubs however are horrible, ugly mess. I really like the new high quality colour hardbacks, digital books (not even iBooks) just are not the same.

Not to mention wasn't there a book released recently that was iBook only and GW flat out said "we have no plans to release this in non-Apple formats".

Can't remember if that was an actual rule book or something else though.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.

EPubs however are horrible, ugly mess. I really like the new high quality colour hardbacks, digital books (not even iBooks) just are not the same.

Not to mention wasn't there a book released recently that was iBook only and GW flat out said "we have no plans to release this in non-Apple formats".

Can't remember if that was an actual rule book or something else though.

Stormtroopers Codex.

 Leth wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Problem with digitalization folks.
1) not all can afford the exclusivity of GW+Apple and their overpriced i-Pads/etc, if you own such then you have a leg up, but for those of us who don't own such and not want to, Kindles are lower cost and would be nice to see kindle versions, but that may mean cheaper versions?

Most of the digital publications are also available as ePubs. And yes, they're slightly cheaper than the iBook versions.

I always want paper copies if I can get them rather than digital

You know in the argreement for all their digital products you are allowed to print off a copy for personal use right as well as place it on as many platforms as you own. At least from black library. Apple has different requirements that are wonky to use their platform.

In addition I got a tablet for less than 10 bucks a month added on to my plan(tablet was free with 2 year). If I turn on airport mode it will last for an entire weekend(as it did during adepticon). I was hesitent at first until I tried it.

Yeah I printed out the relevant bits of my Adepta Sororitas Codex and the Inquisition one - but I only cos I had no choice - I just like books - pdfs are always 2nd choice for me. Its also true that the epub version of the codex was a mess.....

Re balance - the problem does seem to be that there are well known "mistakes" in the points cost / effectivness of certain units in the game and no interest from GW in fixing the problem............ If they closed the gaps betwen the currently Useless (Howling Banshees), Average (Falcon Grav tank) and the Broken (Wave Serpent*) units - the game would be better for everyone

* just using the Eldar as an example.......

Prior to this, I was actually looking forward to 7th, because I thought it might fix some of the issues with 6th.

Here's the thing: I have, as do many people here, thousands of dollars invested in GW products. Some people in this thread may be up in the tens of thousands. Maybe more, I don't know; the point is, we're talking huge amounts of money poured into their models and rules, none of which we can realistically hope to recoup. The rules are worthless once outdated, and the models lose huge chunks of their resale value once they're assembled and painted, unless they're done so to a professional standard, which very few people's are. Once the money goes into GW stuff, that's where it's going to stay.

Because of this, I've been willing to play a game that has, over the last two years, steadily fallen to pieces on just about every conceivable level, because to throw in the towel and cut my losses is to accept I've wasted a monumentally huge amount of time and money on something bad. That's something bad, not something pointless, or diverting, or silly, or superficial; bad. 6th edition, and everything that followed, has been bad. The over-reliance on random outcomes for what should be tactical choices - psychic powers, warlord traits, assault range - took away the ability to plan things in advance and shifted the focus onto instinctive reactions to unpredictable circumstances, which is to strategy games what randomly mashing buttons is to fighting games. The rules weren't proofread properly, leading to GW needing to clarify really, really basic things, like whether flying monstrous creatures can choose Skyfire (because the rulebook doesn't say, even though it's "intended"), how Look Out, Sir! works (because the wording in the book makes zero sense) and whether Allies of Convenience & Desperate Allies deny you your own objectives (because the rulebook says they do, even though they're "intended" not to). Again, these are really basic parts of the core mechanics, not one-off weird events that the designers couldn't have foreseen, yet they can't be bothered making sure the rules are communicated effectively. It may have high production values and cost a bomb, but it reads and plays like a fledgling company's free open beta PDF. It's dreadful. This isn't to say that it's impossible to have fun with it, but that's because certain players and certain environments will create a fun atmosphere regardless of how shoddy the game is.

Then came the steady trickle of dataslates and supplements. It's not that rules are ridiculous (although they are) or that they have no reason to even exist (although they don't), it's that keeping track of what's a legal army composition and what units are capable of doing what is now an uphill struggle I can't be bothered partaking in. "I have five deep-striking Helbrutes with It Will Not Die, it's a new dataslate" - Yeah, I am going to go along with this because life's too short to audit my opponent's iBooks library before every game, but this shouldn't be happening in the first place and there's no reason (apart from milking blood from a stone) why these couldn't have gone in their respective codices( the Iyanden supplement was advertised the same week Codex: Eldar went on sale, so there was literally no excuse in that instance). To argue that people should "just say no to supplements" solves nothing, firstly because house-ruling away a bad part of a game doesn't make the game itself better, and secondly because it just creates a division in the player base between pro- and anti- supplement players. I'm not mad at players who use supplements, because they're 100% legal and endorsed by GW; if I bought the Iyanden or Crimson Slaughter or Farsight books and got told that they were banned from my FLGS / tournament, I'd be justifiably angry about it.

What makes this sting: 5th worked. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it worked. They had a solid basis on which to build a better version, and have done nothing but drive it further and further into the ground.

It's been almost two years of steadily-mounting frustration at the state the game is in. And now, we get 7th. And we get it early, because GW have realised that barely anyone is playing 6th ("But they are at my club!" - I'm sure they are, but globally their customers are leaving in droves while the tabletop market continues to grow; this is a fact) and they need to revive the game.

VERBATIM QUOTE FROM WHITE DWARF A: "Unbound armies allow you to take whatever you want from your collection, and throw the Force Organisation chart out of the window".

VERBATIM QUOTE FROM WHITE DWARF B: "I can now make an army composed entirely of Forgefiends, Heldrakes and Defilers".

VERBATIM QUOTE FROM WHITE DWARF C: "The only limit to your games now are the models you have in your collection. Thrilling stuff".

This is what GW's official publication says. I am not making this up or exaggerating it. This is officially A Thing.

This isn't the straw that broke the camel's back, because that implies there was a series of small mistakes that eventually reached critical mass. I could, frankly, have dealt with a lot more straws before I threw in the towel, because I am not one to part with an investment of this size lightly. No, this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.

My unbound army is 50 one-man Nurgle Chaos Spawn units. Have fun shooting them one at a time.

My unbound army is 8 Land Raiders. 98% of your firepower can't hurt them. What a fun afternoon this'll be.

Your unbound army is 10 Riptides. I heartilly look forward to forging this narrative with you.

Your unbound army is 6 Heldrakes. I'm playing Knights. Here's to six turns of trying to glance your rear armour with a stubber while you try to flame my backside. Knights aren't even unbound, by the way, although they might as well be.

Does it matter if your battle-forged army gets a bonus in a situation like that? Even if (as people are predicting) you get some bonus victory point thing, that doesn't change that, fundamentally, playing against stupidly broken lists isn't fun or interesting. Yeah, maybe my battle-forged army can score more VP's than my opponent's 9 Vendetta list, but who cares? Who wants to play against that in the first place? Even if you can "win" against 12 Wave Serpents, is it worth spending time playing against something that tedious?

And, as with the supplements, it isn't fair on *either* side to simply say "don't play against unbound lists if you don't want to", because unbound lists are going to be legal and people are going to drop vast quantities of time and money in them, and even if they're utterly broken, unplayable messes, it's not fair to refuse to play with someone who's following the rules.

This is what will kill 40k. Not the individual rules or codices, but the admission - and blanket acceptance - that it's not a game, just an expensive way to show off figures that you bought for the sake of buying them. And it's true that I've bought GW figures in the past because I happened to like them, which is why I own a Carnosaur and a Mutalith despite not playing Fantasy. But it isn't why I own 70 veteran guardsmen with converted carapace armour, or 30 Space Marine bikers, or 100+ Orks, and I imagine that goes for most people, because assembling and painting literally hundreds of essentially identical figures isn't something people do for its own sake, particularly at GW prices. Sorry, but the sky is falling on GW - their financial situation isn't good (just because they're not going bankrupt next week doesn't equate to good news; at best they're treading water), their customer base is shrinking while tabletop market itself is expanding, and now they're not even pretending to make a workable game system anymore. Buy our stuff because reasons.

So. Me and GW have parted ways indefinitely after almost two decades. I am hanging on to my figures, because they could potentially be used as proxies in another game (I'm thinking Infinity, because the rules are free and I don't particularly like their official miniatures' aesthetic anyway), but I don't see myself giving another cent to GW unless present circumstances change severely. When the company inevitably implodes and everything is radically restructured so it actually works properly, I'll give it another look. Before then, no.

I just can't justify putting any more time and money into something that does nothing but let me down and rip me off.

Indeed - makes a lots of sense - I am waiting to see what 7th brings but i might have to look seriously at my GW habit.....