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.

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
26 single man obliterator squads for 1850.

It's SO FLUFFY!

That's really, really cool, actually. though it's more fleshy, considering Obliterator's appearance!

Anyways, I quite like the idea of Unbound armies. All out Chaos Terminator army? Yuss!

Chaos Terminators vs Space Marine Terminators, it would make the very ground shake.

Abaddon...

Tons of Terminators.

Yup... I'm there.

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
26 single man obliterator squads for 1850.

It's SO FLUFFY!

That's really, really cool, actually. though it's more fleshy, considering Obliterator's appearance!

Anyways, I quite like the idea of Unbound armies. All out Chaos Terminator army? Yuss!

Chaos Terminators vs Space Marine Terminators, it would make the very ground shake.

Especially when allied with an Unbound IG/AM army filled with artillery!

 StarTrotter wrote:

 turgon868 wrote:
Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.

It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.

Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?

FOOL! This is a grimdark thread. There are no limits, there is only war!

Lol, I should know better.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only hopeless pessimism.

 turgon868 wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 turgon868 wrote:
Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.

It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.

Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?

FOOL! This is a grimdark thread. There are no limits, there is only war!

Lol, I should know better.


Exalted Turgon868... Laughed my ass off just now lol.

 greyknight12 wrote:
I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.

You know what they say about hope...

...it is the first step to disappointment.

 Riquende wrote:
This is just too funny. I just wish that pararaph in the WD article ended not with "Thrilling stuff" but with "This is great news!".

Would have been the icing on the cake.

Not as funny as the reactions. I just hope the guy from the other thread (I think the astra millitarium rumour thread) who said he hoped the devs all got cancer shows up. That would be the icing on this cake of rage

I wonder what the 36 Objective cards could be?

1. Buy a Games Workshop Finecast model before they are discontinued.

21. Make sure to pick up a Black Library Omnibus before the opponent's next turn.

34. Praise Kirby three times for 1/2 a victory point.

 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.

So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.

This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy. First, "everything's available in epub, stop complaining", now "most of it is available in epub, stop complaining", soon we'll be into "the majority is available in epub a few months behind iBook format, stop complaining". Oooh, I wonder how long it will be until Pretre starts quoting people's obviously prescient remarks about how terrible GW's digital strategy would probably turn out to be as somehow being evidence that they were wrong at the time and, despite their remarks matching up fairly well with events in said future time period, are also wrong in that present?

 Yodhrin 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.

So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.

This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy. First, "everything's available in epub, stop complaining", now "most of it is available in epub, stop complaining", soon we'll be into "the majority is available in epub a few months behind iBook format, stop complaining". Oooh, I wonder how long it will be until Pretre starts quoting people's obviously prescient remarks about how terrible GW's digital strategy would probably turn out to be as somehow being evidence that they were wrong at the time and, despite their remarks matching up fairly well with events in said future time period, are also wrong in that present?

Codexes will always be release-printed. Your trenchant, and I'm sure purely rational, attack on GW's digital strategy seems to have omitted that most of what you are talking about is mini-dexes and data slates. You also haven't stated why you think GW should make a print-run of a product that they know won't make a return, just to appease you.

 greyknight12 wrote:
I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.

You know what they say about hope...

He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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

So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.

Yes, as I already pointed out, I said 'most' because it's not all of them. But thank you for making sure that the obvious was pointed out a second time.

All that the MT codex 'debacle' revealed was that there were no immediate plans to produce the MT codex in ePub format. 1 release does not a pattern make... particularly when it was such a half-baked release to start with.

This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy.

Yup, massive defender of GW's business strategies, that's me alright.

If you read my post again, you might notice that I wasn't telling anyone to stop complaining. I was responding to the claim that GW's digital releases are only any use to those with an iPad, to point out that most of them are not only available in iBook format.

That's not an endorsement of GW's business strategy, nor is it a demand that people stop complaining about things that they judge worthy of complaint. It's merely providing relevant information to someone who was apparently unaware of it.

 streamdragon wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.

You know what they say about hope...

He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.

Yet more proof GW really don't know their own rules?

(Or at least don't look at them in the same way as many of us, ie start looking through multiple books to figure out how many riptides can legally be taken.)

 jonolikespie wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.

You know what they say about hope...

He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.

Yet more proof GW really don't know their own rules?

Proof that the guy has 4 Riptide models.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I literally cannot think of any other tabletop wargame where players feel that they can just ignore the core rules because they don't fit into their idea of how the game 'should' be played.

I can't think of any other game that encourages players to invent their own rules and to change the rules of the game as they see fit to make it more fun. Seriously, go read Spirit of the Game in the rulebook. You'll see that the designers encourage you to do whatever you want in the name of fun between both parties.

 insaniak wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

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

So not all of them then. And you seem to be forgetting that the MT codex debacle revealed that non-iBook formats are going to be a tertiary consideration for the company going forward, an "if we've got time and can be arsed" event, and that was straight from the horse's face-hole.

Yes, as I already pointed out, I said 'most' because it's not all of them. But thank you for making sure that the obvious was pointed out a second time.

Welcome.

All that the MT codex 'debacle' revealed was that there were no immediate plans to produce the MT codex in ePub format. 1 release does not a pattern make... particularly when it was such a half-baked release to start with.

This is great, looks like we're going to get the exact same Perpetual Backpeddling Machine defence of the company's digital strategy as we do of their business strategy.

Yup, massive defender of GW's business strategies, that's me alright.

If you read my post again, you might notice that I wasn't telling anyone to stop complaining. I was responding to the claim that GW's digital releases are only any use to those with an iPad, to point out that most of them are not only available in iBook format.

That's not an endorsement of GW's business strategy, nor is it a demand that people stop complaining about things that they judge worthy of complaint. It's merely providing relevant information to someone who was apparently unaware of it.

Whether you're a defender of GW business strategies or not is completely beside the point, I was referring to the argument used, not the subject.

Before MT, you and others were quick to "provide relevant information" that ALL GW digital products were available in non-iPad formats, at every opportunity. Now you can do the same, but with the caveat of "most". In a few months, you will doubtless still be providing that information, by then with the caveat of "the majority, at some point after iPad". And at no point will there be an acknowledgement that plenty of people saw this coming a mile away and were painted as being bittervets or chicken littles, using "relevant information".

That's the kind of goalpost-shiftery the comparison was supposed to highlight; GW is having problems, "oh but LotR is wildly successful, you're wrong", the LotR bubble has burst, "oh but the company is still growing just not as fast, you're wrong", profits are stagnant despite above-inflation price rises and substantial cost cutting, indicating less sales, ".....erm, some guy saw this coming 20 years ago, that means you're wrong and so was he because it didn't happen two weeks after he said it!".

Is 6th Ed the closest they ever came to updating all Codexes for one edition?

Ignoring RT edition when they had all armies in Chapter Approved

 streamdragon wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.

You know what they say about hope...

He could already use "his 4 riptides with his broadsides". 3 as elites, 1 as part of the Riptide/Broadside data slate. That's without considering Farsight Enclave allies.

Yeah, people forget you can already basically make an army of potentially infinite Riptides. Even without Dataslates it can get ridiculious when you count FW's Riptides into the mix....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Is 6th Ed the closest they ever came to updating all Codexes for one edition?

Ignoring RT edition when they had all armies in Chapter Approved

There have been other editions with more codex releases but some of those were one-off books that haven't really returned (Codex: ASSASSINS), or ones we've seen folded into other books (Templars, Catachan). I think this may be the highest percentage off the top of my head though.

7th edition is designed to make players fight each other.
It's working gloriously.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Is 6th Ed the closest they ever came to updating all Codexes for one edition?

Ignoring RT edition when they had all armies in Chapter Approved

No... but 3rd edition revamped the rules so that may not be a fair comparison. If 6e had been given a more traditional lifecycle of 4 years, they would have updated everything at the pace they were going. Of course.. if it had been given a full life cycle, they may not have been going at that pace.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Before MT, you and others were quick to "provide relevant information" that ALL GW digital products were available in non-iPad formats, at every opportunity.

You appear to have confused me with someone else.

 Squidbot wrote:
7th edition is designed to make players fight each other.
It's working gloriously.

Are you sure?!?!?

I'm so excited about this

I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?

 torgoch wrote:
I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?

Nothing.
But you can play it as an army.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 torgoch wrote:
I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?

Nothing.
But you can play it as an army.

And lose in the deployment phase.

 alarmingrick wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
7th edition is designed to make players fight each other.
It's working gloriously.

Are you sure?!?!?

I see a lot of fighting in this thread.

 torgoch wrote:
I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?

If you table the other guy why do you need anything scoring?

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 torgoch wrote:
I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?

Nothing.
But you can play it as an army.

I would have like to see Ten Heldrakes take out my old Deathwing.

I slaughtered armies that had four and some troops, ten and no troops aren't going to be a bother.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:

 torgoch wrote:
I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?

If you table the other guy why do you need anything scoring?

If you auto-loose after the first turn because you have no models on the table and all Helldrakes in reserve, why do you care about any of this?

 torgoch wrote:
I've clearly missed something. What counts as scoring in the 10 Helldrake army? Has that concept gone?

Nobody knows yet.

But as pointed out, scoring units only matter if you're actually trying to capture objectives.