ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

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

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Skaven are Awesome - best thng GW ever did Would have been great to see them in 40k

 Byte wrote:

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

6th's "dual force at 2000 pts" isn't accepted in most tourneys and a big no no in pickup games. Do you really think...

 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.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Byte wrote:

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

6th's "dual force at 2000 pts" isn't accepted in most tourneys and a big no no in pickup games. Do you really think...

Seriously? Amount that allows double force org tourneys to amount that doesnt allow it here is over 10 to 1.

 Byte wrote:

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

6th's "dual force at 2000 pts" isn't accepted in most tourneys and a big no no in pickup games. Do you really think...

 SkaerKrow wrote:
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.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
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

 Commander_Farsight wrote:
For me I love the game. My largest problem is how much money I have to put out to really play it. I'm not expecting it to be a bargain mart or anything, but considering that its like $60 for a supplement (like the same as a codex) kinda pisses me off. I'm not looking for someone to say, "well actually its $40" as thats not my point. I bought the fatbook for 6th edition. I love the books and all the fluff and pictures, but GW is pushing me away. For 7th I am totally going onto eBay and getting myself the small rulebook from Orks v. BA (rumor true yet?).

What are your guys' thoughts on how much us gamers are having to spend for the hobby? Here is my bill in the last few weeks:

3 Riptides: $198
Bag: $52
Custom Foam: $50
the rest of my stuff: $300

I understand that this is also because I am building an army and the expenses will drop, but now having even more getting tacked on in a couple of weeks! Its gets me mad.

 tomjoad wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Byte wrote:

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

6th's "dual force at 2000 pts" isn't accepted in most tourneys and a big no no in pickup games. Do you really think...

Seriously? Amount that allows double force org tourneys to amount that doesnt allow it here is over 10 to 1.

And if your experience with double force org events is anything like mine, you'd probably agree that it is really no problem, and the chicken littles were wrong, again, like they usually are.

 TheKbob wrote:
What if they actually listened to us and change Battle Brothers...?:

"Here at Games Workshop, we hear that there are problems with Battle Brothers in their current form. To help alleviate issues with this, we have now allowed to battle brothers to embark on each others transports so your new friends may be delivered safely to their destination."
-GW Writer Guy

Razerous wrote:
Okay so what actually needs to get fixed?

In a system like this there will always be flawed choices or weaker units/elements (rough riders, walkers, the BA codex),,,

But that aside, what key points could be fixed?

- 2d6 Charge to a set figures, random through difficult terrain etc.

- Allies (un-break stuff)

- D-Weapons (re: FW rules)

- Faster Infantry / Buffed getting-into-close-combat mechanics

- Skyfire fix (snap shots are fine but needing specific weapons that only handle specific threats, too much)

Just spitballing. Probably entirely pointless.

 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.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 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.

 WarOne wrote:
I have now snapped.

In gratitude to GW and the rumors of their rules for breaking me, I now rock a new avatar for the levels of seething hatred I now harbor (for those who do not see it, it's an Angry Marine).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.:

Spoiler:

Because of this I’ve worked out a fairly simple system for determining how much models cost points wise. This is done by following steps much like one would for equipping a model with additional wargear and starting with a base profile and building it up from there. I’m going to lay out the basic set-up and walk through how it’d apply to a Space Marine, an Imperial Guardsman, a Carnifex and then a Rhino. The base profile always starts at a cost of 0 points and is adjusted from there

Non-Vehicle Models
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
...2...2...2.2.1.1.1..5.....-..Infantry

Add 1 point:
For each additional point a characteristic is improved by
Each point save is improved by
For adding an adding an additional type to the model’s type (example: adding Jump to make the model a Jump Infantry model or making the model a Character)
If the model is a Scoring model
For each special rule added to the model that only has one mechanic (examples: Fear, Fleet)
For offensive grenades
For defensive grenades
Subtract 1 point:
For each point the model’s characteristics are lowered by
Add 2 points:
For each special rule that has more than one mechanic (example: Zealot, Chapter Tactics)
Changing the model’s Type to Beast, Cavalry or Bike
Add 10 points:
Changing the creature to Jetbike
Add 50 Points:
Change model’s type to Monstrous Creature
Add 75 points:
Changing the model’s type to Flying Monstrous Creature

Ranged Weapons
Range S AP Type
6”..........1..-....Rapid-Fire

If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 0 Points:
Changing weapon type to “Pistol”, Heavy, or Salvo
Subtract 1 Point:
Adding Gets Hot
Add 1 Point:
For each 6” increment the weapon’s maximum range is increased by
For each point in strength the weapon gains
For each point the weapon’s AP is improved by
For changing the Weapon type to “Assualt”
For each additional shot the weapon can fire over the first (excludes Rapid Fire and Pistol, all other weapon types fire 1 shot base)
For each additional special rule the weapon has (excluding Gets Hot and Poison)
Add 2 Points:
For changing the strength to X
If the weapon has the Poison Special Rule

Melee Weapons
Range S..........AP..Type
-............User......- ...Melee

If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 1 Point:
For each point of strength it increases the bearer by (example: +1, +2, ect)
For each point of AP the weapon is improved by
For each additional rule the weapon gains (excluding Instant Death and Poison)
For each additional point that it increases the bearer’s stats by (example: +1 Initiative)
For each point the weapon modifies and opposing model’s stats by (example: -1, -2, ect)
Add 5 Points:
If the weapon multiplies the bearer’s strength (example: x2, x3)
If the weapon has the Instant Death special rule
If the weapon wounds on a fixed number or has the Poison special rule

Vehicles
WS BS S FA SA RA I A HP Type
...-....1....-...9...9...9...-..-..1.......-

Add 1 Point:
Each point that a characteristic value is raised by (“-” counts as “0”, excludes Hull Points)
Every model the vehicle can carry
Each special rule added to the model
For Each Access Point
For each Fire Point
Add 5 Points:
Each additional vehicle type added to the vehicle (to include it’s initial type (ex: walker, tank, includes the Transport type)
Each additional Hull Point beyond the first
Add 100 Points:
If Vehicle is a Super Heavy (this is in addition to the 5 points for changing it's type)

Examples:
Tactical Space Marine
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
.4.....4...4.4.4.1.1...8..3+.Infantry, And They Shall No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
COST:
+18 Characteristic Increase
+1 Scoring
+2 And They Shall No Fear
+2 Chapter Tactics
+1 Combat Squads
+8 Bolter (shown below)
+5 Bolt Pistol (shown below)
Total: 37 Points/model (doesn't include Grenades due to simplicity's sake here)

Bolter
Range S AP Type
24”........4..5...Rapid-Fire
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP
Total: 8 Points

Bolt Pistol
Range S AP Type
6”..........4...5..Pistol
+3 Strength
+2 AP
Total: 5 Points

Imperial Guardsman
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
..3.....3..3.3.3.1.1...7..5+.Infantry, Orders, Combined Squads
COST:
+10 Characteristic Improvement
+2 for Save
+1 Scoring
+1 Combined Squads
+1 Orders
+5 Lasgun (shown below)
Total: 20 Points

Lasgun:
Range S AP Type
24”.......3...-.....Rapid-Fire
COST:
+3 Range
+2 Strength
Total: 5 points

Carnifex:
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
..3.....3..9 6 2 4 3 7 3+ Monstrous Creature, Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
COST:
+23 Characteristic Increases
+50 Monstrous Creature
+3 Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
+0 Two Pairs Scything Talons (shown below)
Total: 76 Points

Scything Talons:
Range S AP Type
-...........User.....-....Melee
+0 Points

Rhino:
WS BS S FA SA RA I A HP Type
..-....4....-..11..11...10...-..-..3....Tank, Transport
COST:
+8 Characteristic Increases
+10 (+2 HP)
+10 Capacity
+10 Tank, Transport
+3 Access Points
+2 Fire Points
+10 Storm Bolter
Total: 53 Points

Storm Bolter:
Range S AP Type
24”.......4..5...Assault 2
COST:
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP
+1 Assault
+1 Shot
Total: 10 Points

 SkaerKrow wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 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.

While I respect that you're saying, I don't understand how you can apply that perception to 40k. By its very nature, 40k allows for tremendous amounts of imbalance by giving players freedom to customize their armies. That in itself can create serious disparity between the players' chances of victory, before a single model gets placed on the table. Couple that with the fact that there has always been little balance between power levels of the various army books, and you've only compounded the fact that match-ups and list disparity can completely hose a player right out of the gate. This has always been the way of things, all the way back to at least Second Edition at least (I never played Rogue Trader, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true then, as well).

GW's new philosophy seems to be that, instead of one or two armies having access to crazy, powerful units (as it was in the past), every army is getting access to them now (subtraction by addition?). Instead of getting hosed because you happen to be playing out of a bad/old Codex, now you will be able to dump the Force Org chart and possibly breathe new life into an underachieving book. Now you will be able to pick up a Lord of War in order to prop up an otherwise sagging list. I absolutely cannot get on board with this idea that Seventh Edition is going to be inheritly worse than anything that's come before, because what's come before has always had its moments of being bent, broken, and at times unplayable. Seventh Edition might be bent in different ways from earlier versions of the game, but more bent? Not seeing it.

 Blacksails wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
I have now snapped.

In gratitude to GW and the rumors of their rules for breaking me, I now rock a new avatar for the levels of seething hatred I now harbor (for those who do not see it, it's an Angry Marine).

I give this post two angry chainswords.

 SkaerKrow wrote:
By its very nature, 40k allows for tremendous amounts of imbalance by giving players freedom to customize their armies.

Instead of getting hosed because you happen to be playing out of a bad/old Codex, now you will be ...

 SkaerKrow wrote:
While I respect that you're saying, I don't understand how you can apply that perception to 40k. By its very nature, 40k allows for tremendous amounts of imbalance by giving players freedom to customize their armies. That in itself can create serious disparity between the players' chances of victory, before a single model gets placed on the table. Couple that with the fact that there has always been little balance between power levels of the various army books, and you've only compounded the fact that match-ups and list disparity can completely hose a player right out of the gate. This has always been the way of things, all the way back to at least Second Edition at least (I never played Rogue Trader, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true then, as well).