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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen.

Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.

I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.

Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I loves how Jes Bickham begins to address the community with "Forget what you know, The old ways are dead"

Funnily enough, that's how most of their new staff inductions start too.

Unfortunately it worked a bit too well on the lawyers and designers!

It is somewhat reassuring that choosing Battle Forged or Unbound is detailed as a step after beginning a game and choosing a points value I guess, doesn't look like the intent is to have anyone ambushed by 5 Riptides and a bunch of Dire Avengers in Waveserpents

 tomjoad wrote:
Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.

Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
It is somewhat reassuring that choosing Battle Forged or Unbound is detailed as a step after beginning a game and choosing a points value I guess, doesn't look like the intent is to have anyone ambushed by 5 Riptides and a bunch of Dire Avengers in Waveserpents

Knowing GW, that was never the intent. Even 6th basically advised you to make a list after agreeing to everything else about the game, not before. We just prefer to not have to make them at the last minute because it's faster and more convenient that way for us.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.

Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.

The rules actually don't say that. They might mean that, but they don't say that at all.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Cavalry charges were a very big deal until the early 20th century, actually.

and shovels, bayonets, knives..... well not obsolete enough to save thousands of people who still died from these attacks in the 20th century. These were not obsolete in the trenches, jungles, and certainly were not obsolete in the streets and tunnels of stalingrad, were they?

In short, you're wrong

In short, no I'm not.

These options all exist and are used when everything else has gone absolutely tits up. But close quarters combat IS a thing, even to this day.

Whatever the war films may tell you, whatever CoD shows you with fancy swanky knives, it's not a melee. The essence of fighting within ten feet boils down to who can point their gun quickest.

You have a very poor grasp of military history, and what actually happens in close quarter fighting. Your position is downright ignorant to actual history. Your revisionist view is laughable at best.

As for the exact time periods, the process really began building speed in the 1700's and has been made steadily more pronounced over time since. I'm not saying that one day in 1704 everybody woke up and decided to throw away their swords.

Cavalry charges and even infantry charges were a big part of warfare in the Napoleonic era. In fact I'd call these things decisive elements in a battle in those times. You're wrong with your arbitrary date.

 Accolade wrote:
You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

That would be the dream. Of course assault has its place for the dedicated units of that type, but I consider the reducing focus on it a good thing and only sleighted to get better. Once we're allowed to use sidearms and single shots on rapid fire weapons within ten feet rather than throw our boomsticks into a pile in the corner, close combat will finally be something I enjoy. A clutch shot with a melta gun is always going to be a better idea than trying to beat a Hive Tyrant's shins with it.

You ever heard of this thing called friendly fire? Ten feet...

I never called anyone stupid, I'm pointing out factual errors and modern misconceptions about warfare. They're almost to the point of being offensively ignorant.

 Lobukia wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.

Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.

The rules actually don't say that. They might mean that, but they don't say that at all.

That's not what this says:


And knowing GW the "X is scoring" rules will change to "X has the Objective Secured special rule" or "X has the Objective Secured special rule as long as it's part of a Battle Forged army." It's only given for free to Troops by that bonus to Battle Forged lists, but it has room to be applied differently by other armies too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.

Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
It is somewhat reassuring that choosing Battle Forged or Unbound is detailed as a step after beginning a game and choosing a points value I guess, doesn't look like the intent is to have anyone ambushed by 5 Riptides and a bunch of Dire Avengers in Waveserpents

Knowing GW, that was never the intent. Even 6th basically advised you to make a list after agreeing to everything else about the game, not before. We just prefer to not have to make them at the last minute because it's faster and more convenient that way for us.

The Studio suffers from a terminal case of "been playing each other for years" so yeah you are right. They probably came to an agreement of what homerules to use. Unfortunately in many other places that kind of gaming is not the norm, with pick up games as the most popular way to play 40K. So GW's lack of desire to fix outstanding mistakes in the rules or unbalanced disasters in the making like unbound might make sense for the devs, after all they do talk about what they want to do before setting up a game so their intent for the rules might be clear in the in-house games. For those players that enter the shop and say "let's play" it's not the same experience and depending on the local player base their enjoyement might range from interesting games to unmitigated disasters that leave you wanting to quit.
BTW with the game as is, making lists after setting a game is another can of worms. Unless you know and trust the other person it might lead to list tailoring.

M.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?

Even in 39.000 years ammos arn't unlimited, so you always resort to the base and simple, put the pointy side into the other guy tactic, wich exists and had is usefulness for far more time in history then guns.

Remember mens kill themselfs since they learned to use pointy rocks until they learned to make tempered/damascus steel and beyond, wich covers like, what?, 400.000 years?, wich like you put it, guns only exists since 300years, and even in 39.000 years, the old knife through the eyeball, will still prevail.

WD article wrote:Librarians were so unappealing in 6th, we always used melee captains and chaplains instead. We needed to fix this balance problem by boosting psykers.

Well, that certainly proves that the WD staff are idiots who have no clue how the game works. Now I'd just love to know how they still have jobs. Are they sleeping with the CEO and largest shareholders?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen.

Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.

I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.

Why bother trying to contest your captured objective when I can use my vastly superior firepower to massacre the troops on your objective and just take it?

That goes double for Unbound armies. People keep talking about how Unbound vs. Bound seems to be balanced due to the objective secured rules, but frankly if you're trying to play the objective game with an Unbound army you're just doing it wrong. Murder everything on the board, that your units can also score is icing on the cake.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen.

Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.

I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.

Why bother trying to contest your captured objective when I can use my vastly superior firepower to massacre the troops on your objective and just take it?

That goes double for Unbound armies. People keep talking about how Unbound vs. Bound seems to be balanced due to the objective secured rules, but frankly if you're trying to play the objective game with an Unbound army you're just doing it wrong. Murder everything on the board, that your units can also score is icing on the cake.

Because we can play games where you score VP every turn making even a turn without that Objective Secured not that good for keeping a lead?

 Peregrine wrote:

WD article wrote:Librarians were so unappealing in 6th, we always used melee captains and chaplains instead. We needed to fix this balance problem by boosting psykers.

Well, that certainly proves that the WD staff are idiots who have no clue how the game works. Now I'd just love to know how they still have jobs. Are they sleeping with the CEO and largest shareholders?

The ignorance of the state of thd game or plain stupidity there baffles me , i am just wow ed at that quote.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I loves how Jes Bickham begins to address the community with "Forget what you know, The old ways are dead"

the callousness of GW HQ cannot be put in words

Maybe he's jokingly comparing Unbound Lists to the 40k background. You know, how all the good technology gets lost, mankind forgets how to make things, and they enter a Dark Age...

wait unbound armies can score?

 Sir Arun wrote:
wait unbound armies can score?

Yup, just not as* well

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yeah, if the FOC drops down to 1 mandatory troop, that combined with everything becoming scoring will pretty much completely render most troop choices in the game obsolete, sans a few really good ones, like Fire Warriors or Guardsmen.

Space Marine players will certainly squeal in glee, at least.

I don't know, the whole Super Scoring thing kind of pushes you to wanting more troops just to ensure you can't lose the objectives to units that can contest. I don't 100% agree that it really pushes you away from Troops at all.

Why bother trying to contest your captured objective when I can use my vastly superior firepower to massacre the troops on your objective and just take it?

That goes double for Unbound armies. People keep talking about how Unbound vs. Bound seems to be balanced due to the objective secured rules, but frankly if you're trying to play the objective game with an Unbound army you're just doing it wrong. Murder everything on the board, that your units can also score is icing on the cake.

Because we can play games where you score VP every turn making even a turn without that Objective Secured not that good for keeping a lead?

How is that going to save you from being tabled and losing automatically? Like I said, that you can score in addition to wiping your opponent out is just icing on the cake.

 Sir Arun wrote:
wait unbound armies can score?

Everything but Zooming Flyers (and presumably Swooping FMCs) can score. Only Troops in a Battle Forged army and units with Objective Secured can score while being contested by a unit without Objective Secured.

I love all this talk about how we're suddenly going to see these broken Unbound armies are just going to overtake the meta. Seriously now, who'd play against an army of 10 Bloodthirsters or all Riptides or any other insane combo you can think of? Be honest now.

The only Unbound armies that will really be hitting the table anywhere are the fun ones. The Deathwatch armies, the 1st Company armies, the all Scouts army that is rolling 100 bodies deep, and the like. We can go to the extremes to break the game but reasonable people won't be playing against those extremes (unless they're bringing their own extremes to see who can bring the most broken combo), just like people don't play against the Quadtide armies or Tripdrakes or whatever other broken combo you can think of.

And frankly I don't see any of this changing tournaments all that much (save for allies being nerfed down in a lot of places) all that much because they won't be going Unbound anytime soon and even if the core rules change it doesn't change the levels of broken some armies can put out when compared to others.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Only troops get the Gargoyle Scoring rule? I had missed that. That HUGELY incentivizes troops if that's the case.

Yup, everything scores but only Troops (or other models with the "Objective Secured" rule) can deny other units/models with that rule.

The rules actually don't say that. They might mean that, but they don't say that at all.

That's not what this says:


And knowing GW the "X is scoring" rules will change to "X has the Objective Secured special rule" or "X has the Objective Secured special rule as long as it's part of a Battle Forged army." It's only given for free to Troops by that bonus to Battle Forged lists, but it has room to be applied differently by other armies too.

What worries me is that RAW, a non-scoring elite model still contests our Objective Secured troops.

How so? It says that a unit with OS controls the objective, even if there is enemy unit nearby.


EDIT:
Oh right...I get it now. Yeah, that is an odd way to word it.
Maybe non-scoring units cannot contest in 7th?

All units score, I'm not sure there is such thing as "non-scoring elite models"

edit: I wonder how summoned units interact with this rule...

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because we can play games where you score VP every turn making even a turn without that Objective Secured not that good for keeping a lead?

How is that going to save you from being tabled and losing automatically? Like I said, that you can score in addition to wiping your opponent out is just icing on the cake.

Okay, so apart from us existing players already having a set number of purchased units and armylists etc. leading us to continue playing battle forged armies, my questions is:


...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?

If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.

as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.

That blows two rumors out of the water, the first one saying "but unbound armies cannot score, so don't worry" and the second one saying "unbound armies still cannot ally with anyone, so dont worry."


If every battle forged unit could score, and no unbound unit could score, and every battle forged troop unit could prevent other battle forged non-troop units from scoring by standing next to them over an objective, and if "Come the apocalypse" still meant no allying whatsoever, THEN I would have reason to appreciate the new 7th edition for giving us thematic freedom in building armies while at the same time keeping things balanced.

Now on the other hand, 40k has completely gone to hell in a handbasket.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Okay, so apart from us existing players already having a set number of purchased units and armylists etc. leading us to continue playing battle forged armies, my questions is:


...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?

If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.

as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.

That blows two rumors out of the water, the first one saying "but unbound armies cannot score, so don't worry" and the second one saying "unbound armies still cannot ally with anyone, so dont worry."


If every battle forged unit could score, and no unbound unit could score, and every battle forged troop unit could prevent other battle forged non-troop units from scoring by standing next to them over an objective, and if "Come the apocalypse" still meant no allying whatsoever, THEN I would have reason to appreciate the new 7th edition for giving us thematic freedom in building armies while at the same time keeping things balanced.

Now on the other hand, 40k has completely gone to hell in a handbasket.

Honestly, there just isn't just enough info to answer your question. We really don't have the full rules for another week to really answer that question properly. I'm sure someone might disagree with me though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm missing how that'd work since it says Objective Secured still counts as scoring the objective even if another unit is nearby as long as they don't also have "Objective Secured".

It says even if another "scoring" unit is there... not another unit. I'm just really worried that Unbound or something else will have non-scoring units... which could hurt the ill-prepared 40k commander

 Sir Arun wrote:

...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?

If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.
as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.

I think there are benefits to battle forged.

There are all sorts of players and the control aspect of being able to take points from under there opponents.

as well not every opponent will min max people to death.

 Lobukia wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm missing how that'd work since it says Objective Secured still counts as scoring the objective even if another unit is nearby as long as they don't also have "Objective Secured".

It says even if another "scoring" unit is there... not another unit. I'm just really worried that Unbound or something else will have non-scoring units... which could hurt the ill-prepared 40k commander

I feel like you're reaching too hard on that one. They say they count as scoring "even if X" which doesn't mean that if Y occurs they stop scoring, it means that even if the normal things that could keep them from scoring don't keep them from scoring as long as they don't have "Objective Secured". Hell the only clause I see in there that makes them not count as controlling an objective is if the other unit also has "Objective Secured".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I love all this talk about how we're suddenly going to see these broken Unbound armies are just going to overtake the meta. Seriously now, who'd play against an army of 10 Bloodthirsters or all Riptides or any other insane combo you can think of? Be honest now.

It also amuses me how when people are trying to predict how bad Unbound armies are going to be, the notion of points go out the window (perhaps they're playing all their games at GWHQ?)

I know your Bloodthirster example was deliberately hyperbolic, but a kitted out BT is nigh on 300 points, so 10 are circa 3k, and by the time they'd agreed amongst themselves who was Warlord, you'd probably only have 6 or 7 left to field! Strong units that aren't undercosted do not concern me for the prospect of Unbound lists, it's things that are undercosted and horribly efficient like the Waveserpent that continue to concern me, in the context of the game as a whole in fact, and the lack of any rumours of anything that's going to tangibly rein them in is the one thing that is still bothering me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

...is there any reason for new players starting out with 40k to even go for the battle forged route now?

If the only bonus you get is re-roll your warlord trait and have your troops claim an objective despite an enemy unit close to it, then there literally is zero reason to go battle forged.
as if all this wasnt enough, the new WD leaked pic suggests you can mix and match any faction with anything in unbound.

I think there are benefits to battle forged.

There are all sorts of players and the control aspect of being able to take points from under there opponents.

as well not every opponent will min max people to death.

I'm actually quite pleased by the Trait reroll.

If I get "Warp Strider" one more time when my warlord is a GD that I had no intention to DS.....

*Looks at pre-order page*

Nope. Not doing it.

If they'd put those metal objective markers up for sale, I would'a got those, but no. Not spending $140 to replace books that are less than a year old. It's not happening. This is a bridge too far GW, and I'm not going to cross it this time.

I'm just saying.

It is unlikely to happen, but the very possibility that you can build an army just consisting of Grav Centurions and an ADL with a quadgun and have them sit on your objectives is hard to digest.