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.

 azreal13 wrote:


I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.

I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.

I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.

I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.

The same people who will abuse unbound lists will vehemently oppose any soft scoring as well. They bring up their mother's uncle's son once lost out on 3rd place because buddies at LocalCon XXIV gave themselves perfect scores but tanked his.

 azreal13 wrote:


As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.

Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?

What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.

I get Allied Detachment, but what is Combined Arms?

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.

Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?

What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.

Assault terminators are not troops. Hardly useless.

 Therion wrote:

a) Titans and other crazies in 1500 point standard games.
b) Are Forgeworld units finally legal without a tournament rules package or the opponent's permission or an endless debate on the internet about it?
c) Are data slates legal? Are data sheets legal? Are all the fortifications in Stronghold Assault legal in small points values?
d) Why is the tabletop size for the battle still the exact same size it was 15 years ago, considering now we have 5 times more models on the table?
e) Lastly the unbound vs. battle forged, which is a stupid debate altogether. Unbound means you pick and choose any models/units from any codex and match them together to make the ultimate army. If you're so new or completely unimaginative and only copy a tournament winner's list for yourself before you can assemble an army, you won't understand, but for the regulars, unbound is like 10 tiers above battle forged in overall strength. And how can you say it's not legal, if it's a part of the core rules?

Who the heck cares about snap fire when all of the above issues are going on? Can we actually talk about the game of 40K instead of one or two universal special rules? Thanks.

a) They have been several pages of it
b) No change to FW rules yet so still oppenents okay
c) DataSlates have been legal for a while, just not liked and there for banned at some tourney. Datasheets are APOC things so still APO only no change, SA has been since book hit if you use it so no change there.
d) IT has changed rather a lot. At one point there were 3 official sizes 4x4 Alpha boards, 4x6 Delta boards and 4x8 Omega boards now there is just 4x6 standards and 4x8 or bigger apoc boards so they have changed.
e) That is the general view of Unbound. And it is very easy to say it's not legal: "This is my event, and I am making Unbound illegal do to imbalance for it. You can agree and play, disagree and not play". See that, pretty easy to do and TO's been doing it for years.

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.

Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?

What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.

Why?

There's still elites, FA, HQs and Heavy Support in Battle Forged, all of which can score. One single Guardsman, Tac Marine, Termagant or Firewarriors wonders within 3" of an objective and scores the points regardless of whatever non-Troops units your opponent has arranged around it.

I'd suggest you go back and reread some of the stuff pertinent to this, because I think you've massively misunderstood something along the way dude.

 alarmingrick wrote:
I get Allied Detachment, but what is Combined Arms?

The old standard FOC with all the extras added like LoW and fortifications, and probably dataslates.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.

Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?

What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.

Assault terminators are not troops. Hardly useless.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the rule is useless. I'm saying that specifying that only Battle-Forged armies can use it is useless if they only face other Battle-Forged armies. The rule would always be in effect. There would be no need to specify conditions if the conditions are always met.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:



I'd suggest you go back and reread some of the stuff pertinent to this, because I think you've massively misunderstood something along the way dude.

See above.


It would be like each Space Marine having a Special rule saying:

"Special Rule: Power Armour. A Space Marine in Power Armour has a 3+ armour save."

It is redundant and pointless. If the conditions are always met (power armour always having a 3+ armour save), then there is no reason to also have a special rule.

 Brotherjanus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??

We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.

Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.

 warboss wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.

I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.

I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.

I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.

The same people who will abuse unbound lists will vehemently oppose any soft scoring as well. They bring up their mother's uncle's son once lost out on 3rd place because buddies at LocalCon XXIV gave themselves perfect scores but tanked his.

Frankly, couldn't care less. If those people know what the scoring criteria is and choose not to participate, fair enough, but I suspect the sort of event I outlined would be more likely to appeal to a non-traditional tourney player anyway, which, I suspect, is a larger slice of the player base.

 azreal13 wrote:

 bubber wrote:

Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.

They're all in stock on GWUK.com
You have to order them all separately.
They're £6 each.
But they are there.

Cheers for pointing that out.
However they are the old ones - have no complaints about the pie plate & firestorm ones but i really want the wiggly bombardment one :(

 puma713 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.

Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?

What's useless about it is making it exclusive to Battle-Forged armies, if all they ever fight is other Battle-Forged armies.

Assault terminators are not troops. Hardly useless.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the rule is useless. I'm saying that specifying that only Battle-Forged armies can use it is useless if they only face other Battle-Forged armies. The rule would always be in effect. There would be no need to specify conditions if the conditions are always met.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:



I'd suggest you go back and reread some of the stuff pertinent to this, because I think you've massively misunderstood something along the way dude.

See above.

But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.

I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.

I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.

I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.

I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.

As another player who avoids the whole competitive scene, I agree completely. Even before unbound, broken or un-fun lists were more than possible already. Unbound at least provides fairer options to counter imbalance. For example, if I was playing someone fielding a (FOC-legal) all-Knight army with my Nids, I would really struggle, as the best ranged anti-armour options are crammed into Elites. With Unbound I can at least tool up with all my Zoanthropes + Hive Guard and have a fighting chance.
I also see Unbound it as an opportunity to use other units normally devalued by the FOC, such as Lictors.

Even if GW wanted it to be and made it their #1 goal tomorrow, a game as complex as 40k is never going to be anywhere near balanced. Personally I'd rather have the flexibility to take on realistic challenges. If someone wants to take things too far with their hyper-optimised math-hammered list with the best units from all codexes, I simply won't play against them. In exactly the same way I didn't play against hyper-optimised math-hammered lists before Unbound.

 azreal13 wrote:


But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.

I'm going to stop here since this is a "news and rumour" thread and not a rules debate. In my opinion, GW is not going to open the floodgates, then put restrictions on who you can play. It is going to be wide open, that is why they gave Battle-Forged armies a bonus, so you're enticed to play them over Unbound armies. There wouldn't be an incentive to play a certain type of army, if both people are going to always be playing that type of army.

I can say that tighter rules make for a better game, even for narrative players. I've had more "narratives forged" in three games of Infinity due to their awesome ARO system (that keeps both players actively engaged) that would take the same time to play one game of 40k.

I get what GW is trying to do with unbound as it's what every other game now does... You pick a faction and build armies. However, every other game still has an inhibitor so you can't break the game spamming certain units (PP has unit amount restrictions, Infinity has SWC, Malifaux has unit types, etc.).

GW has never designed their units in the codices to operate in this fashion, thus it's stillborn by nature. Sure you can house rule to fix stuff, but if you have to house rule an $85 rule book and a $50 codex, what are you doing? Infinity makes for a better kill team game than kill team rules from GW and they provide them for free and update them constantly based on feedback. I just taught a bud Infinity using GW models and it was an awesome game. He was excited that my turn resulted in killing two of my own guys from his shooting.

The problem with Warhammer 40k isn't the people or dbags or WAAC players it's the terrible rules balance.

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.

I'm going to stop here since this is a "news and rumour" thread and not a rules debate. In my opinion, GW is not going to open the floodgates, then put restrictions on who you can play. It is going to be wide open, that is why they gave Battle-Forged armies a bonus, so you're enticed to play them over Unbound armies. There wouldn't be an incentive to play a certain type of army, if both people are going to always be playing that type of army.

What?

Am I accidentally typing in Arabic or something?

You appear to be saying that Objective Secured is only of use if playing against an Unbound list.

This is objectively untrue, and there's no rumour here, as we have seen the Objective Secured rule in black and white, and a rule that allows you Troops units to score regardless of what other non-Troops units your opponent has within range of that objective seems to be consistently useful in every game regardless of what list type your opponent fields.

Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.

Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?

 TheKbob wrote:
Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?

I don't see how that can be answered yet?

 alarmingrick wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?

I don't see how that can be answered yet?

Everything scores now and troops choices get objective secured, thus I'm assuming that you have super scoring transports?

I hope not. Can you imagined super scoring land raiders?

 TheKbob wrote:
Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?

Christ, I think you're right.

Waveserpents need to die. They're the one thing that directly impacts onto my regular games that nothing I've read about in the new rules seems to mitigate in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 alarmingrick wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?

I don't see how that can be answered yet?

Everything scores now and troops choices get objective secured, thus I'm assuming that you have super scoring transports?

I hope not. Can you imagined super scoring land raiders?

To be fair, SSLRs would be a big boost for BA, and they need it!

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


But only troops choices have Objective Secured, not all Battle Forged units.

I'm going to stop here since this is a "news and rumour" thread and not a rules debate. In my opinion, GW is not going to open the floodgates, then put restrictions on who you can play. It is going to be wide open, that is why they gave Battle-Forged armies a bonus, so you're enticed to play them over Unbound armies. There wouldn't be an incentive to play a certain type of army, if both people are going to always be playing that type of army.

I'll try to explain the difference between 6Th and 7Th.

6Th: I have a troop on a point and my enemy sits a tyrannofex on it. Nobody controls it, which means that having a good amount of troop can be countered by simply having enough units.
7Th: Same scenario. Troops control the objective. This means that to counter troops you either have an equal number of them or you start blasting those away.

 azreal13 wrote:

Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.

Again, you're incorrectly focusing on what I am saying. Lokioldfart understands and perhaps would be able to explain it better than I.

I am not saying that the rule is useless. The rule is a very good rule. What I am saying is useless is the fact that you make it a special rule only available to Battle-Forged armies if all you're every going to be playing is Battle-Forged armies.

It is a bonus for choosing Battle-Forged. Why do you get a bonus for choosing an army type, if the other person is forced to play the same thing and, so, also gets a bonus? It is redundant. That's not a bonus. It's just a rule. The only time you would need to call it a bonus is when your opponent may not also be receiving said bonus.

In simple (programming) logic:

bool Battle-Forged = true;

IF (Battle-Forged == true)
{
Objective Secured = true;
}
ELSE
{
Objective Secured = false;
}; ;

This is a pointless string of logic because, since you will always be playing Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged (as you're implying), you can NEVER reach the ELSE statement.

 TheKbob wrote:

 alarmingrick wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Will a battle forged wave serpent from the troops slot thus have objective secured?

I don't see how that can be answered yet?

Everything scores now and troops choices get objective secured, thus I'm assuming that you have super scoring transports?

I hope not. Can you imagined super scoring land raiders?

We've only seen enough to guess at this point. I'd rather discuss it when we know the whole picture.

Not saying the picture will be all Rosey when shown, but I'm saving my hate until I know exactly what I'm hating.
And in all fairness, I may not hate it or love it. I'm sure there'll be a little of both.

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.

Again, you're incorrectly focusing on what I am saying. Lokioldfart understands and perhaps would be able to explain it better than I.

I am not saying that the rule is useless. The rule is a very good rule. What I am saying is useless is the fact that you make it a special rule only available to Battle-Forged armies if all you're every going to be playing is Battle-Forged armies.

It is a bonus for choosing Battle-Forged. Why do you get a bonus for choosing an army type, if the other person is forced to play the same thing and, so, also gets a bonus? It is redundant.

In simple (programming) logic:

bool Battle-Forged = true;

IF (Battle-Forged == true)
{
Objective Secured = true;
}
ELSE
{
Objective Secured = false;
}; ;

This is a pointless string of logic because, since you will always be playing Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged (as you're implying), you can NEVER reach the ELSE statement.

They specified that so people don't think that unbound lists have the rule. I don't think it's specified in the rulebook, other than being in the battleforged box as one fo the special rules that battleforged armies have.

So, if two unbound lists play, their troops are the same as in 5th. It's just GW making it absolutely clear so that, regardless if you can play BF vs UB, people know that it's only available in Battleforged lists.

Nothing worth getting into an argument over, guys. Seriously.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.

I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.

I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.

I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.

I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.

I admit, I've been fiddling with the idea of using Unbound rules to represent a Squat army. The new Dwarf models are simply too cool to pass. But again, It's just like using house rules or fanmade codices. I will surely get games with my friends, maybe even some pickup games... But I'd probably be banned from the Tournament arena.

Crazyterran wrote:


Nothing worth getting into an argument over, guys. Seriously.

Exactly. Lokioldfart and I were simply replying on his matter-of-factness that the two army-types will not face each other, so it won't be so bad. Neither one of us saw any indication that there was a rule saying that the two would not face each other and that the special rule indicated that the two, in fact, would be facing each other, otherwise there would be no reason to introduce a bonus for choosing one over the other.

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Seriously, if anyone else is reading and can see what I'm missing, please feel free to weigh in and try and explain it.

Again, you're incorrectly focusing on what I am saying. Lokioldfart understands and perhaps would be able to explain it better than I.

I am not saying that the rule is useless. The rule is a very good rule. What I am saying is useless is the fact that you make it a special rule only available to Battle-Forged armies if all you're every going to be playing is Battle-Forged armies.

It is a bonus for choosing Battle-Forged. Why do you get a bonus for choosing an army type, if the other person is forced to play the same thing and, so, also gets a bonus? It is redundant. That's not a bonus. It's just a rule. The only time you would need to call it a bonus is when your opponent may not also be receiving said bonus.

In simple (programming) logic:

bool Battle-Forged = true;

IF (Battle-Forged == true)
{
Objective Secured = true;
}
ELSE
{
Objective Secured = false;
}; ;

This is a pointless string of logic because, since you will always be playing Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged (as you're implying), you can NEVER reach the ELSE statement.

Ah, ok, I now see what you're trying to say, it wasn't a commentary on the rule itself, and sadly, yes, it appears you're probably right.

I guess players will have to continue to hide behind the "nothing's legal unless I agree" shield.

Didn't know unbound allowed any unit from any codex always thought it had to be same army. What hero teams should there be then:
Avengers:
gazkull, hulk
Shadowsun, ironman
Shrike, wolverine
Assassin, black widow
?, spidermam
?, Hawkeye
Corteaz, thor
Drago, captain america

Painted in their colours it must be done the emperor wills it

 puma713 wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:


Nothing worth getting into an argument over, guys. Seriously.

Exactly. Lokioldfart and I were simply replying on his matter-of-factness that the two army-types will not face each other, so it won't be so bad. Neither one of us saw any indication that there was a rule saying that the two would not face each other and that the special rule indicated that the two, in fact, would be facing each other, otherwise there would be no reason to introduce a bonus for choosing one over the other.

We weren't arguing (seriously, why does everyone seem to view everyone else on the Internet as a red faced shouting loon just because they're not agreeing) we were misunderstanding one another.

I will admit, if they sold those metal objective marker separately, I'd be down for them. They look cool.