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.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
Well said. However, you'll get no agreement on here, people will drown you in negativity and if you respond a mod will PM you

If someone is getting PMs from Mods, it's because a response was inappropriate, not because someone disagreed with someone else's opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
How do you know it is the "right way", if nobody ever tried differently?

Uh, if a game is built to be unfair, it's kind of inherently not a fair game...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Oh, it will most certainly work. WAAC players will love it.

Or those of us who want to make a funny, if stupid, army. Big Mek Conclave with 6 SAGs and loads of kans and dredds? Mad Max style army with everything mounted on either bikes or buggies? an army entirely composed of dreadnaughts?
Not everyone likes the idea of unbound because it allows us to make a really broken list, some of use just like the ability to make thematic, if vaguely silly, lists that don't obey the traditional FOC.

I know you're concerned about the competetive scene being broken by unbound, but if it turns out to be too broken they'll probably just ban unbound lists in competitions.

The competitive scene is of no concern. First of all, it's a joke right now anyway in 6th with its horrible balance, but even then, comp would ban Outbound right in the spot. I worry about all players playing PUGs with players playing Unbound lists claiming "DUUUH LOOK AT ZE RULEZ ITS LEGAL TO BRING 11 RIPTIDES! LOL noob haha you get bonusses for playing Bound vs. Unbound LOLOL L2P!". Those people ruin the game.

Exactly the same thing happened with allies. Everyone in favor of them said: "Hey, cool, finally I can play CSM and Daemons in one army!" and what happened? Taudar. Every. fething. Where.

Unbound is blatantly catering to bad sportsmen in order to increase sales. Period.

I don't believe it is. I think it's assuming people are going to play with some sportsmanship and not just to win. It has nothing to do with catering to bad sportsmanship IMO. Playing games in stores or against people they don't know is very uncommon in the UK, so most of the designers will never have done it, or know people who have. The nearest we get is playing in clubs, where everyone is a member and has some investment in being a good sport and playing fairly. The TFGs and WAACs get a bad name and have problems getting a game. I think it's as simple as that. Pick up games have just not been thought about.

 insaniak wrote:

Uh, if a game is built to be unfair, it's kind of inherently not a fair game...

True.

Fairness and balance in a competitive sense are clearly not design goals 40K tries to achieve.

The whole idea of "fair" is already grounded in an "adversarial" logic of people playing against each other (with no "unfair" advantages or disadvantages), which is not applicable to 40K, where people are encouraged to play with each other to create narratives.

Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.

I feel it comes down to this- Only the dice decide what is fair and what isn't in tabletop warfare...

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.

If that is how both you and your opponent enjoy it, great.

So, last night someone from The Overlords Podcast group on Facebook posted these tidbits. Hopefully they don't mind if they're posted elsewhere. There's some interesting things to chew on here.

-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --

 Pox Apostle wrote:
So, last night someone from The Overlords Podcast group on Facebook posted these tidbits. Hopefully they don't mind if they're posted elsewhere. There's some interesting things to chew on here.

-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --

Cool. Got a link?

Yeah, sorry. I just updated it into my post. But it can be found here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/overlordsUK/?fref=nf It's a few posts down from the top.

...so that guy got to "sit down with the book for a bit" and could not parts of it?

Honestly I have found that the alternate missions in 6th really help balance out a lot of the issues.

What makes those broken armies broken is that they are able to exploit mission win parameters either by not playing the game or basically just being able to ignore the objectives.

Just by changing the win conditions minorly a crap ton of alternate armies can do quite well and a lot of the power builds start to fall apart.

I used to be in the broken camp, but now that I actually learned the rules and how to play, as well as trying these alternate missions it is a much better game and I am not having any problems with anything. There is no army that I dont feel like I could hold my own against and reasonably beat.

As long as I am not bringing a terrible list that is. Bad lists are

In competitive play there will be restrictions on what is allowed as there have been all edition. In casual play, just bring two lists. Bound and unbound, hell I always have 3-4 lists ready to go that I want to play. If you cant pre-arrange a game then show up ready to rumble. That is assuming that your club just don't make a gentleman's agreement. And I used to take two armies on the bus, it was a hassle but I made it work.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Not my opinion about the rules of the game, it's the opinion of the games developers, and with unbound, opinion doesn't matter as it's the rules. Yes you can choose to ignore the rules, which is an interesting approach to TT wargaming. I wonder if those that have already stated they will refuse to play against an unbound list ignore the rules in all of the games they play, or just 40k?

What's more elitist, me suggesting that those who are unhappy play a different game, or those who are unhappy forcing others to play the game the way they want it to be played by refusing to accept rules changes or pretending the stuff they don't like doesn't exist?

Sorry 40k isn't going in the direction you want, but if you didn't know this was the way it was heading then you've been living in a cave. Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception. If this bothers you so much then there's lots of other options where balance is considered important [I've started playing X-Wing and have an Infinity starter set on the way, not because I particularly care about balance, but I fancy trying some other stuff].

So you're saying that my choosing NOT to play against an unbound list is cheating? Lmao.

Let us go with this scenario: I show up at the FLGS, and a guy asks if I want a game. Instead of saying sure and throwing my army on the table, I instead ask "What are you playing?" "18 riptides and a squad of gretchin*." the douche says. Let's pretend that you're said douche**. When I look across the unsetup table at you, and decide that my time would be better spent doing anything else but catering to a feminine hygiene product, it is not in fact cheating. The only person cheated here would be me: as I was given the entirely false impression of the potential for an enjoyable game against an entertaining opponent***.

* These gretchin have been trained to the lofty standards of SM Techmarines, but are far cheaper to employ to maintain the Riptide Mengerie.
** This wouldn't actually happen, as you reside in England (and are probably not a douche) and I do not.
*** Feminine hygiene products do not make entertaining opponents. They're only good for removing unseemly smells and giving that "Fresh feeling".****
**** Not guaranteed.

I like the idea of splitting the book into separate rules and fluffart, so I can buy the rules by themselves. I have been asking for this for a couple of years. Hopefully the codexes may head down the same road.

Gee I wonder what this could possibly relate to...

I didnt realise 6e was only 2 years old. I thought it came out just about 3 years ago now and so was heading into its 4th year. If it really is only 2 years old that sucks even more going forward.

Also last night i had a dream about buying some dark elves and going back to fantasy which was wierd

Jacob29 wrote:
Gee I wonder what this could possibly relate to...

GW staff's gotta do what GW staff's gotta do.

oh man that video is amazing

That Sean Whatson in the image seems to be a really bright dude.

Zweischneid wrote:
Fairness and balance in a competitive sense are clearly not design goals 40K tries to achieve.

The whole idea of "fair" is already grounded in an "adversarial" logic of people playing against each other (with no "unfair" advantages or disadvantages), which is not applicable to 40K, where people are encouraged to play with each other to create narratives.

Bullgak, This "forge a narrative" crap is a 6th ed only design concept that was instituted to promote sales. It broke the game by creating the contradictory philosophy of where a war game isn't supposed to have competing sides.

You allude to that the game is not supposed to be adversarial, yet the game from its beginning was supposed to be a futuristic "wargame".
Wargames by nature are adversarial.

I don't understand how some fail to realize that playing against someone competitively is still playing "with" the other person. It just requires the lost art of "sportsmanship".
One of the reasons why I got into 40k was that it was one of the last places where you could regularly get together with friends or strangers for a gentlemanly game.

Imo, the problem with current 40k is that GW sacrificed structure and stability in order to be a game of everything to everyone. That it has turned into a huge formless pile of .....rules... in a effort to create a system for each and every little "snowflake".

Now some might argue the role-playing aspect, at which I would point out that you already have Necromunda. Also, role-players will change/modify the system whenever they want to modify the story progression. So a detailed step by step ruleset catering to the "narrative forgers" is pretty much pointless.

You see, a ruleset is supposed to provide a solid support framework from which players can base their games. A solid framework does not stifle creativity, it just provides the starting point from which one can either build or jump off.
Playing a weak ruleset lacking structure is like building a skyscraper without a foundation or bungee jumping without anchoring your line.

40k is also suffering from rules bloat. GW in its efforts to micromanage how their product is played has simultaneously loaded more rules on the structure that they have been weakening.

I have been hoping for a streamlined system, sounds like GW is doubling down on the bloated mess that killed fantasy and has been killing 40k for the past 2 years.

Assuming true of course:

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in | unsurprising given rumours of Orks vs BA starter that assault would get a buff. I like that this is back.
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game | seems fair - on that psyker or on any psyker I wonder?
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score | massive game changer, no reason to take troops other than for mandatory BF FOC, big vehicle buff
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives | not going to be enough by itself, as the unbound cheese will be going for the table
5. Lords of war are in | of course, sell moar big shootas
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now | meh
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more. | moar vehicle buff
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book. |
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches | hmm...
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly.

If the following is true (a big if)

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly

1. Good - if overwatch also applies
2. Depends on how OP (or not) the "magic phase is and thats is not another way of shafting nids
3. Hmm, I liekd troops and specificed units actually being important - so bad
4. Huh?
5. Hmm, not sure.
6. Ok Stronghold is ok - Esculation has issues (as with most GW stuff) with points costs.
7. hmm, maybe ok - as long as they are not too hard to kill but then it might balance walkers in particular with the Monsterous Creatures better
8. ok
9. hmm ok, simplier I guess
10. I was fine for most as is...........
11. Could be ok - needs sorting out.

 Pox Apostle wrote:
So, last night someone from The Overlords Podcast group on Facebook posted these tidbits. Hopefully they don't mind if they're posted elsewhere. There's some interesting things to chew on here.

-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --

If true, most of these make me a sad panda. Particularly #4 as it would allude to Unbound armies can in fact face off against Battle-Forged armies.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.

If that is how both you and your opponent enjoy it, great.

It was sarcasm -- sorry for the lack of smiley.

The implicit point is that in a game that has a winner, balance is important. If you just want to forge a narrative, there are hundreds of books out there telling you how to write stories. If I want to write a story, that's what I'll do; if I play a game, it's because I want to play a game.

Wow, those are some changes. I'd love to get hold of this book.

I've wrote a bit in my new blog about the upcoming changes: http://mij40k.blogspot.co.uk/ if anyone fancies a read.

I'd really love to hear from people who are looking forward to this change.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Absolutely. In our local club we don't even bother with the illusion of fairness, these days. We don't mind how many points each player brings. Sometimes if I feel like it I will take two or even three turns at once, before my opponent takes a turn, if it helps forge a better narrative. He doesn't mind. We don't bother with dice any more, because they sometimes give the wrong results.

If that is how both you and your opponent enjoy it, great.

It was sarcasm -- sorry for the lack of smiley.

The implicit point is that in a game that has a winner, balance is important. If you just want to forge a narrative, there are hundreds of books out there telling you how to write stories. If I want to write a story, that's what I'll do; if I play a game, it's because I want to play a game.

I know it was meant to be sarcasm. But the point remains. If both you and your opponent have fun that way, who gives a gak about the rest?

 Pox Apostle wrote:
So, last night someone from The Overlords Podcast group on Facebook posted these tidbits. Hopefully they don't mind if they're posted elsewhere. There's some interesting things to chew on here.

-- So Guys I heard from a pretty reliable source that got to sit down with the book for a few minutes here is what I can remember from what was said.

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives
5. Lords of war are in
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more.
8. The book will come out in 3 options Art like warhammer visions, Fluff book, and one that only contains rules and that one is about as think as the current SM book.
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how.
11. D-weapons toned down but he was unclear as what that meant so from the sounds of it they will still be super ugly. --

number 1 makes me a very happy chappy indeed.

though if 2 is true it seems they are giving psychic powers a good thrashing with the nerfbat - serves those filthy witches right

quite happy for tougher vehicles (so long as they're not op) might make rhinos a bit more viable and less of a first blood throwaway.

 Zweischneid wrote:

I know it was meant to be sarcasm. But the point remains. If both you and your opponent have fun that way, who gives a gak about the rest?

My point remains that a balanced, well-written, easy to understand, easy to play game, with tactical and strategic depth, is best for having fun, for the most people. Because it's much easier to throw out the various restrictions that are in there for balance, if you want more of a narrative forgery, than it is to add a bunch of restrictions that try to balance a game that hasn't been designed with any particular purpose.

If our starting point is, "let's play a game", rather than just "let's play", then by definition, balanced rules help.

If our starting point is just "let's play", the rules are irrelevant.

Sorry for the ignorance but i wasn't around at the time. How did you consolidate in 4ed?

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
. Because it's much easier to throw out the various restrictions that are in there for balance, if you want more of a narrative forgery, than it is to add a bunch of restrictions that try to balance a game that hasn't been designed with any particular purpose.

If our starting point is, "let's play a game", rather than just "let's play", then by definition, balanced rules help.

If our starting point is just "let's play", the rules are irrelevant.

If that were true, why has it been so difficult, historically, to get people to relax on the rules. Hell, on these very forums, people were scorned and scolded as "cheaters" or worse over minor banalities like a few points extra or an "illegal" weapon on a miniature.

Even with "unbound" revealed, plenty of people continue to agitate against unbound, now that it actually is in the rulebook. Imagine how much harder it was to do it before it was in the rulebook.

My experience remains the opposite. Adding restrictions is an infinitely easy task. It might take 5 minutes longer than "removing" restriction on the "mechanical" side of things, but literally years less in convincing people on the "social" side of things.

Spoletta wrote:
Sorry for the ignorance but i w4asn't around at the time. How did you consolidate in 4ed?

You could use your consolidation move to lock an enemy unit into close combat. Therefore saving your unit from a turn of shooting.