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.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

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.

This seems quite invaluable and a massive change. Hope it happens.

Oh that would be nice actually.

The unit doing so counted has having launched the assault in the upcoming assault phase.

Now imagine a Zerkers unit from 3.5 dex doing this...

Taus and IG whas i for the rough ride with these.

nearly annihilated a tau army like this with 2 Zerkers units, ah...good times...

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

I don't think that massive, ponderous, stream of consciousness post means what you think it does.

You're entitled to be interested, moron was your word, not mine.

If you're really not concerned for what a new edition a mere, and unprecedented, 2 years on from the last is going to do to the game in order to try and wring more cash out of the player base, then you're really not fully aware of the situation.

This is pointless off topic couldn't we have continued about the allies matrix, well I guess your welcome to spin your condescension how ever you feel fit but please I'm well aware of the for mentioned 'situation' I'm just not sure I feel the gravity well imploding upon me that apparently is the deep dark depths of GWs corporate depravity, seriously some people act like this isn't your average business... GW is no Pharmo/chemo/massmarket/sweatshop/fastfood/conglomo/corporate/conspiracy to drain/wreak/havok/money/hate on the customer till bankruptcy, seriously look out the window our happy little world of business is not the gallant western metropolis its supposed to be, if half the people on dakka turned the same tongue on the rest of their consumer purchasing power maybe the world would be a better place and there would be less GW's out there...

Ah, I see you've taken delivery of the "use hyperbole in order to try and misrepresent other's arguments" module in this oh so predictable exchange.

Within the context of wargaming, GW is exactly the sort of large business you mention, with a large amount of power which, of not wielded responsibly, has the capacity to do damage outside of it's own limits. For many people, because of it's ubiquity, GW/40K IS wargaming, whether they like it or not, and actions they take can feel very personal if they are to the detriment of those affected by them.

In a global sense, GW and Dakka are both tiny, bordering in the insignificant, but we aren't talking about the global markets, we are talking, specifically, about the potential for a new edition to be very damaging to people's enjoyment of their hobby, and in that sense, both GW and Dakka garner a lot more significance.

ps I live in devon too so after all the kafuffle has blown over maybe ill see you in a couple of months happy as lary playing 7th ed aih, (till then here's something your fond of) .

Unlikely, because unless that's your way of telling me you know me IRL, I sure as hell won't be travelling too far to play games or participate in tournaments.

You're right in that I'll likely be playing 7th, unless GW feth it up beyond the worst nightmares of even the most negative poster, and I'll probably enjoy most games I play too, but that's largely down to the people who attend my local club and the social side of things, plus a generally good attitude when it comes to not abusing the worst excesses of the rules.

It won't mean I'll be blind to those excesses, and I won't have sympathy for those who aren't lucky enough to play in such an environment.

I have no idea who this Lary fella is.

I have no idea why you think I like winking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 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.

I seem to remember, the last time you were banging your "balance is for wimps" drum in a thread over in 40K discussions (that's right folks, Zwei tries to drag any thread he can onto this topic) I asked you for, alongside a specific rebuttal for how a poor unit is actually good for the game, for a brief overview of how you play the game. As you seem quite adamant that those of us that try and stick within the rules as much as possible without our heads exploding are somehow doing it 'wrong,' I'm curious as to how you play the game 'right.'

You never did answer, which I'm sure was just an oversight on your part, because I'm sure you'd never dream of ignoring a question you didn't have a good answer to, or giving an answer that didn't in fact address the question asked.....

 Zweischneid wrote:

 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.

And my experience is the opposite of yours.

It has never been hard to get people to play a "relaxed" game. You just had to get to know them and ask nicely. You know, use proper social skills.
Only people that had a hard time were those that insisted that their opponents "had" to play a "relaxed" game. You know, those who are not being considerate of the other persons reasons for playing or enjoying the game.

My experience has been that often, those who were wanting a game that required a "relaxing" of the rules were either the waac overcompetitive types looking to blast someone with their new power combo OR a fluffy bunny that has a scripted battle in mind that doesn't allow for outside input from either the dice or the other player.
Neither of these is fun for the player being asked to relax the rules. Imo, catering to this mindset is killing the playerbase.

GW needs to give us a solid, tight and streamlined ruleset. Then let those who "demand" a highly personalized game create house rules by which "they" and "their friends" play by.

I think the best argument against GWs current game philosophy is that since its implementation in 8th ed Fantasy and 6th ed 40k, the player base has voted with their wallets to not support this mess.


Edit: spelling

 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?

Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception.

It clearly is your opinion and it was stated as such, so don't suddenly pretend otherwise. Please show us a statement made by the games' delevoper saying it is the opinion of the games' developer to willfully not have a balanced game? As you damn well know there is no such thing. It is the interpretation you intentionally choose to give to it, and it is pretty ignorant.

GW fully presents 40K to have a core rules set theoretically leading to a game where both parties start at equal footing, and always has. They are just doing a very bad & lazy job at it and when in their mind it comes to opportunities to make more moneyz everything else takes a backseat. As bad as that may be it still isn't the same thing as intentionally having an unbalanced game system.

And yes, people can indeed choose to ignore certain rules, just like they can choose to ignore certain intentionally ignorant people btw. That is a quite lovely freedom we all have. If GW put a rule in their book saying that instead of rolling a dice both players can make a turd on the floor next to the gaming table and the biggest most steamy one wins then I guess "Tyrannosaurus, the indoctrinator of youths" will be the first one dropping his pants on the ground. Because opinion doesn't matter and it is in the rules, right? God forbid that someone who is invested in a game has an opinion about the quality and continuity of said game. We should all kneel to whatever they concoct next without question. Either that or we should simply play another game. You are exactly the sheeple Tom Kirby is looking for

So to answer your question, it is you who is being more elitist, although I am not sure if that is the best word to describe the attitude being displayed.

 Captain Avatar wrote:


I think the best argument against GWs current game philosophy is that since its implementation in 8th ed Fantasy and 6th ed 40k, the player base has voted with their wallets to not support this mess.

Than let it be so.

I for one came back to 6th (well, late 5th) because I enjoyed it more the previous editions, which have mostly left me cold since 3rd Edition tried to unnecessarily formalize the game (IMO).

If the players who like and applaud GW's current direction are indeed a minority too small to support the game, than so be it. For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, more than any other game out there, and many other players do to. I look forward to them dropping the FoC (partly). And if it works, I hope they'll drop point values and similar things in future editions too.

 TBD wrote:
If GW put a rule in their book saying that instead of rolling a dice both players can make a turd on the floor next to the gaming table and the biggest most steamy one wins then I guess "Tyrannosaurus, the indoctrinator of youths" will be the first one dropping his pants on the ground.

Well, that will certainly shake the game up and take it in an interesting direction...

 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?

If that's how you have fun who gives a gak about rules in the first place? How would their enjoyment be changed by having a different rule set?

rigeld2 wrote:

 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?

If that's how you have fun who gives a gak about rules in the first place? How would their enjoyment be changed by having a different rule set?

How would their enjoyment be impaired by opening up the rules for new options that they won't use anyhow (though other people might)?

Nobody is denying them their style of gaming. But they are denying other people the ability to game in ways they personally don't enjoy, which seems unnecessarily egocentric to me.

 Mr Morden wrote:
If the following is true (a big if)

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in

YES FETHING PLEASE! My Orks would love to see this back.

 Squidbot wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
If the following is true (a big if)

1. 4ed consolidate in to combat is in

YES FETHING PLEASE! My Orks would love to see this back.

As would my Raven Guard vanguard Veterans and Shadow Captain.

 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 - A rumor that's come up before. Not impossible but I don't know how true it is either.
2. If you fail to cast a power you can't cast it the rest of the game - I assume this doesn't apply to powers you fail to manifest because they're denied, and only applies to the powers you fail to manifest because you roll too low. Sounds kind of harsh honestly.
3. Every unit including vehicles will now score -This feels like a step back to me, assuming it's true. One of the great points about 6th was how it made troops more important to the army by making them scoring.
4. Unbound armies may not contest objectives So the table approach is their only way to win in Eternal War missions? I dunno...this seems off to me.
5. Lords of war are in Wouldn't surprise me
6. Escalation and stronghold remaine as they are now I don't see reasons for them to change, especially since they're still selling the book
7. Vehicles will be harder to kill the chart changes once more. Hull points, not the chart is what makes vehicles so easy to kill
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. We've gotten this rumor before actually. It's one of the few I hope is true
9.difficult terrain is just -2 inches For charging or just movement in general?
10. Wound allocation has changed a bit.not super clear as to how. That happens every edition though, so I'm not sure if this is a "rumor" or just a safe guess
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. --I hope they use the Heresy alternate rules instead. Making them Roll to Wound would be great

Responses in yellow.

 Captain Avatar wrote:


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.

Exactly. Just like "unbound" is nothing more than what many consider the latest cheap ploy to sell more models at the expense of the quality of the game.

so now with battle forged armies every unit can score and in unbound armies nobody can score?

well, there goes people bothering to take more than 2 troops choices once again.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:


I think the best argument against GWs current game philosophy is that since its implementation in 8th ed Fantasy and 6th ed 40k, the player base has voted with their wallets to not support this mess.

Than let it be so.

I for one came back to 6th (well, late 5th) because I enjoyed it more the previous editions, which have mostly left me cold since 3rd Edition tried to unnecessarily formalize the game (IMO).

If the players who like and applaud GW's current direction are indeed a minority too small to support the game, than so be it. For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, more than any other game out there, and many other players do to.

So better the game dies because of what you and a few want rather than accepting or compromising with what most players are looking for. Brilliant,
You realize, that you are providing proof of my anecdotal experiences with the "must play relaxed rules " players.

Also, there are many games with great narratives. You might want to qualify the GWs "worlds best narrative" with an "in your opinion".
That is because, imo, there are many non-competitive games with superior narratives. See how that works.

Imo, the best stories are not spoon fed to you by some corporation, they are the ones you and your mates create together(either role-playing or in real life. )

Now if "you" feel that 40k has the best narrative because it is a story "you" and "your" friends have developed, then it is "you" who have created what "you" feel is the best narrative...not GW.

Really, Captain Avatar, just leave it.

This is Zwei's pet topic, and can be summed up by "feth the rest of you, I'm happy"

You won't get anywhere but thread lock by engaging with him in this subject, best left alone n

 Zweischneid wrote:
For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, more than any other game out there, and many other players do to. I look forward to them dropping the FoC (partly).

Lol, no. 40k is NOT a good narrative game. GW have just performed a miracle of marketing and convinced you that "poor game design" means "better at narrative play", even when the game's flaws directly interfere with having a good narrative game. People like you are so stubbornly afraid of being one of those evil "competitive" players that you've completely lost sight of the fact that a good narrative game is more than just a game that is bad for competitive play.

And if it works, I hope they'll drop point values and similar things in future editions too.

Yeah, wouldn't that be great. We could get rid of any pretense of having a game that you can just sit down and play, and have "narrative" battles where one side slaughters the other without any chance of failure because nobody knows how to figure out two balanced forces without point values. In fact, why not remove the rules entirely? Just buy a bunch of Games™ Workshop™ Products™ and talk to your opponent about how awesome your Citadel™ Space™ Marines™ are. And then buy more stuff, because that's the best part of the Hobby™.

 TBD wrote:

Please show us a statement made by the games' delevoper saying it is the opinion of the games' developer to willfully not have a balanced game? As you damn well know there is no such thing. It is the interpretation you intentionally choose to give to it, and it is pretty ignorant.

GW fully presents 40K to have a core rules set theoretically leading to a game where both parties start at equal footing, and always has. They are just doing a very bad & lazy job at it and when in their mind it comes to opportunities to make more moneyz everything else takes a backseat. As bad as that may be it still isn't the same thing as intentionally having an unbalanced game system.

actually the game was originally developed to basically need a referee to run, with no real thought about balance, and with players playing to 'have fun' and sit down to chat about who had actually won at the end (so no cut and dried results)

just listen to what Rick Priestly says here http://hittingon3s.com/2014/05/04/hittingon3s-podcast-episode-45-rp/ (generally NSFW so if that's an issue check the timestamp and just listen to the interview)

although since it began 40K has moved more towards a balanced, win/loose style game but it certainly has never got their completely, and now it seems to be swinging back towards it's roots

this will cause problems for the more 'tournament' and 'pickup game with strangers' players (which are probably the minority of players, but the majority of the strongly active users of 40K websites like Dakka)

but should actually improve things for those playing with people they know in a very casual way

It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.

Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
Secondly, if they try to play games with such OP spamming, they'll find few others with the same mindset - while the majority will want to play Battle-forged armies or thematic Unbound ones. Within months, Unbound armies spamming OP models will dwindle and remain isolated in this or that FLGS.
Thirdly, you can simply say you're not interested in playing Unbound/Unbound OP-spam games. People will flock to Battle-forged, because it's a. similar to how the game was played in 6th, b. it will have bonuses and c. it has some shadow of balance.

All this doomsaying about Unbound has little value until we see the rules as they are. Quitting the game because you think there will be HUNDREDS of players spamming OP models is quite naive.

 TBD wrote:

 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?

Also, 40k has never been about balance from its inception.

It clearly is your opinion and it was stated as such, so don't suddenly pretend otherwise. Please show us a statement made by the games' delevoper saying it is the opinion of the games' developer to willfully not have a balanced game? As you damn well know there is no such thing. It is the interpretation you intentionally choose to give to it, and it is pretty ignorant.

GW fully presents 40K to have a core rules set theoretically leading to a game where both parties start at equal footing, and always has. They are just doing a very bad & lazy job at it and when in their mind it comes to opportunities to make more moneyz everything else takes a backseat. As bad as that may be it still isn't the same thing as intentionally having an unbalanced game system.

And yes, people can indeed choose to ignore certain rules, just like they can choose to ignore certain intentionally ignorant people btw. That is a quite lovely freedom we all have. If GW put a rule in their book saying that instead of rolling a dice both players can make a turd on the floor next to the gaming table and the biggest most steamy one wins then I guess "Tyrannosaurus, the indoctrinator of youths" will be the first one dropping his pants on the ground. Because opinion doesn't matter and it is in the rules, right? God forbid that someone who is invested in a game has an opinion about the quality and continuity of said game. We should all kneel to whatever they concoct next without question. Either that or we should simply play another game. You are exactly the sheeple Tom Kirby is looking for

So to answer your question, it is you who is being more elitist, although I am not sure if that is the best word to describe the attitude being displayed.

You want me to provide evidence that GW games developers aren't interested in balance? I thought this was glaringly obvious, but I'll indulge you.The fact that they are allowing unbound armies, all of the batreps in White Dwarf that ignore the FoC, numerous comments made by senior GW games developers such as Jervis Johnson, the 'Forge the Narrative' boxes in the BRB, Escalation supplement, Imperial Knights, most of the codexes, numerous random tables etc. etc. etc. I'm in favour of the majority of this.

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion, even though you seem unable to make it without personal attacks. Interesting that again you call me ignorant despite you being the one that feels it is appropriate to ignore rules, refuses to accept the facts about the direction the game is heading in, and seems to have limited knowledge of the history of a game that has never been balanced.

Again, if you are so unhappy with the game, move along.

 Vector Strike wrote:
It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.

Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
Secondly, if they try to play games with such OP spamming, they'll find few others with the same mindset - while the majority will want to play Battle-forged armies or thematic Unbound ones. Within months, Unbound armies spamming OP models will dwindle and remain isolated in this or that FLGS.
Thirdly, you can simply say you're not interested in playing Unbound/Unbound OP-spam games. People will flock to Battle-forged, because it's a. similar to how the game was played in 6th, b. it will have bonuses and c. it has some shadow of balance.

All this doomsaying about Unbound has little value until we see the rules as they are. Quitting the game because you think there will be HUNDREDS of players spamming OP models is quite naive.

I think you've nailed it there, this has been the general consensus around my group too.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

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.

Remember that with my IG army used to absolutely hate it, as soon as the Nids got into combat that was it - would just roll up my line chomping as they went, and you'd end up with all of your miniatures squashed into one corner desperately trying to stay out of charge range

I guess nowadays I would just plonk 3 Riptides down.

 Pacific wrote:
Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.

I suspect people feel entitled to get a good game because they've invested hundreds to thousands of dollars into the minis. While there was never any "fun balanced game" guarantee sold along with the minis, it was a reasonable expectation on the part of fans and a good business practice on the part of a tabletop game manufacturer. I have around 20,000pts of fully painted and based 40k minis so just switching to another game and translating all that is a hassle. So is selling it off. I absolutely have a vested interest in GW not putting out an unbalanced Apoc wannabe mess as the "default" game I encounter in my monthly FLGS trip. If you break it, people will use it. Saying that people won't spam a broken unit due to cost is ridiculous as not everyone's primary limiting factor is money. The vendetta was undercosted last edition (as well as a really cool model) and plenty of people spammed a half dozen of that $60 kit simply because they could both locally and in the wider 40k hobby judging from tourny army pics during 5th edition.

 ascended_mike wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

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.

This seems quite invaluable and a massive change. Hope it happens.

I hated this rule. Please no...

 Byte wrote:

 ascended_mike wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

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.

This seems quite invaluable and a massive change. Hope it happens.

I hated this rule. Please no...

I think something needs to be (re)introduced to protect assault units from being gunned down once they've already run the gauntlet to make it into combat though.

Only a couple of weeks ago, I found myself trying to not win a combat with a Bloodthirster (through division of attacks, not smashing etc) so as to not have it receive the full firepower of three Waveserpents in the face the next turn.

Not very "narrative" that, is it?

It's pretty narrative to blast a Bloodthirster that's just slaughtered your friends though. Hit it while it's on the ground!

 Shandara wrote:
It's pretty narrative to blast a Bloodthirster that's just slaughtered your friends though. Hit it while it's on the ground!

Compare that to a Greater Daemon of Khorne HOLDING BACK in close combat though...

 Shandara wrote:
It's pretty narrative to blast a Bloodthirster that's just slaughtered your friends though. Hit it while it's on the ground!

But it isn't very narrative for a Bloodthirster to try not to break his opponents "too much," nor is it narrative for the living incarnation of the God of War to fly 6ft up the table, we were playing lengthways, hit a squad of Dire Avengers and their transport, and just stop with all their friends within easy reach.

 Byte wrote:
I hated this rule. Please no...

Being a Guard player I also hated this rule, I've got bad memories of Baharoth eating his way through half of my Guard army more or less by himself on more than one occasion. That said, with blob squads and a few other things I think the Guard has rather less to fear from this rule than it did back then.