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.

SeanDrake wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.

So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.

I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.

I have a poll going in the General Thread. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596201.page

Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.

One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.

I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.

I completely disagree with this. First, GW did not write the rules for any player groups whatsoever - they wrote them to sell models. No sense convincing ourselves otherwise, all of these changes are geared towards selling more models - not improving the game one single iota. Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.

And that is why 7th edition, even without a lot of games played, is a complete and utter failure. GW has three distinct groups of customers to cater to with the rules and they should be written to cater to all three groups. Supplements should be used to then modify the base game for any one particular group. Every single game company on the market, except GW, write their rulesets with this in mind. But GW wants you to play their game, the way they play it in their isolated own little world in Nottingham which is NOT how the majority play. Pick up games, bar none, are the largest group of players in the GW base. Most likely followed very closely by tournament gamers and then the small casual club gamers. Don't believe me - look at their financials and tell me that isn't the case.

These rules have just added a complete mess to all but the smallest segment of their customer base. You can already see it in the discussions in this very thread the effect it is having in dividing the customer base (just like 4th edition D&D did - and we all know how well that turned out). So, yeah, they did this completely backwards from the way any other company would have done it because they haven't the foggiest clue who their customers are anymore at all and believe anyone will blindly lap up whatever junk they put out at whatever ridiculous price they want to put it out at. Just like TSR did in their last two years before they went completely under.

I will go on record now as saying, I personally believe 7th edition is going to be a very strong nail in GWs coffin. Time will tell.

Surely a happy medium can be reached.

Realistically I could see something along the lines of "2 detachments max, no lords of war, battle forged only" becoming the accepted format. But then what about allies, especially come the apocalypse?

It becomes a slippery slope - change one rule, change a thousand.

SeanDrake wrote:

I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.

So who the heck is it designed for? Casual players? Because at this point, it seems a "casual" player needs to exhaustively understand their rules and all the ways they could break the game so that they don't accidentally do so (because they thought the Riptide or Revenant looked cool, for example), and get censured by their opponent for being a dirty WAAC-er.

My guess would be that the largest group of players are those who only play at home with their friends or possibly at a local club with people they know, then pick-up gamers, and lastly tournament players. At least if we're talking globally. Can't imagine there are very many tournament players compared to the other groups, especially if the largest tournaments in the world can't muster more than a couple of hundred participants.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Realistically I could see something along the lines of "2 detachments max, no lords of war, battle forged only" becoming the accepted format. But then what about allies, especially come the apocalypse?

What about them? They fit perfectly in what you've described.

Hollismason wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:


I'm none of those things actually.

The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde arum will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.

Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.

The design team did not play 7th.

Have an exalt, that's funny - but awkwardly true.

I've seen complaints that Battle Brothers wasnt changed to stop deathstars. But isnt the real problem there Sarthonyx? Perhaps gw is just playing the long con, as let's face it he is likely to be cut when the DE treatment gets here.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

Yes they are, you just can't mass autocannons any more and expect to win; got nerfed; got the ban hammer.

_Most_ of the ridiculous stuff got the axe, through Psyker nerfs or allies changes. Having large events limit FoC is no where near the level of crazy we were seeing in 6th.

Edit:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
I've seen complaints that Battle Brothers wasnt changed to stop deathstars. But isnt the real problem there Sarthonyx? Perhaps gw is just playing the long con, as let's face it he is likely to be cut when the DE treatment gets here.

He shouldn't be too bad anymore, as you can save all your dispel dice for fortune turn one and dump weight of fire into him. It's less impressive when he's just a T3 terminator.

Mymearan wrote:
Does anyone know if the digital Rulebook will be released at midnight in all time zones? How is this usually handled?

Man, I want to know this too. However, I think digital editions have not been out long enough for people to have a feel for that.

That is one problem with digital editions, you can't get lucky and get them early. I wish they would just post them today.

Thanks,
Duncan

 Wayshuba wrote:

I completely disagree with this. First, GW did not write the rules for any player groups whatsoever - they wrote them to sell models. No sense convincing ourselves otherwise, all of these changes are geared towards selling more modelsl.

People keep saying this, but it is simply not true. How dose allowing people to play more diverse and less restricted forces sell models? People say this every time a rule is changed, but more often than not its an underpowered unit that gets buffed. This can't be because the unit it underpowered and needs improving, no... Same when overpowered units get a points increase or nurf. Take the valk/vendetta. People complained that GW was screwing them when it was costed as a skimmer with flier rules. I don't believe at all that GW changes rules to drive sales.

Look, I'm no GW patsy (I've been very critical of them in the past, as well as praising the good things they've done)

but the idea that GW has a 'duty' to produce balanced rules is probably the silliest thing I have ever heard on this site.

GW's first duty is to GW. They make rules and products as they see fit, and crucially, if you don't like them, don't buy them. Plenty of rival companies out there that will welcome you with open arms.

I agree with a lot of people's sentiments that GW has made crazy business decisions and crazy design decisions in the last ten years, but a duty to make balanced rules? To use a meangreen stompa phrase, the idea is horse gak!

For the last couple of years, I've been unhappy with GW's direction, so I switched to FOW. I'm tempted to get back into 40k, but we'll wait and see, but I'm under no illusions of what I'd be getting into.

Mymearan wrote:
My guess would be that the largest group of players are those who only play at home with their friends or possibly at a local club with people they know, then pick-up gamers, and lastly tournament players. At least if we're talking globally. Can't imagine there are very many tournament players compared to the other groups, especially if the largest tournaments in the world can't muster more than a couple of hundred participants.

No, I think pick up gamers are the largest base without exception. This is evidenced by the fact of GW morphing during the 6th edition period to cater to the casual regular player segment and their financials tanking as a result. Watch a lot of YouTube videos on battle reports and you will see the majority of them are players that brought their armies to a FLGS and whatever other 40k player happened to be there struck up a game.

I can say at my FLGS, at beginning of 6th we had 24-28 players that were like that at our store. Now we have 4 left (me, my son and two friends) that get together at my house occasionally. The other 20+, all long term players (since 2nd or 3rd edition) have sold ALL their GW stuff and moved on to either Bolt Action (the majority of them) or Flames of War.

Now, I know it is not like that everywhere, but that is an example. 4 of us are casual regular players and over 20 were pick up gamers. And know they are all gone. So which group should have been the one GW catered to?

 Wayshuba wrote:

Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.

And that is why 7th edition, even without a lot of games played, is a complete and utter failure. GW has three distinct groups of customers to cater to with the rules and they should be written to cater to all three groups. Supplements should be used to then modify the base game for any one particular group. Every single game company on the market, except GW, write their rulesets with this in mind. But GW wants you to play their game, the way they play it in their isolated own little world in Nottingham which is NOT how the majority play. Pick up games, bar none, are the largest group of players in the GW base. Most likely followed very closely by tournament gamers and then the small casual club gamers. Don't believe me - look at their financials and tell me that isn't the case.

And are the two groups that are almost no existent in other countries, especially the UK where the designers are. There are very few places that have pick up games (I can think of one store, and only two that I have ever been in that have any tables other than GW stores, who have 2 tables at most, and those are mostly demo tables.). The closest we get is clubs, where most of them are more like a large group. Most people are not even aware of the existence of tournaments in my experience.

I'm sorry, but your putting what you have seen on to the rest of the world. Pick up games are not the the largest group by any means IMO and tournament players represent a tiny percentage of the player base. Not sure what the financials tell you about how people are playing.

culsandar wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Imperial knights, screamer star, 6th ed O'Vesa star etc...are those "balanced"? TOs need to stop deluding themselves and let the game play as written.

Yes they are, you just can't mass autocannons any more and expect to win; got nerfed; got the ban hammer.

_Most_ of the ridiculous stuff got the axe, through Psyker nerfs or allies changes. Having large events limit FoC is no where near the level of crazy we were seeing in 6th.

Edit:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
I've seen complaints that Battle Brothers wasnt changed to stop deathstars. But isnt the real problem there Sarthonyx? Perhaps gw is just playing the long con, as let's face it he is likely to be cut when the DE treatment gets here.

He shouldn't be too bad anymore, as you can save all your dispel dice for fortune turn one and dump weight of fire into him. It's less impressive when he's just a T3 terminator.

I think your relying on dispel way more than you should, you can only dump an equal amount of dispel dice as those used and in most cases your going to need an equal amount of natural sixes to however many 4+ they rolled.

deleted...double post

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


GW's first duty is to GW.

actually no, although I know what you're saying. GW's first duty is to it's shareholders.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. Opening up the list building from the rulebook will create a shifting meta - one tournament will have a winner who brings 6 land raiders. The next event in that area, drop-pod melta gun spam will show up and do well -- then maybe a horde army will win the next months game. It's OK to have a shifting meta, or to just bring balanced lists and win by playing to the mission at hand.

Jesus - nobody's even played 7th yet (except for the design team) and it's being driven into the ground. Just give the rules a chance before immediately petitioning to change them.

1) There are plenty of ways to prevent OP lists that dominate the game. Most of them involve setting a points cost that is proportionate to the effectiveness, and limiting spam.
2) There is a difference between a 10% chance of winning and a 0% of winning. The New FOC takes 10% lists and make them 0% lists.
3) Right now, I'm less concerned about tournaments, and more concerned about negative feelings coming out of gaming groups and pickup games. Land Raiders are one of the most popular models in my gaming group. If I tell one of the Players who has been running double-land raiders for quite a while that I won't play him if he continues to run 2 Land Raiders, he isn't going to be happy, our group is going to fracture further. Maybe the Salamander player and the Land Raider player will split off and do their own thing. The community suffers when balance is not present.
4) I'm relatively ok with 7th. I hate that they buffed armor at the same time that they reduced the ability of Tyranids to deal with Armor. I think it is stupid that Rhinos are super-scoring, but overall, I'm ok with it. But, if you like to have fun, the unlimited FOC is unplayable unless you pre-negotiate your lists in detail.
5) GW could still pull this out. Imagine that the FAQ's all update points costs to make them equivalent to unit effectiveness. 160 point Annihilation Barges? 280 Point Riptides? 9 Point Genesteelers? If the points costs were correct, FOC wouldn't be so important. Of Course I give this a .00001% chance, but it is possible.
6) As with most things, the Perfect is the enemy of the good. Restricting the FOC to something saner doesn't make it impossible to build OP armies, therefore we should never consider it? No, I think any step that reduces the power of OP armies is a good step. If we can do something to improve our situation we should. If we sit around waiting for a perfect solution we will always have the worst possible world.
7) It isn't rocket science to see that the unlimited FOC is broken. 7th isn't much of a change. The existing double FOC at 2000 points was broken. Now we have unlimited FOC at any point. Why would we assume that it would be less broken?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.

And are the two groups that are almost no existent in other countries, especially the UK where the designers are. There are very few places that have pick up games (I can think of one store, and only two that I have ever been in that have any tables other than GW stores, who have 2 tables at most, and those are mostly demo tables.). The closest we get is clubs, where most of them are more like a large group. Most people are not even aware of the existence of tournaments in my experience.

That may be the case, but last period financials showed it to be a consistent drop worldwide in every single region. This happens to coincide with their move to targeting the more casual regular player base.

But, barring that, even in a club environment I bet most players don't have prescheduled games (maybe they do, I don't know), yet now, they have to house rule a good portion of the rules just to get everyone on equal footing so half the players don't show up with "legal" armies that no one will play against because the consider the legal army to be "cheese".

Sorry, but this will, without a doubt, start to divide the 40k player base. You can already see it happening in this thread. When someone builds a legal army under the new rules and someone says I wouldn't play against that cheese. Well, you have an example of how this is already turning into a complete cluster.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

I completely disagree with this. First, GW did not write the rules for any player groups whatsoever - they wrote them to sell models. No sense convincing ourselves otherwise, all of these changes are geared towards selling more modelsl.

People keep saying this, but it is simply not true. How dose allowing people to play more diverse and less restricted forces sell models? People say this every time a rule is changed, but more often than not its an underpowered unit that gets buffed. This can't be because the unit it underpowered and needs improving, no... Same when overpowered units get a points increase or nurf. Take the valk/vendetta. People complained that GW was screwing them when it was costed as a skimmer with flier rules. I don't believe at all that GW changes rules to drive sales.

Seriously? The whole reason "underpowered" units exists is because of the rules. Underpowered means no sales. Change rules to OP and you get more sales (see Demons prior to 5th). Nerf bat works in reverse order - "overpowered" units exist because of the rules (and lack of understanding of the game your producing). Overpowered means many sales, thereby given to shiny new units. Once price/saturation point is made, nerf bat comes along and pisses of the masses.

I'm hoping I was just missing the sarcasm.

bullyboy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


GW's first duty is to GW.

actually no, although I know what you're saying. GW's first duty is to it's shareholders.

This is the problem, GW's first duty is to their customers. Why? Because customers make the company revenue, and more revenue makes the company do well for their shareholders. But I do believe you are correct in that GW views their first responsibility to their shareholders and thus their customers have just become wallets to fleece (which they basically say this in not so many words under their Business Model in Investor relations).

bullyboy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


GW's first duty is to GW.

actually no, although I know what you're saying. GW's first duty is to it's shareholders.

Amongst which is Tom Kirby (and the other big ones being hedgefunds that have zero clue or interest in what Warhammer 40,000 actually is)

I'd say the double force org being broken thing was specifically due to the Flamer/Screamer combo that was out at the time.

Double force org (well 1.5 force org) has been in effect since the release of the first tau supplement. And outside of Ovesa star it's been fine. And now that that isn't possible I don't see why it isn't completely fine.

Personally I'm hoping that most Tournaments stick to 2 charts per army. Example would be 2 Force Orgs, 1 Force Org and 1 Ally, Force Org and Formation.

So has anyone got any 7th ed games in yet? Or are we arguing hypotheticals?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Second, for the groups that will get the most, it is the casual, regular group players. The other two groups, tournament and casual pick up games (which dominate here in the US) have been completely thrown to the wayside.

And that is why 7th edition, even without a lot of games played, is a complete and utter failure. GW has three distinct groups of customers to cater to with the rules and they should be written to cater to all three groups. Supplements should be used to then modify the base game for any one particular group. Every single game company on the market, except GW, write their rulesets with this in mind. But GW wants you to play their game, the way they play it in their isolated own little world in Nottingham which is NOT how the majority play. Pick up games, bar none, are the largest group of players in the GW base. Most likely followed very closely by tournament gamers and then the small casual club gamers. Don't believe me - look at their financials and tell me that isn't the case.

And are the two groups that are almost no existent in other countries, especially the UK where the designers are. There are very few places that have pick up games (I can think of one store, and only two that I have ever been in that have any tables other than GW stores, who have 2 tables at most, and those are mostly demo tables.). The closest we get is clubs, where most of them are more like a large group. Most people are not even aware of the existence of tournaments in my experience.

I'm sorry, but your putting what you have seen on to the rest of the world. Pick up games are not the the largest group by any means IMO and tournament players represent a tiny percentage of the player base. Not sure what the financials tell you about how people are playing.

You have it backwards. Pick up games in stores is how the game is played in the vast majority of countries. The prevalence of clubs is strictly a UK phenomenon.

And like Wayshuba said, how can the edition that was specifically tailored to the group that you claim is the biggest one, to the detriment of all others players, have tanked so hard that GW was forced to launch a new edition less than 2 years afterwards?

SeanDrake wrote:
<snip>I think your relying on dispel way more than you should, you can only dump an equal amount of dispel dice as those used and in most cases your going to need an equal amount of natural sixes to however many 4+ they rolled.

Was going to say this didn't sound right, but you're the one with the book. Am I misreading or are you saying you can only throw as many dice for DtW as they threw to activate (i.e. enemy psyker throws 3 dice and succeeds in activating prescience I can only throw 3 dice to DtW)?

I love when people say "dont like it dont play it. As if theres not a third option... Do what every other person that has been burned by GW does. Buy second hand and use "counts as" models from other companies that are better quality. At my flgs we will probably play basically a modified 6th without these new foc changes which is basically all that 7th is. And i will continue giving less and less money to GW. As will most of their customers. Stop acting like GW has some sort of power. They have none whatsoever it is a business the customer has the power. Dont believe me? look at the stock prices

I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment

all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.

So it look like we can make armies like this

1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)

2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction

3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction

One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction

Am I missing something?

SeanDrake wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

I have spoken to someone else with the book and they agree they read it the same way I do as I was frankly in disblief at it. I have spoken to two TO's and by the sounds they will restrict their GT's to one FOC in primary and only one Ally.

So just like I said before, TO's aren't going to let you play the game as written. I'm not saying this is a bad thing from their perspective but rather yet another criticism of GW and their failure to write a good rule set.

I think most gaming groups won't let you play the rules as written. In fact, my guess is that only about 5% of players end up play rules as written when it comes to unlimited FOCs. Though, I imagine many players don't formalize their rejection of it.

I have a poll going in the General Thread. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596201.page

Right now about 79% plan to change it in a formal fashion. I'm betting that shortly (say 3-6 Months) one solution or another will catch on, and nearly everyone that plays pickup games will use the same rule change to the FOC. It will probably be people like Recius of Frontline Gamine which Operates LVO and BAO that endorse the rule change, and start everybody else on their way to endorsing it.

One way I think GW has failed badly with 7th edition is that they wrote the FOC for a very small minority of people that play the game, and didn't give an option for the way most people play. I think this dissonance bodes very, very poorly for the upcoming FAQs. I wouldn't be surprised if significant sources of confusion are completely ignored in favor of rulings that no body was asking for, that further unbalance or complicate the game.

I think you may find that you got that a little backwards, they wrote 7th for the majority of people. What you seem to have failed to notice is that competetive/tourny players are the minority a vocal minority to be sure but still a minority.

You are using the term "competitive/tourney" as a pejorative without understanding what it means. When you play a game of 40k you are competitive. Otherwise you wouldn't need rules at all. That way both sides can win, or the narrative could determine the victor.

I play in a game group. There are 10-12 of us. We show up at appointed times, and play games that are not prearranged. My group is pretty fluffy, and we strive to comp ourselves in such a way as to keep all games competitive to a point where the outcome is decided by gameplay, and not list building. We long for a day that GW can write rules so that we don't have to work so hard comping our selves, and we hate the Rock-Paper-Scissor effect of the game that makes it nearly impossible to play in certain ways (e.g. gunline, mech) against players who play in other ways (e.g. walking necrons, hoard 'nids). We value a diversity in play-styles and meta no matter how aggressively GW tries to restrict the usable play-styles. There are players that are left out of my group, because they won't or can't comp themselves, or they insist that power-gaming is the only way to play 40k. I wish those people could join us, but GW's rules don't allow it. That is how I play. That is why I want a FOC that works.

I do know a guy that plays in his garage, and only ever plays against his wife. I doubt they used the old FOC much, and I imagine they won't use the new one much either, but I wouldn't be surprised if they use it a bit more. I think he is the one the FOC was written for.

I would say that the way I play is more common than the way he plays.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

The point I am making is that this dumb war game we all love to play attracts the types of competitive players who actively seek out the most cheesy, point-efficient lists. No matter what restrictions TOs put on their events players will break the game. .

This.
I'm not really a competitive player, but even I can already call it now that Eldar Maelific Daemonology spam to create a greater daemon summoning engine will be the new . Eldrad + Farseer + Warlock council means you can throw dice all day and not really care about perils (ghosthelm) or deny the witch dice from your opponent (unless they are also playing Eldar psyker spam).

 Garion wrote:
I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment

all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.

So it look like we can make armies like this

1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)

2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction

3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction

One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction

Am I missing something?

I'm not sure this is accurate, otherwise, what is the point of the Allied Detachment? It serves no purpose if can take ANY faction as one of the combined arms detatchment.


Easiest way to reign in all this FOC craziness? Smaller games. You can't field triple detachements or ungodly Unbound forces if you are playing smaller games (although Unbound could still be abused by some armies). Look for the standard points allottment to start shrinking for most tournaments.