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.

Jervis Johnsons sexy voice makes me like Unbound more

http://xvilegion.com/2014/05/12/reglas-de-la-nueva-edicion-new-40k-edition-rules/#more-464

MtG has a developer that fully playtests all releases and is interested in releasing a competitive, balanced ruleset.

GW gives a gak about any sort of balance and purposefully BREAKS balance to sell more stuff.

Quite a difference.

All the foofora over Unbound seems a bit silly.

I highly doubt that any tournament will allow anything but battle-forged armies. If this edition integrates escalation, stronghold assault and dataslates into battle-forged armies, that's fine. Tournaments could easily have restrictions like "battle-forged armies only, but no Lords of War" or "battle-forged, but the only fortifications allowed are one Aegis or one Bastion per army", eg, and be done with it.

Battle-forged troops being able to hold objectives even against former Denial units from Elites/Fast/Heavy means that the value of Troops does go up relative to the other FOC choices, however minimally. This is a good thing.

Re Unbound:
Apocalypse already lets you put down whatever units you have, without regards to FOC. So Unbound is like Apocalypse for smaller armies. Cool, lets the kiddies play with their cool models, lets the fluffmonkeys Forge Narratives, etc. New players who don't have their two troops and an HQ assembled yet can still get a game in to start learning the rules as well. Awesome.

Game-focused people who have full armies already will be playing only Battle-forged anyways.

And if it's a choice between twiddling my thumbs at the gaming store, or finding out how many of my guardsmen can survive against 6 Riptides? I might actually choose to have a silly game instead of surfing Dakka while I wait for another battle-forged army to show up.

Regardless of how the Battle-forged/Unbound plays out I hope mechanically they have improved 6ths shortcomings.

Step One of a new revision should be reading any thread in YMDC that is more than 10 pages with no clear consensus.

It seemed like JJ was very consciously working very hard to avoid saying the word "buy" in the beginning of the video.

"So they can choose what to...uhh... use to play with"

Yeah I'm kind of curious about the Tournament Fall Out from this as well. I mean tournaments allow Formation.

They'd basically be ignoring a rule for the game on how to build your army which i think is interesting.

Waiting for more information about the "maelstrom" missions, and the objective cards. If they did it right, that could really shake up the "jump on objectives at the last turn to win" situation.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I really laughed out loud when I read that the "advantage" you get for using the FOC is re-rolling the Warlord Table. Great fething job GW. Whoop-di-whoop. And I am glad that only your Bound force may score while hordes of Waveserpents and Riptides tear everything apart.

GW isn't even trying anymore.

I guess just letting you choose your warlord trait is too difficult?

 skink007 wrote:
It seemed like JJ was very consciously working very hard to avoid saying the word "buy" in the beginning of the video.

"So they can choose what to...uhh... use to play with"

I almost thought he said "abuse or play with".

 Lobukia wrote:
A fun, but horrible list. Guardian spam alone would roll that up.

Special Characters can't beat an army on their own? No wai!

I'd be more worried about spammed generic HQs anyways, especially those able to take bikes. Nob bikers are still semi-good, you could get 10 decked-out warbosses on bikes at 1750 points, more if you skip a couple of powerklaws and attack squigs. Even if you don't, that's still 30 T6 wounds with 30 TL S5 shots and 60 S10 AP2 attacks on the charge, plus you get the old wound-bouncing shenanigans back.

 Jidmah wrote:
What's the point of that discussion?

To get a game going that both people can enjoy? Pretty sure I was clear on that point.

 Jidmah wrote:

"Hey, I want to try my new counts-as-Imperial Knight, want to play?"
"Sorry, no Knights."
-> No game

"Hey, want to play a story scenario from that IA book I bought, want to play?"
"I'd rather play a regular game."
-> No game

"Would you mind not playing the dual turbo-laser warhound?"
"Sorry, didn't bring another army"
-> No game

"I'm a competitive player, is it ok for me to field my riptide/serpent/wraithknight list?"
"Uh, sorry I'd rather no be tabled by turn 3."
-> No game

"I'm playing a fluffy grot army, would you please play a weak army?"
"Sorry, I'm training for next weeks tournament."
-> No game

"Hey, I just bought my second Blood Angel rhino, wanna play?"
"I don't think that game would enjoyable for you, kid."
-> No game

"So, what are you playing?"
"Tau with eldar allies."
"Ugh, tough. How many points?"
"1750, want to play?"
"Sure, better than not playing"
-> Got a game

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding, because it sounds like you're fine with any of those scenarios as long as you don't know about it before hand? I'm failing to see an issue here. In these examples someone avoided a series of games they'd rather not play, and eventually found a game. How is that not exactly what I said. I'd also point out that your "successful" example could be the exact same as your "I don't want to get tabled by turn 3" player, with the only difference being one person was up front about bringing a competitive list, the other just said "Tau and Eldar". For all you know, it's the same list from both players and you're still getting tabled.

 Jidmah wrote:

No matter what you talk about, you can chose between not playing the perfect game you imagined or not playing at all.

The only thing you can do is bring three or four army lists yourself and hope the people present are willing to play against at least one of those lists. An actual discussion to find a consensus about how to play the game happens very rarely, and usually only if the other person is a seasoned veteran with a vast collection of models.

"playing the perfect game you imagined" and "not playing" are your only two choices? Really? Because there is a whole heck of a lot of space between those two that still constitutes "playing". To me, it sounds like the best way to play is to find someone else who wants to play and is willing to set up a mutually agreeable game. I'm not sure why you make it sound like some sisyphean task to work that out.

valace2 wrote:

 zammerak wrote:
Originally I was against 7th, im still on the fence but my outlook is more positive, please have the book be sub 99 usd, I have only had 6th for what 2 years? Gw should have a book trade in deal kinda like textbooks rules updates wouldn't seem AS bad.

Hate to say it but Games Workshop has stock holders to answer to. Take a look at the $£¥ that Magic players put down each expansion and it won't be so bad.

Well, I'm spending about 20€ per expansion, 40€ if I attend a (pre-)release event, and that's rounded up. If Warhammer 40k ever remotely reaches level of rules writing and balance MtG has, I will never, ever complain about their prices again. As long as long as their rules are as obscure and unbalanced as they are now, they aren't worth half of what I spend on magic.

 Strangelooper wrote:
Battle-forged troops being able to hold objectives even against former Denial units from Elites/Fast/Heavy means that the value of Troops does go up relative to the other FOC choices, however minimally. This is a good thing.

I must have missed the rule where troops from a warforged list control objectives after they've been killed by the broken unbound list they're facing. Is that one of the new warlord trait options we get to reroll?

So, people are poo-pooing the idea of Riptide diarrhea all over the table, because you need some support units to make them unstoppable. Wouldn't a few units of Tetras fit that role for cheap! cheap! cheap!

And aren't they GW APPROVED tm

 Jidmah wrote:

valace2 wrote:

 zammerak wrote:
Originally I was against 7th, im still on the fence but my outlook is more positive, please have the book be sub 99 usd, I have only had 6th for what 2 years? Gw should have a book trade in deal kinda like textbooks rules updates wouldn't seem AS bad.

Hate to say it but Games Workshop has stock holders to answer to. Take a look at the $£¥ that Magic players put down each expansion and it won't be so bad.

Well, I'm spending about 20€ per expansion, 40€ if I attend a (pre-)release event, and that's rounded up. If Warhammer 40k ever remotely reaches level of rules writing and balance MtG has, I will never, ever complain about their prices again. As long as long as their rules are as obscure and unbalanced as they are now, they aren't worth half of what I spend on magic.

Wizards of the Coasts playtest their games (& get their players to play test them) for an extensive period - And publish the results of these tests. Perhaps not always with magic, but they have other games that they do this with - And they do it very very well, to balance some things out.

D&D 4e is low in peoples opinions because there aren't many "broken" character classes as in 3.5e. Acheived via extensive testing. D&D Next is currently being playtested (I am playtesting this) & they are releasing the edition in waves to the players, and adjusting it based on feedback.

I wonder what GW does to playtest.... Because I'm sure they don't get consult their players.

That being said, Still looking forward to the new edition!!

 Sigvatr wrote:
MtG has a developer that fully playtests all releases and is interested in releasing a competitive, balanced ruleset.

GW gives a gak about any sort of balance and purposefully BREAKS balance to sell more stuff.

Quite a difference.

Ummm...not only MtG has considerable power creep, the tournament formats routinely ban or restrict too powerful cards.

 ascended_mike wrote:


Wizards of the Coasts playtest their games (& get their players to play test them) for an extensive period - And publish the results of these tests. Perhaps not always with magic, but they have other games that they do this with - And they do it very very well, to balance some things out.

D&D 4e is low in peoples opinions because there aren't many "broken" character classes as in 3.5e. Acheived via extensive testing. D&D Next is currently being playtested (I am playtesting this) & they are releasing the edition in waves to the players, and adjusting it based on feedback.

I wonder what GW does to playtest.... Because I'm sure they don't get consult their players.

That being said, Still looking forward to the new edition!!

I disagree- People disliked 4th edition because it became uncomfortably close to a boardgame instead of a roleplaying game. The example that sticks out in my mind is a class had a power that created an area of difficult terrain that it could only use in a crowded urban environment. This was used to represent someone chucking garbage behind them to slow pursuers.

valace2 wrote:


It had seemed like the mood was shifting away from the "sky is falling" but it would appear we are in "Revenge of the Haters" mode again.

Its good you can be mature in this discussion.

Yeah who really cares if you can't contest objectives. You can still claim them or just wipe your opponent off the board.

Also, I tried a game on Vassal with Wraight Knights, Imperial Knights, and Riptides w/ some marker drones against a basically ALL FMC MC Chaos army and it was wiped out by like turn 3.

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
MtG has a developer that fully playtests all releases and is interested in releasing a competitive, balanced ruleset.

GW gives a gak about any sort of balance and purposefully BREAKS balance to sell more stuff.

Quite a difference.

Ummm...not only MtG has considerable power creep, the tournament formats routinely ban or restrict too powerful cards.

Would those be the official, sanctioned, tournament rules?

Any rumors of a fix for the wound allocation. Will my marine pass on his special weapon or will turns still consist of shuffling slightly to the left or right and immediately killing off any useful weapons I have no matter the squad position.

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
MtG has a developer that fully playtests all releases and is interested in releasing a competitive, balanced ruleset.

GW gives a gak about any sort of balance and purposefully BREAKS balance to sell more stuff.

Quite a difference.

Ummm...not only MtG has considerable power creep, the tournament formats routinely ban or restrict too powerful cards.

Simply not true. There isn't a Standard banlist and the Modern and Legacy ban lists are pretty short compared to the number of allowed cards. It's not "routinely" done at all.

 Colpicklejar wrote:

 ascended_mike wrote:


Wizards of the Coasts playtest their games (& get their players to play test them) for an extensive period - And publish the results of these tests. Perhaps not always with magic, but they have other games that they do this with - And they do it very very well, to balance some things out.

D&D 4e is low in peoples opinions because there aren't many "broken" character classes as in 3.5e. Acheived via extensive testing. D&D Next is currently being playtested (I am playtesting this) & they are releasing the edition in waves to the players, and adjusting it based on feedback.

I wonder what GW does to playtest.... Because I'm sure they don't get consult their players.

That being said, Still looking forward to the new edition!!

I disagree- People disliked 4th edition because it became uncomfortably close to a boardgame instead of a roleplaying game. The example that sticks out in my mind is a class had a power that created an area of difficult terrain that it could only use in a crowded urban environment. This was used to represent someone chucking garbage behind them to slow pursuers.

I agree the feel of the game is different but the balance struck is something achieved through extensive internal and external testing. Whilst you may dislike the edition, the balance is there with regards to classes not being too overpowered. (This was my point)

You won't find that with GW. But would too much balance change the game and how it feels?

So everyone think its fine paying another 100$ in an obvious moneygrab? So next edition will be in about 12 months?

And STILL no ork codex!

 streamdragon wrote:

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding, because it sounds like you're fine with any of those scenarios as long as you don't know about it before hand? I'm failing to see an issue here. In these examples someone avoided a series of games they'd rather not play, and eventually found a game.

Well, kind of. Even if it was the same person(was supposed to be a bunch of unrelated examples), he would have gotten a game after driving home gameless for six Saturdays, and then finally found a game (which he still might not have enjoyed) after not playing at all for almost two months. That's a lot of wasted fuel and time, if you ask me. That's why pick-up games simply ask for points and then duke it out. If the kid with the rhinos wants to play, I'll play him and go easy on him. Even if I'm not getting the game I'm looking for, I get to play. If the other guy is setting down the Warhound Titan, I'll see if I can beat it, even though it would take a lot of luck. Still better than standing around in a store with nothing to do but hoping that someone without a lord of war comes in.

How is that not exactly what I said. I'd also point out that your "successful" example could be the exact same as your "I don't want to get tabled by turn 3" player, with the only difference being one person was up front about bringing a competitive list, the other just said "Tau and Eldar". For all you know, it's the same list from both players and you're still getting tabled.

That's my point. Either you get a game in and might get tabled, or just just don't play a game. For what we know, that imaginary person might totally suck at generalship and you manage to beat him easily. Or you get tabled, get to know that person and arrange a game with him for next week. Still better than simply refusing to play.

 Jidmah wrote:

No matter what you talk about, you can chose between not playing the perfect game you imagined or not playing at all.

The only thing you can do is bring three or four army lists yourself and hope the people present are willing to play against at least one of those lists. An actual discussion to find a consensus about how to play the game happens very rarely, and usually only if the other person is a seasoned veteran with a vast collection of models.

"playing the perfect game you imagined" and "not playing" are your only two choices? Really? Because there is a whole heck of a lot of space between those two that still constitutes "playing". To me, it sounds like the best way to play is to find someone else who wants to play and is willing to set up a mutually agreeable game. I'm not sure why you make it sound like some sisyphean task to work that out.

Because that person might not be present, is already playing a game with other people, didn't bring the models to play the game you're looking for or simply doesn't want to play you for other reasons. Not everyone can afford to hang around the store for hours and days, waiting till someone comes to play your way. Most of the time, there are only one or two opponents to chose from, and a lot of times, those people don't have the same idea of how the game is supposed to be played as you. The smallest common ground are GW's rules. If you leave that common ground, you are willingly skipping out of games. The farther you leave, the less games you get. If you refuse to play against Tau, Eldar, Daemons, Escalation, Stronghold, Grey Knights and anything from forgeworld - which is exactly what many people are suggesting - good luck on finding any games at all.

Spoletta wrote:

 rabidguineapig wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If unbound armies are allowed in competitive play then the nids just jumped at the top of the food chain!

Want to play unbound? Meet my Endless swarm list of x-thousand non tablable objective securing MSU. Oh and a pair of Primes somewhere in there to secure synapse.

Yes you can put your models back in the case now.

You're forgetting that in unbound it doesn't matter if you have 2.2 million troops, they won't take the objectives from battle forged guys even if they're both in range. Also, from my perspective with Guard, Wyverns would barrage-snipe your Primes to death and then your gribblies will eat themselves for the rest of the game. I wouldn't get my hopes up quite that high just yet, and god forbid you end up with a kill-points game hahah.

Except that the list i mentioned is battle forged.

Ok, so you're basically saying that you're only going to field this against Unbound lists to get the advantage of the scoring troops? It still has nothing to do with being top tier, unless you mean that in the world of "which battle-forged armies are the best against unbound lists," this is #1. You should be more clear to avoid this confusion haha, it seemed very much like you were saying you'd take an unbound list of entirely gaunts/gants.

I'm actually pretty shocked by the benefits of fielding a FOC/lore friendly list. The command benefits are extremely lacking. I was completely expecting to see FOC lists get +(x) amount of points depending on the level of play or something...

Yes perhaps my rant is as to this discussion as GW is to tabletop wargaming, but oh well. It;s out there and I'll stand by my opinion until I or another changes it.

We really are speculating at this point and I realize this, but the 40k isn't what caused the fingers to fly just then. It just bugs me when people use a slight discrepancy in your post to try and undermine the validity of your input. It's like saying "you misspelled a word, you must be dumb", like no buddy, my finger slipped and I didn't see the error until after, my bad, lets get back on topic ya know?

But like I just said, back on topic. Yeah okay UB lists will allow players who have large collections to field more of their models in unique ways, but this means nothing to the new player. Only that now you can just buy whatever you want and field it. Sure that has some value in and of itself to new players but doesn't this also kind of detract as well? Why bother buying troops and an HQ as your first army or why bother with the battle forces because you're now encouraged to cherry pick the units you want. People will just go okay, I'm building a kill everything or lose list and be fine with that. This could lead to things like Rhinos not selling at all, or other units that are more for player flavour falling behind in favour of more elite big money items. I can see a situation where people just say screw it to troops because for more in-game worth they can spend a couple more bucks on an elite or heavy. Why run Tacticals anymore when you can just run some uber cheap scouts and have a Cent army?

@Jidmah Exalted. Certainly making more sense than half the posters here.
People have to remember we do not have the full picture yet!!
Battle forged lists could see far more benefits...

 jhnbrg wrote:
So everyone think its fine paying another 100$ in an obvious moneygrab? So next edition will be in about 12 months?

And STILL no ork codex!

It's weird that you should read this thread and your takeaway is that anyone is fine about anything!

Personally, if it offers a more interesting game, or fixes some of the inherent issues with 6th, then yes, I'll be ok with it. If it is just another ham fisted way of trying to manipulate suggestible people into buying more models...not so much. But because I play in a club environment, unless there's a consensus (there won't be) my choice is buy 7th or stop playing, so as the decision is somewhat out of my hands, I don't see the point in getting too overwrought about it.