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.

 malfred wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


For 130+ pages, most people have lamented the death of 40k. Now, after 3 minutes of video, 40k is the best thing since sliced bread!

.

Without going through 130 pages I'm going to guess that
these are different posters with new ones jumping into the
conversation after the video dropped.

Or they could be GW plants, sleepers like in the Manchurian candidate. I know somebody that visited Warhammer world a few years back...they've never been the same since!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:
Very true. I'll wait and see and hope that we don't see a rapid release of dataslates that update armies to 7th at another $50 per.

I thought you'd be happy with people having to shell out more? Don't you have shares in GW? I'm pretty sure that you once said to people on dakka, for a joke, "to shut their pieholes and buy more GW stuff and make me richer!" or words to that effect


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ruprecht wrote:

 malfred wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For 130+ pages, most people have lamented the death of 40k. Now, after 3 minutes of video, 40k is the best thing since sliced bread!
.

Without going through 130 pages I'm going to guess that
these are different posters with new ones jumping into the
conversation after the video dropped.

There has been a noticeable shift. The smug is strong with those of us who poked fun at the early melodramatics

It ain't over yet!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back OT

Is there any indication that 7th will fix the problem that has dogged 40k for as long as I can remember: i.e does it want to be a small scale, RPG, or does it want to be get as many models on the table as possible. In other words, epic in 28mm scale. Until this is addressed, any new edition is doomed to fail, in my view.

Well, one way communication is still more than absolute silence.

I must say I like the idea of giving "balanced" armies the objective secured rule, and other bonuses while "unbound" armies receive none.

I do also like that it appears as if there are at least 2 if not more "Battle Forged" FOC charts a player can choose to follow to gain bonuses. It has been hinted at that there would be army specific bonuses, I would like to see a FOC for every faction with that in mind. Either way, good deal.


However -- the negative: People will spam and ruin Unbound forces in a competitive setting. There is no doubt of this - competitive players will find the most efficient point units in any setting, Unbound is just opening the abuse floodgates. So, while casual games are good for an Unbound narrative, I predict the tournament scene will remain Battle-Forged army lists only. So no harm there, in the long run.

The WD article says check back every day for more content - i hope we do get a video each day while we wait for this release.

I thought I was going to give up on 40K. Now I think while I may never game again with other people, this will interest my son, and we will be having great battles once again.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
I think it is nice that they made the video and actually explained some things. That might be counted as an first attempt to communicate with the fanbase...

Na...True communication would be two way, and involve actually listening to what the fans/customers have to say bout your products.

I'm tgoing o reserve judgement until people get their hands on the new rulebooks and can do a detailed review and analysis. I'm hopeful that they'll fix the various issues, but I have absolutely no faith that they will do so.

Can you not see the contradictions in your own reply?

Well, GW sure did find a way to sell more than three riptides/terminator squads/overpowered unit limited to three, didn't they?

The only thing I honestly like about the new rulebook is the layout / formatting / background.

Looks clean and colourful.

6th edition is full of grimdark spindly doodles

Why did I doublepost?

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Why did I doublepost?

There is a glitch in the matrix. It happens once in a while. If you leave your post alone for 5 minutes or so and post elsewhere, it usually fixes itself.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Well, GW sure did find a way to sell more than three riptides/terminator squads/overpowered unit limited to three, didn't they?

No worries. You'll get to reroll your warlord result! So that way your warlord's unit can be fearless. That should totally counter the spammed min/maxed unbound army you're facing even after they annihilate all your super scoring troops by turn 2.

Have you noticed that on the video there is a sentence under FOC that says:

"All units chosen must have the same faction (or no faction)" ??

No faction?? "Codex: Aliena Auxilia" someone?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Or they could be GW plants, sleepers like in the Manchurian candidate.

From Sri Lanka

I think this sudden wave of positivity is pretty refreshing. And the video was pretty good too, by GW standards.

 Boogie wrote:
Have you noticed that on the video there is a sentence under FOC that says:
"All units chosen must have the same faction (or no faction)" ??
No faction?? "Codex: Aliena Auxilia" someone?

Codex: Stronghold Assault, you mean?

 warboss wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Well, GW sure did find a way to sell more than three riptides/terminator squads/overpowered unit limited to three, didn't they?

No worries. You'll get to reroll your warlord result! So that way your warlord's unit can be fearless. That should totally counter the spammed min/maxed unbound army you're facing even after they annihilate all your super scoring troops by turn 2.

That is pretty cool. Instead of having automatically a useless Warlord trait on Celestine, and I can reroll it… and automatically get the same trait a second time .

 Boogie wrote:
Have you noticed that on the video there is a sentence under FOC that says:

"All units chosen must have the same faction (or no faction)" ??

No faction?? "Codex: Aliena Auxilia" someone?

This makes me think they're cleaning up the allies table by putting similar codexes under a single group (such as treating Inquisition and Knight codexes as an 'Imperial' faction).

No Faction could be for dataslate stuff like Cypher.

I think the "no faction" stuff more refers to fortifications, as stated above.

Well, first off it is a good thing that they put out this (the first of a few) videos with Jervis detailing what the FOC changes will mean to 40k. It gives me a little hope that there could be some forethought to this release. If it ends up being the case that the 6th edition rule book is still valid and these changes can be cataloged in a couple of pages of errata, my general tone towards this release will be much more positive.

With the rules Jervis mentioned, I wonder if the "objective secured" stuff is going to push Unbound armies entirely into the realm of "Tabling" forces. Contesting objectives seems like it would be prohibitively difficult (and unwise) when using an Unbound list, so I feel like this would provide support for a player who wants to run insane lists (i.e. "Look, I need to run this Riptide/Farseer/Lone Wolf list, how else could I win?")

In comparison, the new players (or others playing what ever units they own) will get decimated consistently since being Unbound gives them disadvantages in addition to a perhaps less-than-competitive force. Perhaps the message for them is "Look, you can play the game, just don't expect to win. But then again, you're just here for 'narrative,' aren't you?"

 Squidbot wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
I think it is nice that they made the video and actually explained some things. That might be counted as an first attempt to communicate with the fanbase...

Na...True communication would be two way, and involve actually listening to what the fans/customers have to say bout your products.

I'm tgoing o reserve judgement until people get their hands on the new rulebooks and can do a detailed review and analysis. I'm hopeful that they'll fix the various issues, but I have absolutely no faith that they will do so.

Can you not see the contradictions in your own reply?

What contradictions?

GW don't allow comments on their youtube videos. They closed their Facebook page and official forums. They took deliberate steps to cut themselves off from customer feedback and opinion and isolate themselves. A video discussing the changes to rules in their new Edition released to promote their new product, but with comments disabled does not amount to "communication with the fanbase". Granted, its possible they've been covertly monitoring forums and have considered the common complains made about the game when writing the new edition, but we won't know whether they have been listening covertly until people can get their hands on it and do an in depth analysis.

And if you're referring to my statements "I'm reserving judgement until someone posts a detailed review" and "I'm hopeful but have no faith" I meant that I'm on the fence over whether I'll be buying this Edition. I have posted my opinions on the various rumours but those have not been confirmed, or have only been glimpsed in a brief clip, and I will be waiting until release to decide.

Like I said, I'm hopeful but I don't have faith that they will listen based on past behaviour.

If I wasn't reserving my judgement, I'd have already sold my army and moved on to another game altogether.

I'd be happy if Unbound will let you take armies based on BL novels where the protagonists do not necessarily fit the FOC.

For example Talos and a veteran Night Lords squad with 30+ Bleeding Eye Raptors.

Might be hoop on the table and achieve nothing but could be fun to play!

Cut out the important stuff:

I think another important bit might be the bolded "discuss with your opponent what limits you'll be putting on the game".

alphaecho wrote:
I'd be happy if Unbound will let you take armies based on BL novels where the protagonists do not necessarily fit the FOC.

For example Talos and a veteran Night Lords squad with 30+ Bleeding Eye Raptors.

Might be hoop on the table and achieve nothing but could be fun to play!

Isn't Talos, two veteran Night Lords squads, and 30+ Bleeding Eye Raptors already legal? Does that single 5 man chaos marine squad make all the difference in you forging that narrative?

Good lord, all of you stop. Worse than my 2 yo and 4 yo.

Must say, I'm pumped. There are few gamers more jaded than I... but I think I've made that fatal mistake of actually hoping GW might pull off a better edition than the one before here (and I still think 6th is the best yet... just about 4 units, 2 rules, and 1 design philosophy away from a solid edition).

 AkharaVect wrote:
Cut out the important stuff:

Well, that sounds like it's appropriate balance between a reasonable army and an army comprised entirely of deathstrike missile launchers.

Sarcasm aside, army balance even within the FOC has gone out the window now to begin with, so really why not just give up at this point?

So going off that screen grab. A tactical squad with a rhino if they combat squad is 3 scoring units. Awesome

Thimn wrote:
So going off that screen grab. A tactical squad with a rhino if they combat squad is 3 scoring units. Awesome

Unless vehicles have a blanket "don't count as scoring" rule like they've had for the past two editions elsewhere in the book. One screen grab =/= complete understanding.

Well it looks as if the sky is not falling after all and we may have a fun edition on our hands. I am all for people playing unbound armies, a Leman Russ tank contingent comes to mind right away as a fluffy fun way to spend an afternoon. Campaigns are going to be great fun because of this I think.

It also looks as if competitive play will not be broken either. Unbound armies will be required to table pretty much every army they come up against, something that may happen to me, but will not happen to most players out there.

Just when I think I'm going to get out of this silly game, GW sucks me right back in...

Thimn wrote:
So going off that screen grab. A tactical squad with a rhino if they combat squad is 3 scoring units. Awesome

We don't yet have confirmation that all units are scoring. Just shaky rumors. Personally I won't believe any "rumors" until we are about a week away from release and/or someone posts a picture of the rulebook in hand.

As it is, I don't think *everything* in 7th will be scoring - most likely it will be just the way it is now, with the added kerfluffle of "Objective Secured" units in Battle-forged lists (and skyblight tyranids)

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, one way communication is still more than absolute silence.

Baby steps lads, baby steps. You can't expect a new company without any experience or established fanbase to do it great on the first try...

I don't see Unbound armies making it outside the garages.

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Well it looks as if the sky is not falling after all and we may have a fun edition on our hands. I am all for people playing unbound armies, a Leman Russ tank contingent comes to mind right away as a fluffy fun way to spend an afternoon. Campaigns are going to be great fun because of this I think.

It also looks as if competitive play will not be broken either. Unbound armies will be required to table pretty much every army they come up against, something that may happen to me, but will not happen to most players out there.

Just when I think I'm going to get out of this silly game, GW sucks me right back in...

Campaigns have never been restricted by the FOC and didn't need a "take anything" army construction rule as a standard option. As for competitive play, I suspect we'll see a blanket ban on unbound armies in most tournies except for the (apparently unpopular judging from Adepticon) formats that specifically advertised in the past taking everything. This just enables TFGs to try and screw over pickup game opponents as part of the standard rules via "but the rules say I can take all riptides!" argument. Your ability to get a fearless warlord and have super scoring troops doesn't matter if your opponent kills every troop by turn 2 and tables you by turn 4 because they've cherry picked the most broken units from 15 different sources.