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.

 GrimDork wrote:
I guess if everyone is throwing knights and titans around it may finally give me an excuse to buy a dream forge leviathan...

I think I've shifted from doomgloom to amused bystander hoping for a pleasant surprise (but not too hopeful).

Welcome to our side. Grab a stick and roast marshmallows with us over the fire.

In other news local GW produces slightly cringy video:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=646969982042567

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:
In other news local GW produces slightly cringy video:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=646969982042567

oh god no why! you understated the cringyness!

I find the accent endearing.

I just can't figure out how this is supposed to attract new people to the hobby.

Sure, Unbound does allow you to 'play with the models you have', but only in one, very specific way.

You are still limited by the Allies chart AND by regular unit restrictions. So, it's liberating to allow someone to field their units of scouts and bikes, but there's no one out there who might want to field 6 SM with a heavy bolter? It just seems like if you would want to give players more freedom to field their collections, when there are unit restrictions that are at least as constraining. Ten Land Raiders? Totally legal. Four terminators? Sorry, that's outside the rules, and relegated to house ruling.

The only thing I can think of is that (in a very cynical and calculating way), GW is thinking they are giving a hoot about the mild-mannered gamer and shafting the highly competitive, list-building players (as they see them). They aren't putting anything in the rules to encourage you to, say, make a unit of marines all armed with grav guns, because they all know that won't be legal in the next edition. So, the casual player isn't tempted to assemble normal units he purchases in ways that will be unplayable later.

On the other hand, the (GW-perceived) WAAC douche will buy up six Riptides, or 8 Helldrakes, or whatever cheese is legal with Unbound armies, and GW thinks, "Screw that guy anyway. We're happy to take his cash. Who cares if his army isn't allowed in tournaments, or if he can't find players, or if we make Unbound Armies illegal in the next edition we are already working on. Those guys are spankers so screw them."

I can almost imagine the dev team thinking, "This rule is broken as hell. The only people who are going to rush out and buy shedloads of new models to exploit it are the hypercompetitive jerks who keep complaining about our rules. If they field these totally ridiculous armies, no one will play them. Serves them right. We get their money, and they can't get a game. The people who use the Unbound rule to build up an interesting, fun army will still have it when we change the rules, and those 'cool people' will have cool friends who let them use it regardless of the rules."

Not that I agree with this sentiment at all, of course. While you will have the guy who drops serious cash to buy the latest and greatest most cheesy list, you will also have a lot of players who get disillusioned with a bad edition and leave, and new players who get taken apart by a imbalanced list and lose interest. You'll also have a lot of people who don't encounter the worst TFG, but get enough bad, pointless games thanks to a poorly designed edition that they go elsewhere.

I heard the 7th edition is coming kinda bummed cause Orks still need a codex...

 Ignatius-Grulgor wrote:
In other news local GW produces slightly cringy video:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=646969982042567

I didn't see it with sound (public computer) but all I have to say is: GET YOUR FINGER OUT OF THE FRAME.

Christ, does no one have a sense of pride in the things they make to take the time to make sure they don't do stuff like that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I heard the 7th edition is coming kinda bummed cause Orks still need a codex...

Orks look like they're still coming in June though.

Da Butcha wrote:
I just can't figure out how this is supposed to attract new people to the hobby.

It's not. It's meant to get all the existing players to pay for the game rules again. That's the point of this whole exercise.

Sure, Unbound does allow you to 'play with the models you have', but only in one, very specific way.

In edition to getting all the players to buy the rules yet again, it expands the range of possible kits that can be sold to a given player. Instead of being limited to a FOC and one army, you have no FOC and allies. 6th edition started the allies progression and 7th unbound armies will expand the legal units per player even further.

It's directly connected with GW's sales coming from new releases. When an army gets updated and they come out with some new kits, if you don't play that army, they have zero potential sales. Now they have allies rules and ignore the FOC rules and each new release is wide open as far as the guy at the local GW putting the product in your hands and telling you it would be awesome in your army.

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I heard the 7th edition is coming kinda bummed cause Orks still need a codex...

Orks are not far off, and are going to be awesome.

 Squidbot wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I heard the 7th edition is coming kinda bummed cause Orks still need a codex...

Orks are not far off, and are going to be awesome.

-ly bad.

Da Butcha wrote:
I just can't figure out how this is supposed to attract new people to the hobby.

Sure, Unbound does allow you to 'play with the models you have', but only in one, very specific way.

In my experience, the number one thing that turns people off from playing is list building. I have a bunch of friends that like to play (with my models, proxies) and are intrigued by the models (some even paint), but building lists is always the breakdown point for them. I LIKE building lists, but some people don't- for various reasons

"I don't want to make a bad list, I don't know enough about the game"

"I don't get this chart"

"I feel like I'm doing my taxes"

Now I just write all the lists, and we play a lot more often. I feel like Unbound would help people with that kind of mentality.

 Colpicklejar wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:
I just can't figure out how this is supposed to attract new people to the hobby.

Sure, Unbound does allow you to 'play with the models you have', but only in one, very specific way.

In my experience, the number one thing that turns people off from playing is list building. I have a bunch of friends that like to play (with my models, proxies) and are intrigued by the models (some even paint), but building lists is always the breakdown point for them. I LIKE building lists, but some people don't- for various reasons

"I don't want to make a bad list, I don't know enough about the game"

"I don't get this chart"

"I feel like I'm doing my taxes"

Now I just write all the lists, and we play a lot more often. I feel like Unbound would help people with that kind of mentality.

In my experience I've seen just the opposite. Me and my friends love theoryhammering together different lists before deciding on one to actually build. I know for a fact one of my mates used to enjoy just sitting in front of army builder for hours on end making different army lists for WHFB for different armies and such.

Now, actually maintaining focus on ONE list long enough to paint all the models for it, yeah, that's a slightly harder task, lol.

Most those friends have quit now though, I have a feeling they'd be put off by the excessively convoluted nature of what 40k is now and never reach the list building stage because they wouldn't be arsed reading all the rules first.

They should really promote Battlescribe or various other list building apps. Saves HUGE amounts of hassle.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I heard the 7th edition is coming kinda bummed cause Orks still need a codex...

Orks are not far off, and are going to be awesome.

-ly bland.

FTFY,... the last few books on the 40k and Fantasy side have been incredibly bland and have taken little to no risks. They are as vanilla as can be and then get life added with datadumps.

Da Butcha wrote:
I just can't figure out how this is supposed to attract new people to the hobby.

Sure, Unbound does allow you to 'play with the models you have', but only in one, very specific way.

You are still limited by the Allies chart AND by regular unit restrictions. So, it's liberating to allow someone to field their units of scouts and bikes, but there's no one out there who might want to field 6 SM with a heavy bolter? It just seems like if you would want to give players more freedom to field their collections, when there are unit restrictions that are at least as constraining. Ten Land Raiders? Totally legal. Four terminators? Sorry, that's outside the rules, and relegated to house ruling.

The article mentions new players being able to play sooner because they can use what they have, rather than needing to buy and build specific models.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I heard the 7th edition is coming kinda bummed cause Orks still need a codex...

Orks are not far off, and are going to be awesome.

-ly bad.

If IG are anything to go by, yeah, Orks are going to be a catastrophe. If they even get an update.

 Bull0 wrote:

If IG are anything to go by, yeah, Orks are going to be a catastrophe. If they even get an update.

Why? IG isn't super-broken by any stretch of the imagination, but it appears to still be a solid codex based upon everything I've read and seen.

What issue number of WD is this information in?

Well according to rumours........ The 7th starter is blood angels and orks w/ bits of terrain too. Which got me thinking..... why does GW fail to grab market share with multiple sets of a starter box? For example Eldar/Nids w/ some Iyanden terrain would have been $$. Or DE/Tau and their failed diplomacy experience. Great way to show of grotesques! Both of those were all new stuff and a great way to capitalize on their "thematic" games.

 Bull0 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I heard the 7th edition is coming kinda bummed cause Orks still need a codex...

Orks are not far off, and are going to be awesome.

-ly bad.

If IG are anything to go by, yeah, Orks are going to be a catastrophe. If they even get an update.

Thought the consensus was that the IG codex was good?

 The_Grimm_One wrote:
What issue number of WD is this information in?

This one.

 streamdragon wrote:
The article mentions new players being able to play sooner because they can use what they have, rather than needing to buy and build specific models.

Unbound will be an interesting way to show new players the game, in my opinion. People like some stuff that can be inviable because of FOC. testing the units and the rules of the game with unbound would help them understand the game and select which units they like. After that, they go to the Battle-forged way of gaming. Unbound could be used as a 'super-tutorial'.

I`m worried... I like force organization because it gives me balance to my army. I`ve played apocalypse games where everyone just brings the biggest guns and that's it. I don`t want regular games to turn into something like that.
I dislike the current edition more because everyone seems to be a shooty army these days. Tyranids shouldn`t be able to outshoot tau at 24 inches for example.
Ultimately I guess we will just have to see: if its as bad as I fear, there could be 6000 pts of tau for sale very soon...

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Well according to rumours........ The 7th starter is blood angels and orks w/ bits of terrain too. Which got me thinking..... why does GW fail to grab market share with multiple sets of a starter box? For example Eldar/Nids w/ some Iyanden terrain would have been $$. Or DE/Tau and their failed diplomacy experience. Great way to show of grotesques! Both of those were all new stuff and a great way to capitalize on their "thematic" games.

The starter sets are usually the cheapest way to amass basic troops. I did it to get a marine army started back in the AoBR days. While selling a cheap set is good for getting the new people started, they probably don't want to give everyone a cheap means of padding out their existing armies.

I also don't think nearly as many people would be a DE/Tau set or a Eldar/Nids set as you think there would be, except for the aforementioned vet players looking for more models on the cheap. Remember: Almost every sort of franchise media (video games, the movie, books) is Marine (or at least Imperium)-centric. The starter set MUST contain marines.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
Well according to rumours........ The 7th starter is blood angels and orks w/ bits of terrain too. Which got me thinking..... why does GW fail to grab market share with multiple sets of a starter box? For example Eldar/Nids w/ some Iyanden terrain would have been $$. Or DE/Tau and their failed diplomacy experience. Great way to show of grotesques! Both of those were all new stuff and a great way to capitalize on their "thematic" games.

It's what I've been quitely thinking too, in regards to the Eldar and Imperial Guard comprising of another starter set.
Starters seems to do well for GW so having two out makes sense if they want a short term boost for the end of year reports, if what I've read around here of the company being in dire straits is true of course.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Thought the consensus was that the IG codex was good?

It added nothing good and took away a lot of what people like (artillery variants and lots of named characters, for example). Besides which, even if the consensus was that it was good (pretty sure it wasn't) I was obviously putting forward my own opinion, and didn't claim to be doing anything more.

 streamdragon wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:
I just can't figure out how this is supposed to attract new people to the hobby.

Sure, Unbound does allow you to 'play with the models you have', but only in one, very specific way.

You are still limited by the Allies chart AND by regular unit restrictions. So, it's liberating to allow someone to field their units of scouts and bikes, but there's no one out there who might want to field 6 SM with a heavy bolter? It just seems like if you would want to give players more freedom to field their collections, when there are unit restrictions that are at least as constraining. Ten Land Raiders? Totally legal. Four terminators? Sorry, that's outside the rules, and relegated to house ruling.

The article mentions new players being able to play sooner because they can use what they have, rather than needing to buy and build specific models.

Which is just silly, because everyone knows that anyone who walks into a GW store for the first time will be so struck by the awesumsnez of the game and the truly world-class FineSalesman patter from the staff(singular) that they all walk out again five minutes later with a complete army's worth of purchases.

 Bull0 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Thought the consensus was that the IG codex was good?

It added nothing good and took away a lot of what people like (artillery variants and lots of named characters, for example). Besides which, even if the consensus was that it was good (pretty sure it wasn't) I was obviously putting forward my own opinion, and didn't claim to be doing anything more.

Its good. You clearly have a very narrow sample of IG players.

 Bull0 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Thought the consensus was that the IG codex was good?

It added nothing good and took away a lot of what people like (artillery variants and lots of named characters, for example). Besides which, even if the consensus was that it was good (pretty sure it wasn't) I was obviously putting forward my own opinion, and didn't claim to be doing anything more.

Well, at least now I have a good idea of how much I should listen to your opinions.

Quick, back peddle!