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.

More than anything, consolidating into new combats is something I really don't want to see back again, and that was back when armies would typically get stuck in turns 3 and 4, not turn 2 or even sometimes turn 1. Locking an enemy unit in combat is one of the most powerful things in this game (negating movement, shooting, and often special rules/abilities), and if done successfully largely is basically an auto-unit-kill a turn if your units outmatch them in CC. CC has it's problems in 6E, but a return to consolidating into new combats is not the fix.

 Zweischneid wrote:
For the moment though, I greatly enjoy the world's best narrative and least-competitive game, ...

Pathfinder?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ack, do you guys see my double post or is it just something weird happening on my end?

It's a glitch that the forum software throws up sometimes. If you just leave it alone, the forum catches up after a couple of minutes and removes the duplicate post.

 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.

No more so than buying and assembling anything else that they want to put in their army...

The issue I see with the Unbound concept is that it's not just about spamming the truly OP stuff. Taking, say, Space Marines as an example - in this new system, what reason do players have for ever fielding Tactical Marines now? Assault Marines are better at assault. Devastators are better at shooting. Everybody scores. So what reason is left to field Tactical Marines?

The rules previously have required players to field basic troops because GW found way, way back in 2nd edition that left to their own devices people will just field the 'special' stuff and leave the boring basic units on the shelf.

So the result I see from introducing Unbound armies to the game is that the vast majority of armies will wind up being made up entirely of elite units and/or big stompy stuff... because those are the units that people get excited about.

I don't think consolidating into combat can be a balanced mechanic with the current state of the game. Fast moving Death Stars are already a huge problem.

I think consolidating into combat sounds like a great idea. As previously stated, sometimes you're hoping that you don't kill all of a unit in CC in your own turn so that your unit won't be out in the open to be shot, which is silly.

This would make a lot of units viable again. Even Repentia wouldn't be too bad if you could actually get them there. Really hope that assaulting from stationary vehicles is brought back too.

It would also shake up the Tau/Guard gunline lists.

Consolidating into combat would not be terrible as long as the defender gets to overwatch again, including Tau supporting fire. This would also make the gravity drones worth taking.

 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.

Spoiler:

-- 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 this lot is true, it's a mixed bag for me...

Consolidating into combat is something I would definitely like to see back, so long as the enemy unit still gets to overwatch. Likewise, vehicles returning to usefulness is a good thing (and somewhat expected, given GW's previous see-saw history with vehicles) and more sensible wound allocation would be great. Toning down D-weapons would go some way towards removing the issue with super-heavies in the game. And the multiple rulebook formats is something that people have been asking for for years and multiple editions now.

The rest of it, not so fond of. And Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives is just downright weird. Curious to see the explanation for that.

 insaniak wrote:
So the result I see from introducing Unbound armies to the game is that the vast majority of armies will wind up being made up entirely of elite units and/or big stompy stuff... because those are the units that people get excited about.

But that is said assuming everyone will play Unbound armies for all the 7th lifespan, which it's very hard to believe. In the beginning there will be many games with such army styçe (as it is a novelty), but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. Is it a way to get more money? Of course. Will it destroy 40k? Doubtely so. Unbound armies will be restricted to friends' games in the medium-long run.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Spoiler:

-- 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 this lot is true, it's a mixed bag for me...

Consolidating into combat is something I would definitely like to see back, so long as the enemy unit still gets to overwatch. Likewise, vehicles returning to usefulness is a good thing (and somewhat expected, given GW's previous see-saw history with vehicles) and more sensible wound allocation would be great. Toning down D-weapons would go some way towards removing the issue with super-heavies in the game. And the multiple rulebook formats is something that people have been asking for for years and multiple editions now.

The rest of it, not so fond of. And Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives is just downright weird. Curious to see the explanation for that.

I missed that somehow. Some of these awful. Failing a psychic test for a power means not being able to use it again? Stupid. Allowing *all* units to score further weakens the value of troops, which are already being taken in minimum-sized squads in most armies. Allowing vehicles to score while making them more durable is just asking for the return of parking lots.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I think consolidating into combat sounds like a great idea. As previously stated, sometimes you're hoping that you don't kill all of a unit in CC in your own turn so that your unit won't be out in the open to be shot, which is silly.

This would make a lot of units viable again. Even Repentia wouldn't be too bad if you could actually get them there. Really hope that assaulting from stationary vehicles is brought back too.

It would also shake up the Tau/Guard gunline lists.

If you remember back several editions, this single mechanic made such armies completely nonviable. Now, there are some problems with assaults in 6th, but units have long average charge distances and more mobility in general barring issues with transports. Units can get into CC earlier than they could when consolidating was allowed. If you bring that back, you're going to get a lot of games where stuff gets stuck in turn 2 and nobody ever gets a chance to shoot at it again. It happened in 3rd and 4th, and they removed it for good reason. It was a bad mechanic. Unless units are either going to be able to voluntarily leave CC or get to fire overwatch at full BS, you're going to see fast Deathstar units running roughshod over this game.

 agnosto wrote:
Consolidating into combat would not be terrible as long as the defender gets to overwatch again, including Tau supporting fire. This would also make the gravity drones worth taking.

Unless they're armed with template weapons or are a Tau army with tons of overwatch supporting mechanics, Overwatch isn't likely to do squat in most cases.

 insaniak wrote:
in this new system, what reason do players have for ever fielding Tactical Marines now?

Because you bought a box of tactical marines and would never dare to use them as anything other than tactical marines. Remember, the point of the game is to buy Games™ Workshop­™ Products™ and have rules to use them. Buying a unit specifically because of its superior rules is blasphemy against the Hobby™.

 Thokt wrote:
What's so weird about Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives? Wouldn't it be safe to say that Unbound is incredibly powerful and would require some nerfs to even out gameplay? Consider this, an army unable to contest objectives really wouldn't be able to hold on to them either, as a Battle forged army could jump onto their objectives and score.

It makes no sense because they can score objectives. I have no idea how that works fluff-wise, a unit can claim whatever vital thing the objective is, but if someone else is claiming it they just stand around uselessly.

 Vector Strike wrote:
... but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. .

How?

Objective points game-wise are already an odd/abstract concept in terms of fluff. In gameplay they make sense to me though, and so does negating the ability of Unbound armies to contest.

Fluff not lining up with rules is nothing new or weird.

 agnosto wrote:
Consolidating into combat would not be terrible as long as the defender gets to overwatch again, including Tau supporting fire. This would also make the gravity drones worth taking.

Sooo...basically ennemy can shoot 2 or 3 times per turn, for oly one CC per turn if we follow your opinion?..., yeah thats balance rigth there...

No fething Overwatch, you overwatch when you get assault, not when you get consolidated in, it would be more of an incitive to NOT consolidate towards ennemy units.

I dunno if you noticed that CC units and armies has much more trouble then straitgh shooting units/armies, why?, because you have to get close, and thats 2 turns of taking fire while you do...nothing else.

Then assault, but oh wait!, there's more!, you get once again shot in the face, and if you have any models left and manage to win, you would still take another shot in the face?

If my Zerkers get shot 3 times per turn, then i will attack a second time in CC once i've consolidated, think about this.

 Thokt wrote:

What's so weird about Unbound armies not being able to contest objectives? .

It's weird because our doesn't make any sense. What exactly about not following an arbitrary organisational structure would render a unit incapable of contesting an objective?

Why would armies obey an arbitrary organizational structure in the first place? In the framework of 40k we're already bound to all sorts of abstractions like this, what's weird about it? It's part and parcel to the norm. Why can some units score and others not in the first place? Why must both armies deploy in the same manner?

 insaniak wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
... but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. .

How?

Because troops are the only scoring units (some SC notwithstanding) normally available. In a normal game, without troops you can only win if you kill your enemy's troops and/or table him, while getting the seconday objectives. The tactics regarding Unbound armies will mostly regard despatching the enemy from the table, while in Battle-forged games thinking tactically is more important than simply killing all your enemies. So, as most people like tactical games (at least as seen here in Dakka and other forums), Battle-forged armies will probably have many more games than Unbound, once its 'novelty factor' is gone.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
... but as the time passes by people will flock back to battle-forged - where having Troops is tantamount to victory. .

How?

Because troops are the only scoring units (some SC notwithstanding) normally available. In a normal game, without troops you can only win if you kill your enemy's troops and/or table him, while getting the seconday objectives. The tactics regarding Unbound armies will mostly regard despatching the enemy from the table, while in Battle-forged games thinking tactically is more important than simply killing all your enemies. So, as most people like tactical games (at least as seen here in Dakka and other forums), Battle-forged armies will probably have many more games than Unbound, once its 'novelty factor' is gone.

With the exception of Big Guns Never Tire, Purge, and Scouring. So half the time what you say holds true. Not to mention there's an entire new set of missions in 7th, as well as cards which change the course of the game as it's played.

Why do people think that overwatch balances out consolidating into combat? Unless you're Tau, overwatch is a single unit hitting on 6's.

That's not going to do gak to anything.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Because troops are the only scoring units (some SC notwithstanding) normally available. In a normal game, without troops you can only win if you kill your enemy's troops and/or table him, while getting the seconday objectives. The tactics regarding Unbound armies will mostly regard despatching the enemy from the table, while in Battle-forged games thinking tactically is more important than simply killing all your enemies. So, as most people like tactical games (at least as seen here in Dakka and other forums), Battle-forged armies will probably have many more games than Unbound, once its 'novelty factor' is gone.

1) The game already favors "kill them and worry about objectives later" armies with limited scoring ability that just wipe you off the table and maybe grab a token objective with one of their mandatory troops units at the end of the game. This "tactical" (a ridiculous label for that, btw) game you're imagining doesn't really exist.

2) Unbound armies are still allowed to take troops, and will almost certainly have some scoring ability, whether it's troops or all units score or whatever. They'll still be able to claim objectives, they just won't be limited at all in what they do with the rest of their points.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do people think that overwatch balances out consolidating into combat? Unless you're Tau, overwatch is a single unit hitting on 6's.

That's not going to do gak to anything.

Don't forget template weapons.

In addition, the overwatch is on top of the assaulting unit already absorbing fire for crossing the table, taking overwatch fire from the first unit, taking casualties for fighting the assault, winning the assault, rolling a sufficient distance to reach the next unit AND that unit being close enough in the first place.

That's an awful lot of stuff going against the assaulting unit, just to avoid one shooting phase.

Maybe consolidating into combat is not a great idea but they need SOMETHING to help out the cc armies in 6th. If they just left it at assault from deepstrike, i would be happy.

Allow consolidation, but don't fight until the next assault phase.

Plus, wasn't there a rumour about charge reactions? Allowing a unit to try and fall back from being caught in a consolidation, with some appropriate risk/reward mechanic, could synergise nicely, potentially leaving the assaulting unit even MORE vulnerable.

 azreal13 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Why do people think that overwatch balances out consolidating into combat? Unless you're Tau, overwatch is a single unit hitting on 6's.

That's not going to do gak to anything.

Don't forget template weapons.

In addition, the overwatch is on top of the assaulting unit already absorbing fire for crossing the table, taking overwatch fire from the first unit, taking casualties for fighting the assault, winning the assault, rolling a sufficient distance to reach the next unit AND that unit being close enough in the first place.

That's an awful lot of stuff going against the assaulting unit, just to avoid one shooting phase.

It really isn't. That's why consolidating was done away with to begin with.

You're also making a lot of assumptions that make no sense within the current meta. Any unit worth assaulting with is going to be either super fast or super durable, or a death star. Meaning that it won't have taken nearly as many casualties getting there as you think.

So, of the units you're talking about are so resistant to shooting, how much of a difference is a shooting phase extra going to make?

Death Stars are an issue that need addressing separately, not something that the whole fabric of the game needs to be contorted around because they exist.

The fall back from consolidators thing might contribute to making leadership valuable, penalize those poor fearless troops who thought they had a good rule, and maybe balance out the strength of the consolidation.

 azreal13 wrote:
So, of the units you're talking about are so resistant to shooting, how much of a difference is a shooting phase extra going to make?

A turn of one or more units firing at full BS is going to do a lot more to these units than a single unit firing at BS1. This should be obvious.

Death Stars are an issue that need addressing separately, not something that the whole fabric of the game needs to be contorted around because they exist.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they're here. Death Stars are apart of the game, and if current rumors about Unbound and everything being able to score are true, they're only going to become more powerful.

So like it or not, they're impact on the game needs to be considered.

Running across an open battlefield to hit someone with your sword is stupid and the fething loonies (Berserkers, Orks etc..) should be punished with unrelenting fire, Close quarter combat should be reserved for building to building and trench warfare only.

I remember 4th quite well, I had a guard army and a World eaters army and playing either against there opposite (guard vs CC, WE vs Shooting) was not fun at all. I've not played 40k properly since then apart from dipping my toe in now and again as there are far superior rules out there to play. But I look for excuses to get back in and have been disappointed so far (yes im looking at you Sisters and Inquisition) so my expectations are not great but I still have hope.

I know the one thing everyone would love to have come back...

FEARLESS WOUNDS!