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.

Yeah there is a slight advantage but it's incredibly small. It also doesn't matter if you have a character that chooses their Warlord Trait.


Hilariously , I think this gives all Battleforged Armies the same ability Marneus Calgar has.

 Blacksails wrote:

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.

Anything to help

 warboss wrote:

 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?

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: In a game between two battle-forged armies, giving troops a little more utility is good. It's annoying that in the current edition a single terminator/obliterator/(other elite/fast/heavy infantryman) can prevent a huge unit of troops from claiming an objective. This change fixes that. Does it fix everything? No, but it's at least a fix in the in right direction.

If you want troops that control objectives after they've been killed, play 'Crons and get back up.

But seriously, why would you play against an Unbound army if you don't want to? It doesn't take much in the way of conversation and social skills to say, "I'm only interested in playing against battle-forged armies, thanks".

I think that most games of 40k in most stores will still be battle-forged only, except among new players, kids, or people who have pre-arranged an Unbound battle for funsies. You can always whip out the "All-Orbital-Strike" army if the only person at the store has an Unbound list and you're feeling like upping the ante.

 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!

Orks in June.

 rabidguineapig wrote:


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.

Yeah should have been more clear.

What i actually meant was: " If unbound list are going to dominate the competitive scenes then nids will eat them for good" (Outside of kill points)

Commissar Benny wrote:
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...

That would mean publicly admitting that their points values aren't balanced. We all know as gamers that there are some glaring examples of undercosted and overcosted units but simply giving away points to cheap gamers who had the nerve to use their existing stuff instead of buying MOAR! was never going to happen. I was hoping for a slew of benefits like rerolling seizing, swapping out the turn by turn objectives previewed, +1 to reserves, etc. Not just a reroll on a frequently useless table and super scoring units that will get wiped out first.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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!

Orks in June.

This year?
Doubt it.

 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!

Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.


I would say dont jump to conclusions and start rageing against the rules until we actually know the rules, but that would be too sensible for a lot of posters here....

 Strangelooper wrote:


Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: In a game between two battle-forged armies, giving troops a little more utility is good.

That does make a difference. In a battle with a broken unbound list (which I admit won't be all of them but it only takes a few to ruin a local scene), it is throwing a rotten bone to players who already bought their armies. Super scoring troops are no better once dead than any other unit and that's what they will be when facing a cherry picked unbound force.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

I can't check to be sure because Magic's website is blocked here at work, but I'm pretty sure there are around 12,000 or so distinct cards in MtG (not counting basic lands and considering reprinted cards to be a single discreet card), and less than 100 are on the banned list. I don't think Backfire really has any significant experience with MtG.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/05/this-weeks-releases-and-new-video-for.html

Did i miss the convo about these force org charts and battle-forged bonuses?

So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".

I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.

Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.

 easysauce wrote:

 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!

Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.


I would say dont jump to conclusions and start rageing against the rules until we actually know the rules, but that would be too sensible for a lot of posters here....

Rules for free.. from GW.. sure...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/05/this-weeks-releases-and-new-video-for.html

Did i miss the convo about these force org charts and battle-forged bonuses?

It's been the talk around the virtual water cooler this page and the preceeding half dozen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".

I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.

The allies FOC is right next to the FOC and right above the battle forged "benefits" so I'd hazard a guess that allies are still in for "normal" armies... unfortunately.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.

The "powercreep" in MtG isn't as bad as that in 40K.

The existance of the "Standard" tournament format as being the most popular means of playing removes a lot of the necessity of powercreep. New cards don't have to be more powerful than the older cards simply because there's a constant rotation as to what is eligible for that format. New cards can actually be less powerful than older cards and still get played in Standard because they're the best option available for the task at hand.

That's not to say that powercreep doesn't exist, but it's more a function of coming up with new ideas for new rules mechanics that may or may not be superior to previous mechanics (Undying vs Persist, for example). That being said, there are still mechanics and cards from 10+ years ago that would be considered very powerful under the most recent sets (Affinity coupled with Artifcat Lands, for example).

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".

I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.

Well, right next to the FOC labeled "Combined Arms" is the "allies" FOC.

While it'd be neat to have a few other variations of the FOC usable for Warforged armies, I suspect that it's going to come to nothing but "combined arms", "allies", etc.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".

I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.

That's the impression I got.

As I mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised to see other Detachments with different FOC requirements and bonuses.

Hey, I'm happy I get to use my Warhound more as Lords of War are in the standard FOC now.

 easysauce wrote:

 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!

Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.


I would say dont jump to conclusions and start rageing against the rules until we actually know the rules, but that would be too sensible for a lot of posters here....

No reliable rumors said that FAQ/Errata would make your 6th edition rulebook still work. Those were as believable as the percentages crap. Nor does it make a lick of sense that they would do such a thing from a sales standpoint. People will buy the book, download it off the intertubes or quit the game in a hissy fit.

@ Warboss, shade 1313

 easysauce wrote:

 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!

Dude.... its still very likely you wont even need to buy this book... FAQ+ERRATA on 6th is supposed to still work.

While I agree that it's too early to start the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I don't agree that FAQ+ERRATA instead of 7th will work. The leaks we've seen on this thread so far are rather dramatic changes.

We'll see, though.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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!

Orks in June.

This year?
Doubt it.

This year. We've been getting rumors for like 5 months now that they are the next codex after the Guard codex.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.

I would definitely argue against this. The difference is that the good cards used to be spells, and now the good cards are creatures. Creature card power level has definitely increased, but the concurrent weakening of spells means that the over-all power level has been more or less steady since Mirage came out (with obvious spikes and dips such as Urza's Block, Mirrodin, Masques, and Kamigawa.).

Ork Codex will be no later than July, if not early June, not long behind 7th.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Still you cannot argue that there isnt a steady powercreep in Magic. But I guess this is the industry norm pretty much in every game series still in existence today.

Can we take the MtG talk to a different thread before the mods get mad?

Mr.Church13 wrote:
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.

I don't feel that wound allocation is broken. I know that some here are of the opinion that front-first removal is the worst thing about 6th ed, but it is one of my favorite changes. I always thought that allowing the owner to remove whichever model he wanted was dumb, and the way that promoted buying upgrades for models just to play wound games with was broken.

I've played Daemons for the last few years, and in 5th I benefited from the wound allocation rules with my Bloodcrushers, with a squad needing to take almost 5 wounds before a single model died. I have no issues with front-first removal. I think it brings an interesting tactical dimension to the game. I may be biased though, as all of my units can Deep Strike, and my shooty units (Tzeentch DPs) are fast enough to position themselves in the best spots to take advantage of front-first removal.

 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!

Is it fine? Nope. Will people accept it? Yep.

Unbound sounds realy underwhelming. Other the person makes a army to try and board you, or he plays a army the will struggle to hold objective properly.

It feels likr something most pick up gameing groups will pretend dosen't exist.

I already know a player or two who will try to get games with broken spam lists with unbound. Bassiclt picking on newer players for the lulz

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
So the standard FOC is now called a "combined arms detachment".

I wonder if Battle Forged armies have other FOCs (or Detachments) to choose from.

The wording of some of these rules implies to me that:

a) You can nominate your Warlord from a Formation, providing it's from the same faction,
and/or
b) There are alternative FOCs to 'Combined Arms' that can be selected as primary, where for example you might get less HS slots but more FA instead. Maybe there's one that lets you take lots of Elites with the Objective Secure rule, or perhaps you can't take any Lords of War / Fortifications but get more slots to use elsewhere. Would be interesting if Battleforged takes that direction.