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.

 Mr Morden wrote:
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.....

I think a lot of us are. Not quite "rats abandoning a sinking ship" yet, but I think we are checking to see if the water is rising.....


Sorry for the rat metaphor, I've been reading up on Skaven today and it was the first thing that came to mind.

 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?

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

1. There are kindle versions, and they are cheaper. Although the formatting isn't great it's still searchable.
2. I have an iPad, and fully charged will easily last a few days of use to and from work (I commute via train) as well as use at home for gaming. Battery life on tablets is a non-issue
3. Updates to the digital book cost nothing unless it is an entirely new version. Not sure what you're complaining about here.
4. How does it encourage them to be (more) lazy and greedy then they currently are? You're not backing up your statements at all. As has already been discussed, GW is a publicly traded company, greedy is a given. While it would be cool if you got an e-version of whatever paper codex you buy, I don't feel entitled to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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

I feel the opposite. I prefer the digital versions.

I still refuse to believe unbound will be the new main set of rules for 40k, and for those jumping ship already what if they fix a lot of the problems witb 6th and have a great core edition but with unbound in it? We will do what tournaments and stores always do, play by the best rules and missions to create a fun and more bbalanced game.
Dont give up hope yet.

What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...

I'd bet my life that 6 months after release, unbound armies are simply unseen/unheard of outside of fluff-driven campaigns. It will be generally known by gaming groups and gamers that you don't bring unbound lists to games, in the same way that now you wouldn't show up to a game with 5 Baneblades and demand that they play Apocolypse with you.

Hell you can play multiplayer PC games with cheat mode enabled if you want. Doesn't mean people actually do it when they're gaming. Just chill out guys, or at least focus on different things that will force you to sell all your models and quit the hobby .

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...

The assumption that everyone will insist on only playing Unbound armies to get the biggest advantages possible I think.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...

The same place that the "Ultramarines have twin-linked tactical squads all the time" rumour before 6th edition Space Marine codex. i.e. speculation piled on top of speculation at which point it becomes fact.

As I said above, Unbound armies simply won't even exist in any real level in 7th edition outside of entirely narrative driven/fluffy scenarios. And people in those scenarios have always just ignored the official rules anyway, I suppose GW are just supplying a rough framework in which to do that.

I don't think it's a question of format. It is just another legal way of building a list before you play a game.

The fact we're all talking about house ruling out a major addition to the new expensive (unreleased) rulebook speaks to the massive disconnect between company and customer.

 Eldarain wrote:
I don't think it's a question of format. It is just another legal way of building a list before you play a game.

The fact we're all talking about house ruling out a major addition to the new expensive (unreleased) rulebook speaks to the massive disconnect between company and customer.

I'd argue it doesn't. GW wants us to house rule things to make the game suit us better, and that's exactly what we're doing.

 Eldarain wrote:
I don't think it's a question of format. It is just another legal way of building a list before you play a game.

The fact we're all talking about house ruling out a major addition to the new expensive (unreleased) rulebook speaks to the massive disconnect between company and customer.

More like massive disconnect between the the internet and a couple paragraphs of sizzle text for changes comming.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...

I don't see anyone who has made that statement. The general problem is simply that Unbound aka Apoc aka Escalation is now a core part of the rules, whereas it was optional before. This means that people are likely to be drawn to it, if enough do then those of us who have absolutely no interest in playing such games will likely have a harder time playing "normal" aka Battle Forged 40k. If it's hard to get a game in, then it's time to move to something more friendly. This has the effect of further lowering the number of 40k players, which is not a good thing.

clively wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...

I don't see anyone who has made that statement. The general problem is simply that Unbound aka Apoc aka Escalation is now a core part of the rules, whereas it was optional before. This means that people are likely to be drawn to it, if enough do then those of us who have absolutely no interest in playing such games will likely have a harder time playing "normal" aka Battle Forged 40k. If it's hard to get a game in, then it's time to move to something more friendly. This has the effect of further lowering the number of 40k players, which is not a good thing.

So you've seen the actual rulebook confirming this then?

I think I only played like 20 games of 6th total rofl. I have played since RT and liked 6th the least for a variety of reasons, glad I didn't buy anything in the past year or more. It's been less than 3 years since 6th right? How long until I can get a cheap rulebook (aka box set book on ebay) do you all think? I'm not buying any more miniatures since I already have enough to play 10 different matchups here at home so I'll just give the new rules a spin. If we get back the ability to go full reserve at least I will be able to play my Imperial armies again, we house ruled that back in like a month after 6th came out because my DoA Red Hunter (Blood Angel) Army was going to take their ball and go home.

The worst part is that 40k was always something I looked forward to getting into with my kids and now that my oldest is getting into it I have to suggest something else. The tedious nature of 6th games and the crazy cost of buying a new army has me telling him "let's just play with the armies we have and buy a few more board games instead of starting a new army". It takes so dang long to play a game that even when we are pumped to play one over the weekend we usually opt for Zombicide or something instead to get right to the fun.

Here's hoping for a less tedious, faster and more FUN ruleset (at least from our gaming house perspective).

Well double force org at 2000 points was in the rules and many 2000 tournaments or games are adjusted to ignore those rules.
It has been seen that if GW crrates something so unbalanced it will be universally banned or restricted, there is no way in hell any decent tournament will alloe unbound armies.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

clively wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What I want to know is where this idea that Unbound is the only format in the new edition came from...

I don't see anyone who has made that statement. The general problem is simply that Unbound aka Apoc aka Escalation is now a core part of the rules, whereas it was optional before. This means that people are likely to be drawn to it, if enough do then those of us who have absolutely no interest in playing such games will likely have a harder time playing "normal" aka Battle Forged 40k. If it's hard to get a game in, then it's time to move to something more friendly. This has the effect of further lowering the number of 40k players, which is not a good thing.

So you've seen the actual rulebook confirming this then?

Of course he has. They all have, that's why they know the sky is falling /sarcasm.

Seriously...I understand that it's easy to freak out about a couple of lines of text, but we don't even know all of the details about what an "unbound" list is, nor do we know what bonuses you get for a "battle-forged" list. But, that's the Internet for you...the most vocal minority always saying that the end is nigh.

How many actual gamers do you know are going to rush out and buy 7 more riptides just because they want to be TFG?

I think the TFGs that exist now will be the same TFGs in 7th.

I really don't think most of us are going to have our gaming experiences ruined because of this.

And as ALWAYS it is your choice to play against any given opponent.

 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.

Somewhere deep in the bowels of this ever expanding thread, buried within smoke and ruin, I believe someone referred to 6th saying "It can't get any worse"

Unless my friend buys this I'll be waiting for some lengthy reviews before even thinking about purchasing a 7th.

 skink007 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.

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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. If you take a Land Raider and I don't have anything to kill it than my Land Raider worth of points should be able to do some damage somewhere else, it's down to my tactics to avoid the Land Raider or mitigate the damage it causes.

That being said, a problem with Unbound armies that you have highlighted is this: What if you bring an army of nothing but Land Raiders? If I have simply nothing to kill a Land Raider and that's all you have, we definitely have a problem. Perhaps my original statement needs refining. The problem does not lie entirely with the FOC or lack thereof.

Why should you be able to get an advantage for failing to bring something to handle AV14? The strategy of the game isn't just how you play what's on the table, it's also how you allocate those points in your list. It's not my fault you decide to take three Knights and I bring three Stormravens with multi-meltas and plasma, or you bring a horde of gaunts and I have two Land Raiders. That has nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with poor list-making strategy.

 streamdragon wrote:
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"..

Which is why I said 'Most...' rather than 'All...'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KommissarKarl wrote:
As I said above, Unbound armies simply won't even exist in any real level in 7th edition outside of entirely narrative driven/fluffy scenarios. And people in those scenarios have always just ignored the official rules anyway, I suppose GW are just supplying a rough framework in which to do that.

An argument could be made that there is little point including something in the rules if it's going to be ignored by everyone except for those who would have played that way even if it wasn't in the rules at all...

 insaniak wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
As I said above, Unbound armies simply won't even exist in any real level in 7th edition outside of entirely narrative driven/fluffy scenarios. And people in those scenarios have always just ignored the official rules anyway, I suppose GW are just supplying a rough framework in which to do that.

An argument could be made that there is little point including something in the rules if it's going to be ignored by everyone except for those who would have played that way even if it wasn't in the rules at all...

Forgeworld and Escalation are part of the 'core' rules, but those get ignored all the time. I know Escalation is a dirty word around here but Forgeworld seems alright

 spectreoneone wrote:

 skink007 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.

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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. If you take a Land Raider and I don't have anything to kill it than my Land Raider worth of points should be able to do some damage somewhere else, it's down to my tactics to avoid the Land Raider or mitigate the damage it causes.

That being said, a problem with Unbound armies that you have highlighted is this: What if you bring an army of nothing but Land Raiders? If I have simply nothing to kill a Land Raider and that's all you have, we definitely have a problem. Perhaps my original statement needs refining. The problem does not lie entirely with the FOC or lack thereof.

Why should you be able to get an advantage for failing to bring something to handle AV14? The strategy of the game isn't just how you play what's on the table, it's also how you allocate those points in your list. It's not my fault you decide to take three Knights and I bring three Stormravens with multi-meltas and plasma, or you bring a horde of gaunts and I have two Land Raiders. That has nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with poor list-making strategy.

I don't disagree with this. If i said that I do somewhere, that was simply poor organization of thoughts on my part!

I just want walkers and hull points fixed.

Maybe they can do something about the Battle Brothers thing.

I like how there's so much "the sky is falling" from the community about this new edition. 40k was never a tightly balanced game, and the broken stuff under this edition's restrictions is just as bad as any broken stuff that the new edition will bring. If you think that we're going from Space Chess to something objectively worse than what we have now...well, I'm not sure what game that you've been playing, but it's not Warhammer 40k.

I've been reading the leaked WD at face value rather than trying to read between the lines and nowhere does it say or hint at that Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other. The allusion to in-game bonuses for Battle-Forged armies does not equal Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other.

I believe that the intent of the statement is to point out that playing games (you and your opponent) using Battle-Forged armies is still desirable as to take advantage of added game rules. Not necessarily that Battle-Forged armies get bonuses to aid their shortcomings vs. an Unbound army.

I, for one, look forward to running an army of literally nothing but Dreadknights and Psyfledreads.

JSF wrote: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.

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.

I am hanging on to my figures, because they could potentially be used as proxies in another game

Now is the perfect opportunity to pull out your 5th edition books and snag whatever 5th edition codexes you don't have yet for cheap. People are getting in the mind set that they're going to be leaving 6th edition, so why not offer your local gaming buddies the opportunity to return to 5th edition and start playing that regularly?

I don't know what your local scene is like, but I'd start exchanging contact info and talking the idea up and seeing if you can't get a handful of people who are interested in joining you in playing a version of the rules you enjoyed.

Worst case scenario is that 7th edition actually turns out good and you can adopt it once the verdict comes. And if 7th does for 40k what 8th did for WFB, you'll have lots of players around with armies not satisfied with the current rules.

 oni wrote:
I've been reading the leaked WD at face value rather than trying to read between the lines and nowhere does it say or hint at that Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other. The allusion to in-game bonuses for Battle-Forged armies does not equal Unbound armies and Battle-Forged armies play each other.

I believe that the intent of the statement is to point out that playing games (you and your opponent) using Battle-Forged armies is still desirable as to take advantage of added game rules. Not necessarily that Battle-Forged armies get bonuses to aid their shortcomings vs. an Unbound army.

There's no reason for Battle-forged armies to get bonuses specifically for being Battle-forged unless they play against armies that aren't.

I think 7th is going to be fantastic. I'm looking forward to the change. Most of the 7th edition additional options/rules will get "TO'd" out of competition. Just like "1999+1" in 5th, unbound will be a never used option in pickup games and competition. Heck I've had SHA and Escalation since the release and they aren't allowed in any local RTT and forget trying to use the books in pick ups around here. Dual force, your the devil!

 SkaerKrow wrote:
I like how there's so much "the sky is falling" from the community about this new edition. 40k was never a tightly balanced game, and the broken stuff under this edition's restrictions is just as bad as any broken stuff that the new edition will bring. If you think that we're going from Space Chess to something objectively worse than what we have now...well, I'm not sure what game that you've been playing, but it's not Warhammer 40k.

I don't think anyone mistakes this for Space Chess (which would be cool.)

People are looking at the D weapons, 2+ rerollable invulnerable saves, deathstars, Tau / Eldar / Taudar, dataslabs, whatever and just thinking to themselves, how much worse is this about to get?

It's not about seeking balance, it's about having a playable game. Playable means both sides have a realistic expectation of achieving victory in a given match, even if one side has an advantage. It's getting to the point where that expectation is not realistic against some armies.

It's reasonable and healthy to expect GW's new edition will do little to improve the situation. It would be a nice surprise if the new edition avoids exacerbating the situation, but that's hoping for the best.