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.

 easysauce wrote:
yeah for sure, GK and such I fully expect to be disallowed from summoning, but INQ would be allowed (havnt heard this as rumour, but I suspect it will be true nonetheless)

I have been told that the aim is to make it a last ditch/risky thing to do as opposed to somethign reliable you can spam.

Also, apparently its the OTHER new psychic trees that apparently are going to be more important.... not that im getting any solid hints as to what they are...

Hmm, I'm wondering if that will backfire though, as it seems like something the player on the losing side would do every time towards the end of the game (provided he had psykers lying around).

GW doesn't have interest in balance (this isn't mean disparagingly) so it makes sense, but I feel like it might create a feeling of being cheated if you're firmly beating an opponent and a lucky roll on his side provides a unit that turns the game around entirely.

But again, maybe this is just what they want. /shrug

 pretre wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Or it could be a representation of a real perils of the warp. I.e. Ezekiel tried to draw more power than he can handle to defeat his enemy and ends up failing.

And by failing winning. Naw, seems like it was a specific spell to summon daemons. He was using malific spells after all.

No, I get that. I mean the fluff reasoning for why Ezekiel would summon a BT is that he wouldn't intentionally. The player might, but Ezekiel wouldn't.

Ah I understand you there. Personally I wouldn't mind that much it being one of the biggest Perils (I can imagine a unihnged psyker either readical or chaos purposefully maxing the warp in hope to summon it)

 Squidbot wrote:
I think the first paragraph is very important, specifically the word "allowing".

 Accolade wrote:


I think this is deflecting the issue a bit.

Obviously, the problem won't be in deal with unreasonable TFGs trying to make your gaming experience hell, they *still* won't get games in. The issues will be in the shades-of-grey areas when people come in with Unbound lists you feel are cheesy but they feel are not. I am worried about increasing levels of disagreement between players on the games they want to play that will lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction in the 40k gaming population.

EDIT: geez I'm slow, the comment I was responding to is already a page behind!

Well said.



I used to be of the camp, rules be damned, just figure out a way to make it work. However, over time, my views have changed fairly substantially. There are three major issues that arise from shoddy rules, even among friends and relatively friendly gaming shops (Excluding TFG).


1. There is a slight arms race that starts and slowly escalates. As newer flashier models come out, hobbyists would like to collect and play them. Then the opposing player takes a counter 'strong' unit, etc. Even close friends have different views on what is broken and what is not.

2. Pick up games become close to impossible to enjoy. Between grey areas in the rules, broken spam if you didn't bring the correct counter, difference of opinion on what's broken or not...it just doesn't work.

3. Time. When I get free time after working the week, the last thing I would like to do is spend what free time I have figuring out how the heck a game works...or fixing their mistakes. I just want to play and have a good time.



They need to clean up their game. Make consistent rules, that it doesn't matter if you play in New York or Kansas City...everyone knows how the game works and the units are balanced enough that players do not need to spend 30 minutes trying to figure out each others expectations. From the rumors (and of course they are just rumors), it appears as though they are instead shifting to the other side of the continuum. I can only assume this is driven by the suits, whereas the more players can take whatever models they want in their armies, the more they would (will) potentially purchase. Of course, this would just be a short term solution...as players become more and more disgruntled with their gaming experience.

I mean, if this is Games Workshops direction, let's follow this logic to its final stupidity. Here is a big book with all of the rules for every unit in the game, along with a suggested point cost. Take whatever you want and figure it out yourself. Well, thanks but no thanks, I'll move on.

 Squidbot wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
I think the first paragraph is very important, specifically the word "allowing".

Considering how it might be possible to field anything together I really can't say how they will go . On a fun note, All star imperial anybody? Grabbing a Canoness Superior, Chapter Master, Inquisitor, a lord commissar, and putting them inside a team of terminators. Imperial All Stars a-gogo!

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
I think the first paragraph is very important, specifically the word "allowing".

Considering how it might be possible to field anything together I really can't say how they will go . On a fun note, All star imperial anybody? Grabbing a Canoness Superior, Chapter Master, Inquisitor, a lord commissar, and putting them inside a team of terminators. Imperial All Stars a-gogo!

Even Unbound armies have to abide by the (new) Allies matrix.

Apocalypse already lets you field whatever the heck you want.

Neither of these are any issues for straight up 7e.

 streamdragon wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
I think the first paragraph is very important, specifically the word "allowing".

Considering how it might be possible to field anything together I really can't say how they will go . On a fun note, All star imperial anybody? Grabbing a Canoness Superior, Chapter Master, Inquisitor, a lord commissar, and putting them inside a team of terminators. Imperial All Stars a-gogo!

Even Unbound armies have to abide by the (new) Allies matrix.

Apocalypse already lets you field whatever the heck you want.

Neither of these are any issues for straight up 7e.

Darn it why ya' gotta stomp on my dreams? You do remind me of the possible change to allies. Wonder how significant it will be. I was more using the current BB rules (and the inquisitor to fit the canoness in)

 StarTrotter wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
I think the first paragraph is very important, specifically the word "allowing".

Considering how it might be possible to field anything together I really can't say how they will go . On a fun note, All star imperial anybody? Grabbing a Canoness Superior, Chapter Master, Inquisitor, a lord commissar, and putting them inside a team of terminators. Imperial All Stars a-gogo!

Even Unbound armies have to abide by the (new) Allies matrix.

Apocalypse already lets you field whatever the heck you want.

Neither of these are any issues for straight up 7e.

Darn it why ya' gotta stomp on my dreams? You do remind me of the possible change to allies. Wonder how significant it will be. I was more using the current BB rules (and the inquisitor to fit the canoness in)

Only because my own dreams were crushed. I'm personally hoping the bonuses of BB tones down, while the matrix itself becomes a lot more lenient in terms of alliances. CSM/IG to represent LatD, for instance. Heck, Tyranids getting any sort of ally or bonus for not having allies at all would be really nice.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
They mentioned that that happened during a playtesting game, but they never said that that option was not going to be in the final rules.

And if GW wastes playtest time testing things that are not going to be in the rules, then that explains a little bit of why their final product is such a load of garbage...

You do know play testing can determine if you need to exclude things from the rules or not, right?

Not if that exclusion is based solely of historical fluff reasons and not game balance ones, because that is the only practical difference here.

You are making the assumption that GW's playtesting is rigid and organized. They were playtesting a general rule, so did it really matter if the army using the rule was actually going to be eligible for it or not in the final write up? I sort of imagine it went this way:

Developer #1: Hey, I came up with this new psychic domain, lets go grab somebody from the White Dwarf studio in the basement and have them test it in whatever game they got going on!
Developer #2: Great idea! Then we can sod off and grab a pint and just have them tell us their results! One more playtest down WOOHOO!

30 minutes later:
Developer #1: Hey you, the funny lookin' guy with the glasses, here are some test rules for a new psychic power, go ahead and give it to whatever psycher you have in your army. What? You're playing Dark Angels and they would never use daemonology? DO YOU NOT KNOW WHO I AM??? Now do what I say and sod off! UNBELIEVABLE!
Developer #2: Yeah, you'd think these White Dwarf gits would jump at the chance to actually be involved in something important instead of takin' pretty pictures and printing press junkets!
Developer #1 (to the WDer): And yes, you can put it in your little article, now go on, play your game, and you can thank us later.

Hence my second statement that if GW's playtest process is anything even remotely like that then that partially explains why their finished product is garbage.

Playtesting a set of rules isn't just playing a game, it is indeed very far from it, it involves a whole lot of resetting pieces and trying out slightly different variations of rules, stats and even the players decisions themselves during the same testing session.

 streamdragon wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
I think the first paragraph is very important, specifically the word "allowing".

Considering how it might be possible to field anything together I really can't say how they will go . On a fun note, All star imperial anybody? Grabbing a Canoness Superior, Chapter Master, Inquisitor, a lord commissar, and putting them inside a team of terminators. Imperial All Stars a-gogo!

Even Unbound armies have to abide by the (new) Allies matrix.

Apocalypse already lets you field whatever the heck you want.

Neither of these are any issues for straight up 7e.

Darn it why ya' gotta stomp on my dreams? You do remind me of the possible change to allies. Wonder how significant it will be. I was more using the current BB rules (and the inquisitor to fit the canoness in)

Only because my own dreams were crushed. I'm personally hoping the bonuses of BB tones down, while the matrix itself becomes a lot more lenient in terms of alliances. CSM/IG to represent LatD, for instance. Heck, Tyranids getting any sort of ally or bonus for not having allies at all would be really nice.

I know it's not really how they used to work but I'd like at least desperate allies with IG for Nids. Justify it as the 6" being the chow zone.

Don't punch me in the feels there man... I once missed them so much I almost tried to make an updated LatD rulebook (group is just friends that like narrative games). Man I miss them...

 StarTrotter wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
I think the first paragraph is very important, specifically the word "allowing".

Considering how it might be possible to field anything together I really can't say how they will go . On a fun note, All star imperial anybody? Grabbing a Canoness Superior, Chapter Master, Inquisitor, a lord commissar, and putting them inside a team of terminators. Imperial All Stars a-gogo!

Even Unbound armies have to abide by the (new) Allies matrix.

Apocalypse already lets you field whatever the heck you want.

Neither of these are any issues for straight up 7e.

Darn it why ya' gotta stomp on my dreams? You do remind me of the possible change to allies. Wonder how significant it will be. I was more using the current BB rules (and the inquisitor to fit the canoness in)

Only because my own dreams were crushed. I'm personally hoping the bonuses of BB tones down, while the matrix itself becomes a lot more lenient in terms of alliances. CSM/IG to represent LatD, for instance. Heck, Tyranids getting any sort of ally or bonus for not having allies at all would be really nice.

I know it's not really how they used to work but I'd like at least desperate allies with IG for Nids. Justify it as the 6" being the chow zone.

Don't punch me in the feels there man... I once missed them so much I almost tried to make an updated LatD rulebook (group is just friends that like narrative games). Man I miss them...

I know that feel, given that Genestealer Cult was my dreams being crushed :(

 Accolade wrote:


Obviously, the problem won't be in deal with unreasonable TFGs trying to make your gaming experience hell, they *still* won't get games in. The issues will be in the shades-of-grey areas when people come in with Unbound lists you feel are cheesy but they feel are not. I am worried about increasing levels of disagreement between players on the games they want to play that will lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction in the 40k gaming population.

+1

One reason for FOCs is that they limit taking cheesy TFG lists. You could clearly say, 'no, that's not legal' if they try to bring something weird to the table. Now, with Unbound, you have to army-lawyer every time you feel like not playing against someone, about why you feel your lists are not equally-enough matched

Anyways, lets see. 7th might be good, or it might be crap. Although, it should be the first priority of WD article to highlight that 'awesome newfound competitive balance' in their '7th highlights' article, if there was any..

I too suffered when genestealer cults got lost... so many models and conversions out the window... and its such an awesome list rules wize/fluff wize...

still have that nid codex too...

thank you for reminding me, I will now go cry in a corner.

 streamdragon wrote:
I know that feel, given that Genestealer Cult was my dreams being crushed :(

https://vk.com/doc4562721_190608219

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 tarnish wrote:
Unlike some, i don´t have the stamina to read all 94 pages of posts, but most of what i have seen is rage regarding the Unbound Army rules and that they will ruin the hobby.
In my neck of the woods we are likely to make changes along the way if the Unbound rules make for a terrible game, and indeed, anyone should feel free to do so! It´s YOUR game!
Tournaments regularly change some aspect of the rules aswell. So i ask you: what is the problem here?

The problem is that it is a piece of work that a lot of people don't like, which if presented as an option would be fine because you could just ignore it, but it is going to be in the core rules.

You've seen the new rulebook in its entirety too then? What else is in it?

No, I am talking about the Unbound rules, which is the topic of the conversation you supposedly are joining.

On a positive note, with the new rules for a Psychic phase, plus the new daemonology powers, my Thousand Sons may have just become more interesting.
It would be a welcome change to see those aspiring sorcerers finally doing something useful ( or dying horribly to perils, but hey, better them than an actually important character.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 tarnish wrote:
Unlike some, i don´t have the stamina to read all 94 pages of posts, but most of what i have seen is rage regarding the Unbound Army rules and that they will ruin the hobby.
In my neck of the woods we are likely to make changes along the way if the Unbound rules make for a terrible game, and indeed, anyone should feel free to do so! It´s YOUR game!
Tournaments regularly change some aspect of the rules aswell. So i ask you: what is the problem here?

The problem is that it is a piece of work that a lot of people don't like, which if presented as an option would be fine because you could just ignore it, but it is going to be in the core rules.

You've seen the new rulebook in its entirety too then? What else is in it?

No, I am talking about the Unbound rules, which is the topic of the conversation you supposedly are joining.

Ive been in the thread since the WD was posted, I'm aware the conversation was about the Unbound rules, which havent been released in its entirety yet as far as I'm aware.

 Accolade wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 tarnish wrote:
Unlike some, i don´t have the stamina to read all 94 pages of posts, but most of what i have seen is rage regarding the Unbound Army rules and that they will ruin the hobby.
In my neck of the woods we are likely to make changes along the way if the Unbound rules make for a terrible game, and indeed, anyone should feel free to do so! It´s YOUR game!
Tournaments regularly change some aspect of the rules aswell. So i ask you: what is the problem here?

Try reading the last 10 pages then as the reasons have been explained already. Maybe in your neck of the woods gamers get together for tea and sing kumbaya around the campfire while exchanging friendship bracelets and sharing their inner most hopes and dreams for the grimdark future games about to be played but in other places you simply meet a stranger and agree to a game in one sentence. That stranger could have vastly different expectations of what that game will entail (or not entail) and a "buy everything" permissive as standard ruleset exacerbates that.

Eh, he just doesn't understand how the vast majority of 40k games are played at local game stores against an endless line of unreasonable strangers with whom every conversation becomes something akin to a nuclear arms treaty negotiation.

I mean, I can *barely* even agree to a points value with these unbending mystery men without creating ugly scenes in stores and fistfights in the alley.

I think this is deflecting the issue a bit.

Obviously, the problem won't be in deal with unreasonable TFGs trying to make your gaming experience hell, they *still* won't get games in. The issues will be in the shades-of-grey areas when people come in with Unbound lists you feel are cheesy but they feel are not. I am worried about increasing levels of disagreement between players on the games they want to play that will lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction in the 40k gaming population.

EDIT: geez I'm slow, the comment I was responding to is already a page behind!

Honestly, I read that and see nothing but air. Based on vague information, there may be a certain effect on the game, possibly leading to certain feelings, which may create other feelings and emotions in others...

That's what's worth complaining about for pages and pages?

 gorgon wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 tarnish wrote:
Unlike some, i don´t have the stamina to read all 94 pages of posts, but most of what i have seen is rage regarding the Unbound Army rules and that they will ruin the hobby.
In my neck of the woods we are likely to make changes along the way if the Unbound rules make for a terrible game, and indeed, anyone should feel free to do so! It´s YOUR game!
Tournaments regularly change some aspect of the rules aswell. So i ask you: what is the problem here?

Try reading the last 10 pages then as the reasons have been explained already. Maybe in your neck of the woods gamers get together for tea and sing kumbaya around the campfire while exchanging friendship bracelets and sharing their inner most hopes and dreams for the grimdark future games about to be played but in other places you simply meet a stranger and agree to a game in one sentence. That stranger could have vastly different expectations of what that game will entail (or not entail) and a "buy everything" permissive as standard ruleset exacerbates that.

Eh, he just doesn't understand how the vast majority of 40k games are played at local game stores against an endless line of unreasonable strangers with whom every conversation becomes something akin to a nuclear arms treaty negotiation.

I mean, I can *barely* even agree to a points value with these unbending mystery men without creating ugly scenes in stores and fistfights in the alley.

I think this is deflecting the issue a bit.

Obviously, the problem won't be in deal with unreasonable TFGs trying to make your gaming experience hell, they *still* won't get games in. The issues will be in the shades-of-grey areas when people come in with Unbound lists you feel are cheesy but they feel are not. I am worried about increasing levels of disagreement between players on the games they want to play that will lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction in the 40k gaming population.

EDIT: geez I'm slow, the comment I was responding to is already a page behind!

Honestly, I read that and see nothing but air. Based on vague information, there may be a certain effect on the game, possibly leading to certain feelings, which may create other feelings and emotions in others...

That's what's worth complaining about for pages and pages?

Well yea, if we had all the information there might not be anything to complain about, best let them get it out of their system now so we can have nice conversations once the book actually comes out

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 tarnish wrote:
Unlike some, i don´t have the stamina to read all 94 pages of posts, but most of what i have seen is rage regarding the Unbound Army rules and that they will ruin the hobby.
In my neck of the woods we are likely to make changes along the way if the Unbound rules make for a terrible game, and indeed, anyone should feel free to do so! It´s YOUR game!
Tournaments regularly change some aspect of the rules aswell. So i ask you: what is the problem here?

The problem is that it is a piece of work that a lot of people don't like, which if presented as an option would be fine because you could just ignore it, but it is going to be in the core rules.

You've seen the new rulebook in its entirety too then? What else is in it?

No, I am talking about the Unbound rules, which is the topic of the conversation you supposedly are joining.

Ive been in the thread since the WD was posted, I'm aware the conversation was about the Unbound rules, which havent been released in its entirety yet as far as I'm aware.

Then you must be aware that there is a huge amount of resentment, opposition and indeed derision for the Unbound rules even in their hinted at form.

 easysauce wrote:
I have also heard, and bear with, since its a rumour:


The summoned daemons can(will?) attack your own forces if you are not chaos/demons

That would make sense, so being GW we can rule it out.

 Squidbot wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I know that feel, given that Genestealer Cult was my dreams being crushed :(

https://vk.com/doc4562721_190608219

I might not be a Nid player... but this is beautiful even if it is only made by fans. Thank you fr this, my Nid friend shall receive this glorious craft.

 gorgon wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 tarnish wrote:
Unlike some, i don´t have the stamina to read all 94 pages of posts, but most of what i have seen is rage regarding the Unbound Army rules and that they will ruin the hobby.
In my neck of the woods we are likely to make changes along the way if the Unbound rules make for a terrible game, and indeed, anyone should feel free to do so! It´s YOUR game!
Tournaments regularly change some aspect of the rules aswell. So i ask you: what is the problem here?

Try reading the last 10 pages then as the reasons have been explained already. Maybe in your neck of the woods gamers get together for tea and sing kumbaya around the campfire while exchanging friendship bracelets and sharing their inner most hopes and dreams for the grimdark future games about to be played but in other places you simply meet a stranger and agree to a game in one sentence. That stranger could have vastly different expectations of what that game will entail (or not entail) and a "buy everything" permissive as standard ruleset exacerbates that.

Eh, he just doesn't understand how the vast majority of 40k games are played at local game stores against an endless line of unreasonable strangers with whom every conversation becomes something akin to a nuclear arms treaty negotiation.

I mean, I can *barely* even agree to a points value with these unbending mystery men without creating ugly scenes in stores and fistfights in the alley.

I think this is deflecting the issue a bit.

Obviously, the problem won't be in deal with unreasonable TFGs trying to make your gaming experience hell, they *still* won't get games in. The issues will be in the shades-of-grey areas when people come in with Unbound lists you feel are cheesy but they feel are not. I am worried about increasing levels of disagreement between players on the games they want to play that will lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction in the 40k gaming population.

EDIT: geez I'm slow, the comment I was responding to is already a page behind!

Honestly, I read that and see nothing but air. Based on vague information, there may be a certain effect on the game, possibly leading to certain feelings, which may create other feelings and emotions in others...

That's what's worth complaining about for pages and pages?

EDIT: annoyed

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Then you must be aware that there is a huge amount of resentment, opposition and indeed derision for the Unbound rules even in their hinted at form.

Yes I've been on the internet before, I'm well aware at its capacity to grossly overreact to even the smallest bit of information for any given topic a loud vocal minority/majority is passionate about

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Then you must be aware that there is a huge amount of resentment, opposition and indeed derision for the Unbound rules even in their hinted at form.

Yes I've been on the internet before, I'm well aware at its capacity to grossly overreact to even the smallest bit of information for any given topic a loud vocal minority/majority is passionate about

Just like how the opposite side is grossly exaggerating other's complaints into some sort mindless rage?

Clearly neither side is getting anywhere in this.

 Accolade wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Then you must be aware that there is a huge amount of resentment, opposition and indeed derision for the Unbound rules even in their hinted at form.

Yes I've been on the internet before, I'm well aware at its capacity to grossly overreact to even the smallest bit of information for any given topic a loud vocal minority/majority is passionate about

Just like how the opposite side is grossly exaggerating other's complaints into some sort mindless rage?

Clearly neither side is getting anywhere in this.

No, neither side is.

How about them summoned daemons?

So I have just a few points to make:

1. Didn't we all just pay $60 for a new rule book just last summer?

2. Are they releasing 7th before Orks which is still technically (by a month) a 4th edition Codex?

3. Unbound may still require Troops to hold objective even with the 36 new objectives. Still may need them for something

4. If not, I'd better get started on my dream army: nothing but Ork Kannonz: Str 8 AP 3 T7 4W, you can get 100 in a 2000 point list.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Then you must be aware that there is a huge amount of resentment, opposition and indeed derision for the Unbound rules even in their hinted at form.

Yes I've been on the internet before, I'm well aware at its capacity to grossly overreact to even the smallest bit of information for any given topic a loud vocal minority/majority is passionate about

Just like how the opposite side is grossly exaggerating other's complaints into some sort mindless rage?

Clearly neither side is getting anywhere in this.

No, neither side is.

How about them summoned daemons?

Come now. Some brilliant ideas came out of it such as GK becoming Lords of Change and Bloodthirsters

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Then you must be aware that there is a huge amount of resentment, opposition and indeed derision for the Unbound rules even in their hinted at form.

Yes I've been on the internet before, I'm well aware at its capacity to grossly overreact to even the smallest bit of information for any given topic a loud vocal minority/majority is passionate about

Just like how the opposite side is grossly exaggerating other's complaints into some sort mindless rage?

Clearly neither side is getting anywhere in this.

No, neither side is.

How about them summoned daemons?

I do think those could be cool. The whole Daemonology could prove to be an interesting discipline depending on how it is implemented. I do hope that if summoning daemons is added, that the rules for them will be included in the book, it'd be a pain to have to get the codex just for that.

I just wish DE could summon daemons Perhaps that may change by the time 7th comes out!

 PipeAlley wrote:
So I have just a few points to make:

1. Didn't we all just pay $60 for a new rule book just last summer?

2. Are they releasing 7th before Orks which is still technically (by a month) a 4th edition Codex?

3. Unbound may still require Troops to hold objective even with the 36 new objectives. Still may need them for something

4. If not, I'd better get started on my dream army: nothing but Ork Kannonz: Str 8 AP 3 T7 4W, you can get 100 in a 2000 point list.

1. Only if you bought it a year after it came out (June 2012)
2. It looks like it.
3. Possible.
4. I can't wait to see that painted!