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.

ressgonzol wrote:
The Imperium of Man is beset on all sides.

Join the Alien.

FTFY, honourable Gue'la.

 Scorpio616 wrote:
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.

OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?

The issue remains what it was when allies were introduced, for the people who wanted to do it because it was cool, the rules weren't needed, all the introduction of the rules did was codify it for the element of the player base that looks to stretch the game to breaking point in order to win.

 Leth wrote:
So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win........

More that choosing to use a given unit shouldn't be a bad tactical choice, within certain limits.

 Leth wrote:

 Scorpio616 wrote:
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.

OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?

So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win.......

List building is as much a tactical decision as playing the game itself. Hell I spend almost more time working on lists than actually playing.

I think they should be able to take what they want good or bad and still have a chance of winning. That is the way my Meta plays it.

I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.

 TedNugent wrote:
I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.

I think that's the point.

Riptides ho!

 insaniak wrote:

 Leth wrote:
So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win........

More that choosing to use a given unit shouldn't be a bad tactical choice, within certain limits.

In the context of the quote above is what I was talking about. The individual said a person should not be forced to take units that are more strategically sound(in the context of win conditions). I agree units should be more balanced but that is irrespective of making smart decisions for the win objectives.

In regards to the weapons, I always rolled them one at a time anyway, it was easier then constantly having to remember which weapons were which dice as well as when my opponent will not keep it consistent which dice are which and it becomes very confusing.

In regards to allies. Yes the rules are generally needed to do it. I wanted to do things like take allies before to make the lists I wanted to make, now I can take them and for me I use allies to try and make my themed lists more powerful. It allows me to be more competitive AND take the models I want. Now I understand this might not be other peoples experiences and I respect that, but I like what allies bring in options.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Leth wrote:

 Scorpio616 wrote:
It's a game, it is supposed to be fun first and foremost. One shouldn't have to skip fielding models they like just to keep slots open for models that are strategically vital.

OK, let me get this straight, If I take 3 units of these Cthulhuoid mantises, then I can't take any can opening brain bugs?

So you are saying people should be able to make bad tactical choices and still win.......

List building is as much a tactical decision as playing the game itself. Hell I spend almost more time working on lists than actually playing.

I think they should be able to take what they want good or bad and still have a chance of winning. That is the way my Meta plays it.

They always have a chance of winning, its just not a very good one. A good player can make subpar units work, I decided that I wanted to use some subpar units so I decided to learn how to play the game and become better at that aspect. I dont expect to take a bad army and play badly and then get mad when I cant win.

In the last tournament where I tabled everyone outside of the guy running all foot berzerkers with no anti vehicle in his list, everyone I played against may have had an uphill battle but they had all the tools they needed to beat me. I should not have been able to beat them as easily as I did.

What if there's no more fun to have ?
And all I've got is what I had
What if I have forgotten how ?
Cut my losses and get out now

Get out right now

There's something stronger than me
There's something I don't want to see
A new thing growing in me

It is the hardest thing to do
To watch it grow on top of you
And see you're just like everyone
No fun

Hollismason wrote:
Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.

Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.

Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.

I like it, I like the changes that are being made.

New wound allocation? What? Where?

Well if every psyker that takes a their powers from one discipline gets the primaris and they refered that a model could have 2 in which they normally have one; lets hope for level 1 psykers, there are some level 1 primaris powers they can actually cast lol

Just read the bit on the new vehicle table...

Am I correct in thinking, Dark Eldar got a bit of a boost?

 TedNugent wrote:
I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.

True. And this makes sense thematically. The whole purpose of an unbound army is that you can literally do WHATEVER YOU WANT. Sure, have Abaddon leading a group of loyalist marine centurions on the 27th black crusade. Why, then, would you impose troop restrictions on such an army and thereby defeat the whole point of assembling it? It's like playing apocalypse without the super heavies or gargantuan creatures. You just bring whatever you want, literally. Of course, they are all trumped by troops from a battle-forged army, which see your scoring status and laugh as they secure the objective regardless. Allegedly.

As much as some people rag on GW for game balance and crappy rules, it is worth noting that they have expanded the game to a point where you can literally just buy the models you like, and they will make an army. This will almost certainly create some ridiculous army compositions that (I believe) will cause most major tournaments to simply outlaw unbound armies entirely (or more interestingly, have a tournament where battle-forged armies will be outlawed. Then again, that could just be a battle-forged army with a token "rule-breaker" to make it unbound, but I think it would be a cool tournament premise nonetheless). But at the heart of it all, GW has appealed to the casual gamer (or girl) who just wants to have fun. And as long as a tournament WAAC player doesn't match up against someone just fielding cool models (or at least doesn't use the tournament list for that match), I think there's a lot of room to have fun.

Puscifer wrote:
Just read the bit on the new vehicle table...

Am I correct in thinking, Dark Eldar got a bit of a boost?

All vehicles got a bit of a boost, but now you only die on a 6 instead of a 5/6

For venoms they dont really care about the jink changes with the built in flickerfield.

I like it. Vehicles are more survivable but not so much that everything swings back the other way to all vehicles all the time. Actually investing in abilities that keep your vehicles alive might be worth it now(like techpriests or venerable.)

 Colpicklejar wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.

Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.

Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.

I like it, I like the changes that are being made.

New wound allocation? What? Where?

Seconded.


Wat?

 Swastakowey wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.

Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.

Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.

I like it, I like the changes that are being made.

I agree, I think the changes contain more good than bad. At least all the bad can easily be done away with with a quick sentence prior to the game.

After playing fantasy, im very excited for a phase dedicated to magic duels.

I havent had a GW release where it seemed this way. I feel like my hopes can go up a little this time.

LOL kinda like some of us were (and are) doing with Escalation/Imperial Knights/Stronghold Assaults?

 Desubot wrote:

 Colpicklejar wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Everyone is preaching doom and gloom but I have to say I am super excited now that I've read that battle report and how the new mission objectives work.

Plus the new wound allocation is uh.. interesting. Then you have the Battleforged, unbound, and now Super heavy Vehicles in the game. That's pretty awesome.

Plus the new psychic phase, that's pretty awesome.

I like it, I like the changes that are being made.

New wound allocation? What? Where?

Seconded.


Wat?

Thirded. What wound allocation?

luke1705 wrote:


True. And this makes sense thematically. The whole purpose of an unbound army is that you can literally do WHATEVER YOU WANT. Sure, have Abaddon leading a group of loyalist marine centurions on the 27th black crusade. Why, then, would you impose troop restrictions on such an army and thereby defeat the whole point of assembling it? It's like playing apocalypse without the super heavies or gargantuan creatures. You just bring whatever you want, literally. Of course, they are all trumped by troops from a battle-forged army, which see your scoring status and laugh as they secure the objective regardless. Allegedly.

Do you not understand the issues with Unbound. Per the initial WD quote, the purpose of Unbound is not "thematic armies," the purpose of Unbound is to spam as many overpowered units as you can buy at overinflated GW prices.

The effect of Unbound is going to be people spamming tanks (to make anti-infantry effectively wasted points), spamming flyers, spamming FMCs, basically spamming anything that will give your opponent a hard time. You can't justify this logic in terms of theme, you have to justify it in terms of game mechanics and couch it in the reality of 40k that some units are just simply better than others. The FOC was the only thing that kept certain units in people's lists. Without the FOC that requirement vanishes and therefore you will see overwhelmingly more of the better units in Unbound lists.

Fortunately troops are still viable in BF lists but it is disappointing that there's not really any reason to take them in Unbound. No one in their right mind would use Tactical Marines in an Unbound army.

luke1705 wrote:


As much as some people rag on GW for game balance and crappy rules, it is worth noting that they have expanded the game to a point where you can literally just buy the models you like, and they will make an army.

Really? So what if I like swooping hawks? Or foot nobs? Or stinging scorpions? Or Slugga boyz? Or meganobs? Or kustom mega blasters? Or weirdboys? Or Pariahs? Or Death Company? Or Wytches? Or Mandrakes? Because this rule won't make those units viable.

Unbound wouldn't be a problem if each unit was balanced outside of the context of the rulebook. But they're not. And therefore bad units will continue to not get taken, and good units people will just take more of them.

 WisdomLS wrote:
I found the funniest part of the WD article was where he said that Space Marine Captains and Chaplains were getting far more game time than Librarians so they needed to buff the psykers to correct the imbalance, I nearly fell off my chair, what game are they playing because its different to any I've tried.

I don't think they were saying that psykers aren't considered effective, just that they aren't as interesting as characters who can dominate challenges. The new psychic phase isn't intended to make them more powerful (quite the opposite from what I've seen) but to make them more distinctive. Things like witchfire powers being used in the psychic phase rather than the shooting phase distinguishes them as being quite different to guns, rather than being just another weapon.

RE: Wound Allocation. Second column of the first page leading into the second:

luke1705 wrote:

Thirded. What wound allocation?

Right there in black and white. You resolve each weapon type separately. That's new and does away with the whole 'one autocannon extends wound allocation range of a flamer out to 48" '

Well there it is in black and white, the fortifications are in the Rules book!

 Blacksails wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
I fail to understand why GW would make every unit scoring at the same time they removed FOC restrictions. By that merit, unbound armies have absolutely no justifiable reason to take troops.

I think that's the point.

Riptides ho!

 TedNugent wrote:

luke1705 wrote:


True. And this makes sense thematically. The whole purpose of an unbound army is that you can literally do WHATEVER YOU WANT. Sure, have Abaddon leading a group of loyalist marine centurions on the 27th black crusade. Why, then, would you impose troop restrictions on such an army and thereby defeat the whole point of assembling it? It's like playing apocalypse without the super heavies or gargantuan creatures. You just bring whatever you want, literally. Of course, they are all trumped by troops from a battle-forged army, which see your scoring status and laugh as they secure the objective regardless. Allegedly.

Do you not understand the issues with Unbound. Per the initial WD quote, the purpose of Unbound is not "thematic armies," the purpose of Unbound is to spam as many overpowered units as you can buy at overinflated GW prices.

The effect of Unbound is going to be people spamming tanks (to make anti-infantry effectively wasted points), spamming flyers, spamming FMCs, basically spamming anything that will give your opponent a hard time. You can't justify this logic in terms of theme, you have to justify it in terms of game mechanics and couch it in the reality of 40k that some units are just simply better than others. The FOC was the only thing that kept certain units in people's lists. Without the FOC that requirement vanishes and therefore you will see overwhelmingly more of the better units in Unbound lists.

Fortunately troops are still viable in BF lists but it is disappointing that there's not really any reason to take them in Unbound. No one in their right mind would use Tactical Marines in an Unbound army.

You're absolutely right that this will cause some power gamers to go buy 12 of the most OP unit they can find and win games with it, and many more people will do something similar but to less of an extreme. It's classic "GW intends for this to happen but opens Pandora's box and allows that to happen simultaneously". Again, I think it's all a matter of coming to an understanding with your opponent. If they're that power gamer, you'll know after a single game (or after shaking their hand and seeing their army). Just like we have for some time been able to field a Lord of War in "regular 40k", this has not been an issue. Why? Because everyone knows who the power gamer is in their FLGS and how to deal with them. Now we have yet another loophole that GW has created to sell more models (which, again, could be used to make more fluffy/fun lists that can now be legal - I know my Khorne Daemons have been ITCHING to take the field with my Nids for ages now!). We can choose to play with that loophole or just generally ignore it for most games, the latter of which is what I see happening in the overwhelming majority of situations.

luke1705 wrote:
But at the heart of it all, GW has appealed to the casual gamer (or girl) who just wants to have fun.

You believe then, that this entire edition was released two years ahead of schedule to appeal to Cyndi Lauper?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
But at the heart of it all, GW has appealed to the casual gamer (or girl) who just wants to have fun.

You believe then, that this entire edition was released two years ahead of schedule to appeal to Cyndi Lauper?

Well played, sir. Exalted.

 Leth wrote:

Puscifer wrote:
Just read the bit on the new vehicle table...

Am I correct in thinking, Dark Eldar got a bit of a boost?

All vehicles got a bit of a boost, but now you only die on a 6 instead of a 5/6

For venoms they dont really care about the jink changes with the built in flickerfield.

I like it. Vehicles are more survivable but not so much that everything swings back the other way to all vehicles all the time. Actually investing in abilities that keep your vehicles alive might be worth it now(like techpriests or venerable.)

Holy Nutballs...

Iron Hands IWND Vehicles with the new rules and a Tech Marine here or there.

Does IWND confer to the Ven. Dread?

Also... GK Ven Dread and a Tech Marine have seriously gotten mega tough.

Lol... Bjorn too.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
But at the heart of it all, GW has appealed to the casual gamer (or girl) who just wants to have fun.

You believe then, that this entire edition was released two years ahead of schedule to appeal to Cyndi Lauper?

Shure, why not?

 winterman wrote:

luke1705 wrote:

Thirded. What wound allocation?

Spoiler:

Right there in black and white. You resolve each weapon type separately. That's new and does away with the whole 'one autocannon extends wound allocation range of a flamer out to 48" '

Oh that's right I had heard that rumor. Really just a great example of GW saying, "OK we understand that you guys were within the rules to do this under the previous iteration of the rules, but it was stupid. Stop that and continue playing like you did anyway"

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
But at the heart of it all, GW has appealed to the casual gamer (or girl) who just wants to have fun.

You believe then, that this entire edition was released two years ahead of schedule to appeal to Cyndi Lauper?

Now I got to go back to the 80s and watch old school wrestling. That was all WWF, Cyndi Lauper and Captain Lou Albano on MTV.

+1