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.

 Xerics wrote:
. A battlefield is chaotic. You shouldn't be able to plan for everything.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
Hmmm sounds like the Variable game length, and yet pretty much all tournaments run off those rules and I consider them terrible. You can be clearly tabling an opponent with superior firepower but they win by 1 point at the end of turn 5 cause they rolled a 1 or a 2.

Cognitive dissonance is in season it seems.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Nope. "Maelstrom of War" is something separate.

Ah ok. As I see it then, the distinction is "normal 40k" and "card 40k"... so again, maelstrom of war missions are optional and gonna be pretty uncommon I imagine.

You know I am coming around on these cards. It has the ability to get people to change their lists up.

I still may get rid of my chaos army though. They have been less than stellar.

Edit: also these type of random mission objectives work fine in other games such as Malifaux and Dark Age.

I think having alternatives to the regular missions will be nice. Some codexes will be more viable depending on the situation. I've played tournament missions in the past were holding objectives accumulated points over time, and when my opponent made the decision to rush forward and ignore his objectives and attempt to table me, he played his way and I played mine. I ended up winning when I held the line.

If there are cards that really don't go along with your army, come up with ways to minimize the effect. Perhaps both of you pick 5 cards from the deck at the beginning to set to the side. You pick psychic and cc cards to set aside, while they set aside shooty ones. You both play as your armies normally would (A Tau supreme-commander wouldn't expect you to order your unit leaders to engage in a challenge with a Daemon Prince, while Khorne sure as hell might demand it)

I like the cards because it is just another tactical part of the game. I find it interesting how people say random =/ tactical. You actually have to plan for more eventualities with random mechanics but that is neither here nor there. Control what you can, minimize the risk for the things you cant.

The cards are going to be lots of fun. You do realize that you get three cards at a time right? So aim to complete 1-2 of them that you can and then discard the one you cant. Now you have three new cards. Also you dont know what your opponents objectives are so you have to play towards what serves your objectives best and hope you are stopping them in the process. I like it a lot and definitely opens up some army builds. If you have no cards you can complete(which I find highly unlikely but possible) then aim to deal as much damage as you can and move on. Who knows, there might be an option to just discard your entire current hand if you want and get three new cards(Prof Oak style)

What makes something broken in 6th was the ability to abuse the win conditions and not having enough terrain(specifically of the LOS blocking type).

Also the cards are like 8 bucks and completely optional, like the psychic cards. If you want them, get them, if you dont you can still play the game.

How do you plan with random objectives , when your opponent can do all the sub missions and you can only do 2/3 or less and when the limitations are not based around likes , cash , but how a codex is constructed. An eldar player can do any of the card missions . An am won't do any of the melee , challange . Other armies have no psykers and can't do melee like tau . And even if we can discard a mission per turn there are still more then 1 of each in the deck .

Makumba wrote:
How do you plan with random objectives , when your opponent can do all the sub missions and you can only do 2/3 or less and when the limitations are not based around likes , cash , but how a codex is constructed. An eldar player can do any of the card missions . An am won't do any of the melee , challenge . Other armies have no psykers and can't do melee like tau . And even if we can discard a mission per turn there are still more then 1 of each in the deck .

You are confusing wouldn't do with can't do. In general will Tau or IG want to engage in close combat? Nope, but I wouldn't hesitate to charge in for that victory point. Psychic are the only ones that I can think of that would be army limited but if there is a rule like "If you have no psykers discard this card and get another one" or "remove these from the deck if you have no psykers". There is no army that requires psykers be present so I highly doubt that there is not something to limit the impact of those cards. All of those things are for the most part under your control. Now if it was something like "Accept a challenge" then I would have a problem with it. But everything is done during your turn so you have control and I am also assuming that cards are done at the start or end of your turn so you can plan for what you have.

Even then, you know what all the potential things you could have to deal with before the game even starts. You know that there might be objectives on the other side of the table you need to get on your turn, you know you might need to get into a challenge. You have all this information before you build your list. It certainly adds additional depth to the things you have to think about when preparing for a game and encourages you to plan for additional eventualities instead of doing what a lot of the armies do now which is abuse the absolutely known.

The cards have no such rules. You can discard one objective card at the end of a turn. So if a tau player ends up with use psyker and do melee objective in hand , he will be at a big disadventage.

Same with guard , unless we spam psykers we won't be getting powers off , because our casters are only level 2 and other armies will be runing with level 3-4 ones.

How do I build my list to grab far objectives with guard ? my dudes are +5sv with no fearless , no skimer transports t3 and low Ld. Even If I do somehow get in range my unit will be in the range of the whole enemy army and it will make it easier to pull of his cards . The melee ones , the destroy with shoting ones , the challange ones . Am practicly handing him 2 units for the d3 VP card and then he just needs to kill one more.

Now I can imagine marines using drop pods , landing on 2-3 objecitves then spaming out demons using their psykers . But armies that can't do melee won't be able to pull stuff like that.

There would be extra depth to the game , if all armies could do everything . But it is not the case .

Makumba wrote:
How do you plan with random objectives , when your opponent can do all the sub missions and you can only do 2/3 or less and when the limitations are not based around likes , cash , but how a codex is constructed. An eldar player can do any of the card missions . An am won't do any of the melee , challange . Other armies have no psykers and can't do melee like tau . And even if we can discard a mission per turn there are still more then 1 of each in the deck .

Other than the psyker card of casting a power any army can do anything. They just might not do so well at it. The card said you had to issue a challenge not win a challenge after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The cards might also , dare I say, promote some variety *gasp* in list building?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also there are 36 cards in the tactical objectives deck. I am pretty sure there will be more then enough for any army to get some good objectives.

I'm just frustrated that GW seems to be so good at coming up (or listening to) good ideas and then so incredibly horrible at executing them. It really seems like the entire Rules Development team has the idea that it is just too hard to work on, you know, actual rules.

Unbound Armies will allow a lot of really cool army ideas, but they will also allow a lot of really silly, really abusive, or really dumb ones too. Rather than, you know, writing rules to allow specific cool army ideas that fit the background of the game, let's just allow people to take anything, and hopefully, they will take stuff that reflects the cool battles in the background. Isn't the entire concept of Unbound Armies a slap in the face of people who paid money for books which have formations and the like? Why buy a sourcebook allowing you to field some specific units, when you can just buy what you want and field it?

It undermines GW's own sales strategy, in that codex supplements now have LESS value, since the only rules benefits of having them are unique units, warlord traits, and relics, not changes to the force organization. You don't need an Iyanden Supplement to field a Ghost Warrior army. Buy the Ghost Warriors you want and field them.

It undermines GW's strongest element, their iconic background. What kind of a background will a player see when he goes to a game and faces off against some Battlesuits, a Mawloc, Arhiman, some Vendettas, and some Immortals? If people are attracted to the game because of a rich, vivid background, why wouldn't that be something you WANTED to ensure survived to the tabletop?

It also undermines a lot of potential sales from GW. Are you telling me that the people who wanted to field a Genestealer Cult army wouldn't have bought a White Dwarf or supplement with rules for that? By having a reasonably restrictive force organization, GW could have made lots of money selling supplements (I would have recommended smaller, less expensive ones, to sell people more as an impulse buy than hardcover ones). This also would have allowed GW to put out supplements that reinforced key aspects of the background (like Ghost Armies, Cult Armies, Traitor Guard) and not things that violated long-standing background (loyalist, highly trained, super-disciplined Librarians summoning daemons).


Objective Cards. Again, another great concept (a wide variety of objectives, unique to each player, that can change over the course of a battle) with terrible execution. The 'objectives' you need to claim are bland in the extreme (Objective 1), and do nothing to convey any immersion in the game, since the 'objective' can just be a coin on the battlefield. You can be 'given' objectives by 'high command' that have nothing whatsoever to do with your army. Even if you discard it, why would any commander tell his Black Templars to manifest a psychic power? Your objectives can be arbitrary in the extreme (You just claimed this spot after brutally driving off the enemy. Now go get that spot on the other side of the battlefield). These don't 'forge a narrative', but force you to brutally subvert any narrative you might have had in building your army or setting up the battlefield to a set of random selections.

A much more 'narrative' idea would to have been a deck of objectives that were very specific, possibly even to the point of specifying terrain or scenery (Take and hold the ammo dump). Players could choose objectives for each of their armies based on the battlefield set up, and their army and play style, and then kept those cards secret from their opponent. Alternatively, you could have chosen objectives randomly, before building your list and setting up the battlefield. Then, the cards would have value as a marker of your own objectives, and allowed you to play the game while not knowing exactly what your enemy was trying to accomplish. You could have even had objective cards like "Fluid goals: discard an objective and select a new one" and "Fickle Tide of Battle: Your opponent must discard one of his objectives and select a new one.". You could still have had hidden, specific objectives, without arbitrary, generic, and often illogical ones.

 Leth wrote:
The cards are going to be lots of fun. You do realize that you get three cards at a time right? So aim to complete 1-2 of them that you can and then discard the one you cant. Now you have three new cards. Also you dont know what your opponents objectives are so you have to play towards what serves your objectives best and hope you are stopping them in the process. I like it a lot and definitely opens up some army builds. If you have no cards you can complete(which I find highly unlikely but possible) then aim to deal as much damage as you can and move on. Who knows, there might be an option to just discard your entire current hand if you want and get three new cards(Prof Oak style)

What makes something broken in 6th was the ability to abuse the win conditions and not having enough terrain(specifically of the LOS blocking type).

Pretty much everyone here has actually said that they like the cards in principle - it's a cool idea to have mid-game objective updates. However, the problem is that, as you say, the way they have been written makes them easy to abuse the win conditions. Getting VPs just for challenging? Wut? They're just too arbitrary and don't reward strategic/risky plays. I can see people house ruling their own decks into the game, which could be far more interesting, but the base decks just make no sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Butcha wrote:
Unbound Armies will allow a lot of really cool army ideas, but they will also allow a lot of really silly, really abusive, or really dumb ones too. Rather than, you know, writing rules to allow specific cool army ideas that fit the background of the game, let's just allow people to take anything, and hopefully, they will take stuff that reflects the cool battles in the background. Isn't the entire concept of Unbound Armies a slap in the face of people who paid money for books which have formations and the like? Why buy a sourcebook allowing you to field some specific units, when you can just buy what you want and field it?

I'm actually not as worried about them now, not being able to contest is pretty huge. I probably still won't use or fight an unbound army, but the risk-reward is there at least.

Da Butcha wrote:
Objective Cards. Again, another great concept (a wide variety of objectives, unique to each player, that can change over the course of a battle) with terrible execution. The 'objectives' you need to claim are bland in the extreme (Objective 1), and do nothing to convey any immersion in the game, since the 'objective' can just be a coin on the battlefield. You can be 'given' objectives by 'high command' that have nothing whatsoever to do with your army. Even if you discard it, why would any commander tell his Black Templars to manifest a psychic power? Your objectives can be arbitrary in the extreme (You just claimed this spot after brutally driving off the enemy. Now go get that spot on the other side of the battlefield). These don't 'forge a narrative', but force you to brutally subvert any narrative you might have had in building your army or setting up the battlefield to a set of random selections.

A much more 'narrative' idea would to have been a deck of objectives that were very specific, possibly even to the point of specifying terrain or scenery (Take and hold the ammo dump). Players could choose objectives for each of their armies based on the battlefield set up, and their army and play style, and then kept those cards secret from their opponent. Alternatively, you could have chosen objectives randomly, before building your list and setting up the battlefield. Then, the cards would have value as a marker of your own objectives, and allowed you to play the game while not knowing exactly what your enemy was trying to accomplish. You could have even had objective cards like "Fluid goals: discard an objective and select a new one" and "Fickle Tide of Battle: Your opponent must discard one of his objectives and select a new one.". You could still have had hidden, specific objectives, without arbitrary, generic, and often illogical ones.

Amen. Not entirely sure how to rebalance the cards at the moment, but it's an idea I'll be mulling over.

I still have my 2nd edition of 40k. Guess I'll break the cards out from that, since we seem to be going back in that direction. Does unbound armies mean we can have Genestealer cult forces with units of terminator armored cultists like in the Rogue Trader days?

Man, 7th looks great! Before the game, you have to:

1. decide on whether you want to play Regular 40k or Unfun and

2. decide on whether you want to play normal scenarios or Maelstrom

3. decide on whether you want to play with FW or not

4. make all upcoming unclear rules clear (i.e. fortifications).

Sounds awesome.

1-you are great at objecting things you never tried.

2-dear god, so hard.

3-why is this even a discussion still?

4-if the fortification rules are not clear to you, the problem is not in the game.

 Redbeard wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

I think saying "knights might need allies to be effective" is a BIIIG differance between "ALL armies need allies"

If you're required to have a psyker on the table in order to achieve certain missions, then Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar and maybe Sisters now need allies as well. If challenges become a fundamental objective in the game, then non-combat armies like Tau and Guard will now require allies. And this is based on seeing four of sixty cards?

I guess we'll see how the rest are implemented. Still, I feel that the addition of basic game objectives that cannot be accomplished by some of the armies in the game is a sign of poor game design.

Or, they could optimize their army to get the most out of the rest of the cards and discard their psychic cards.

Or perhaps you will make that last ditch effort to charge that understrength firewarrior unit in, and declare your challenge.

Da Butcha wrote:
I'm just frustrated that GW seems to be so good at coming up (or listening to) good ideas and then so incredibly horrible at executing them. It really seems like the entire Rules Development team has the idea that it is just too hard to work on, you know, actual rules.

Unbound Armies will allow a lot of really cool army ideas, but they will also allow a lot of really silly, really abusive, or really dumb ones too. Rather than, you know, writing rules to allow specific cool army ideas that fit the background of the game, let's just allow people to take anything, and hopefully, they will take stuff that reflects the cool battles in the background. Isn't the entire concept of Unbound Armies a slap in the face of people who paid money for books which have formations and the like? Why buy a sourcebook allowing you to field some specific units, when you can just buy what you want and field it?

It undermines GW's own sales strategy, in that codex supplements now have LESS value, since the only rules benefits of having them are unique units, warlord traits, and relics, not changes to the force organization. You don't need an Iyanden Supplement to field a Ghost Warrior army. Buy the Ghost Warriors you want and field them.

It undermines GW's strongest element, their iconic background. What kind of a background will a player see when he goes to a game and faces off against some Battlesuits, a Mawloc, Arhiman, some Vendettas, and some Immortals? If people are attracted to the game because of a rich, vivid background, why wouldn't that be something you WANTED to ensure survived to the tabletop?

It also undermines a lot of potential sales from GW. Are you telling me that the people who wanted to field a Genestealer Cult army wouldn't have bought a White Dwarf or supplement with rules for that? By having a reasonably restrictive force organization, GW could have made lots of money selling supplements (I would have recommended smaller, less expensive ones, to sell people more as an impulse buy than hardcover ones). This also would have allowed GW to put out supplements that reinforced key aspects of the background (like Ghost Armies, Cult Armies, Traitor Guard) and not things that violated long-standing background (loyalist, highly trained, super-disciplined Librarians summoning daemons).


Objective Cards. Again, another great concept (a wide variety of objectives, unique to each player, that can change over the course of a battle) with terrible execution. The 'objectives' you need to claim are bland in the extreme (Objective 1), and do nothing to convey any immersion in the game, since the 'objective' can just be a coin on the battlefield. You can be 'given' objectives by 'high command' that have nothing whatsoever to do with your army. Even if you discard it, why would any commander tell his Black Templars to manifest a psychic power? Your objectives can be arbitrary in the extreme (You just claimed this spot after brutally driving off the enemy. Now go get that spot on the other side of the battlefield). These don't 'forge a narrative', but force you to brutally subvert any narrative you might have had in building your army or setting up the battlefield to a set of random selections.

A much more 'narrative' idea would to have been a deck of objectives that were very specific, possibly even to the point of specifying terrain or scenery (Take and hold the ammo dump). Players could choose objectives for each of their armies based on the battlefield set up, and their army and play style, and then kept those cards secret from their opponent. Alternatively, you could have chosen objectives randomly, before building your list and setting up the battlefield. Then, the cards would have value as a marker of your own objectives, and allowed you to play the game while not knowing exactly what your enemy was trying to accomplish. You could have even had objective cards like "Fluid goals: discard an objective and select a new one" and "Fickle Tide of Battle: Your opponent must discard one of his objectives and select a new one.". You could still have had hidden, specific objectives, without arbitrary, generic, and often illogical ones.

So I read the last paragraph as "Draw the cards for objectives prior to list building in order to tailor to the cards."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The base deck has 36 cards in it. Lets reserve how bad the cards are untill we know what all of them are. Just because 1 is to challenge somone doesn't mean there aren't 35 other great cards you can draw from. 1/36 odds of getting a random card you can't use doesn't seem to be much of a problem. The chances of that are less then rolling an 11 or 12 on a psychic test with a Ld 10 Psyker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Man, 7th looks great! Before the game, you have to:

1. decide on whether you want to play Regular 40k or Unfun and

2. decide on whether you want to play normal scenarios or Maelstrom

3. decide on whether you want to play with FW or not

4. make all upcoming unclear rules clear (i.e. fortifications).

Sounds awesome.

With FW or without shouldn't even be a question. FW yes 100% of the time. If it's a model and GW made rules for it then why wouldn't you let them play it (FW being a subsidiary of GW).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Before there is any FW rage I don't actually own any FW models.

 BoomWolf wrote:
1-you are great at objecting things you never tried.

2-dear god, so hard.

3-why is this even a discussion still?

4-if the fortification rules are not clear to you, the problem is not in the game.

If you don't unterstand the, especially, latter point, you haven't been to a tournament yet. Anyhoooo. It's not about what I personally like or dislike. It all requires communication that SHOULDN'T be required in PUGs. Rules should be clearly laid out instead of being vague and obtuse because of being lazy ass writers.

 BoomWolf wrote:
1-you are great at objecting things you never tried.

2-dear god, so hard.

3-why is this even a discussion still?

4-if the fortification rules are not clear to you, the problem is not in the game.

Swing and miss. More so number four... GW has had to "fix" the fortifications and building rules several times. I will be quite amused if seventh further invalidates the rules found in stronghold assault.

Relapse wrote:
I still have my 2nd edition of 40k. Guess I'll break the cards out from that, since we seem to be going back in that direction. Does unbound armies mean we can have Genestealer cult forces with units of terminator armored cultists like in the Rogue Trader days?

From reading White Dwarf, it seems so, BUUUUT, since WD is getting a few things wrong these days, it is possible that us Nids can't.

 TheKbob wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
1-you are great at objecting things you never tried.

2-dear god, so hard.

3-why is this even a discussion still?

4-if the fortification rules are not clear to you, the problem is not in the game.

Swing and miss. More so number four... GW has had to "fix" the fortifications and building rules several times. I will be quite amused if seventh further invalidates the rules found in stronghold assault.

The statement that has been put forward(in White Dwarf, mind you) so far is that fortifications and building rules--i.e. "Stronghold Assault"--are actually in the main rulebook...so Stronghold Assault probably is invalidated.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Man, 7th looks great! Before the game, you have to:

1. decide on whether you want to play Regular 40k or Unfun and

2. decide on whether you want to play normal scenarios or Maelstrom

3. decide on whether you want to play with FW or not

4. make all upcoming unclear rules clear (i.e. fortifications).

Sounds awesome.

Yeah, as if 6th wasn't slow enough already. I could get a 1850pt game of 5th done in 2-3 hours, a similar game of 40k just takes nearly an hour to just get everything set up...

 TheKbob wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
1-you are great at objecting things you never tried.

2-dear god, so hard.

3-why is this even a discussion still?

4-if the fortification rules are not clear to you, the problem is not in the game.

Swing and miss. More so number four... GW has had to "fix" the fortifications and building rules several times. I will be quite amused if seventh further invalidates the rules found in stronghold assault.

This. You've never played against a Skyshield before, have you?

Da Butcha wrote:
I'm just frustrated that GW seems to be so good at coming up (or listening to) good ideas and then so incredibly horrible at executing them. It really seems like the entire Rules Development team has the idea that it is just too hard to work on, you know, actual rules.

Unbound Armies will allow a lot of really cool army ideas, but they will also allow a lot of really silly, really abusive, or really dumb ones too. Rather than, you know, writing rules to allow specific cool army ideas that fit the background of the game, let's just allow people to take anything, and hopefully, they will take stuff that reflects the cool battles in the background. Isn't the entire concept of Unbound Armies a slap in the face of people who paid money for books which have formations and the like? Why buy a sourcebook allowing you to field some specific units, when you can just buy what you want and field it?

It undermines GW's own sales strategy, in that codex supplements now have LESS value, since the only rules benefits of having them are unique units, warlord traits, and relics, not changes to the force organization. You don't need an Iyanden Supplement to field a Ghost Warrior army. Buy the Ghost Warriors you want and field them.

It undermines GW's strongest element, their iconic background. What kind of a background will a player see when he goes to a game and faces off against some Battlesuits, a Mawloc, Arhiman, some Vendettas, and some Immortals? If people are attracted to the game because of a rich, vivid background, why wouldn't that be something you WANTED to ensure survived to the tabletop?

It also undermines a lot of potential sales from GW. Are you telling me that the people who wanted to field a Genestealer Cult army wouldn't have bought a White Dwarf or supplement with rules for that? By having a reasonably restrictive force organization, GW could have made lots of money selling supplements (I would have recommended smaller, less expensive ones, to sell people more as an impulse buy than hardcover ones). This also would have allowed GW to put out supplements that reinforced key aspects of the background (like Ghost Armies, Cult Armies, Traitor Guard) and not things that violated long-standing background (loyalist, highly trained, super-disciplined Librarians summoning daemons).


Objective Cards. Again, another great concept (a wide variety of objectives, unique to each player, that can change over the course of a battle) with terrible execution. The 'objectives' you need to claim are bland in the extreme (Objective 1), and do nothing to convey any immersion in the game, since the 'objective' can just be a coin on the battlefield. You can be 'given' objectives by 'high command' that have nothing whatsoever to do with your army. Even if you discard it, why would any commander tell his Black Templars to manifest a psychic power? Your objectives can be arbitrary in the extreme (You just claimed this spot after brutally driving off the enemy. Now go get that spot on the other side of the battlefield). These don't 'forge a narrative', but force you to brutally subvert any narrative you might have had in building your army or setting up the battlefield to a set of random selections.

A much more 'narrative' idea would to have been a deck of objectives that were very specific, possibly even to the point of specifying terrain or scenery (Take and hold the ammo dump). Players could choose objectives for each of their armies based on the battlefield set up, and their army and play style, and then kept those cards secret from their opponent. Alternatively, you could have chosen objectives randomly, before building your list and setting up the battlefield. Then, the cards would have value as a marker of your own objectives, and allowed you to play the game while not knowing exactly what your enemy was trying to accomplish. You could have even had objective cards like "Fluid goals: discard an objective and select a new one" and "Fickle Tide of Battle: Your opponent must discard one of his objectives and select a new one.". You could still have had hidden, specific objectives, without arbitrary, generic, and often illogical ones.

I agree with everything said here, surprisingly so.
Also, I dislike the idea of random cards on principle.

And random is the opposite of narrative. It's like writing a screenplay mad lib style, it's absurd. No one writes a story with a D6, because it will be a terrible terrible terrible story.

I mean can you imagine the command channel for these cards "go secure that objective in the enemy zone, scratch that, have your nco's start fights they can't possibly win.. on second thought turn the army around and go back for the objective you just bypassed... wait wait have your men kill something, I don't really care what, it will pleaes me. Now if you'll excuse me, my crack pipe needs me"

How long before the troops just stop listening, drop the vox and pray to the immortal god emperor that lord commander ford will just check into rehab?





We have only scratched the surface of the cards, granted and 1 of the 4 isn't terrible in that it at the very least interacts in some way with the scenario. Still no idea on if objective 3 will be placed somewhere specific or if it's literally just the 3rd objective to be placed. Some cards could be the same or potentially better.

None of that changes the fact that just randomly plopping them out over and over is a terrible mechanic, takes nothing into account and can easily just awarded victory points without even really incentivizing certain actions.

I can already think of better methods.

Here's one: shuffle the deck, deal 7 cards face down. At the top each turn, flip a card over. Both armies can make use of the card, but must do so in the turn alloted. Continue doing the same thing for all 5-7 turns of the game.

Even that suggestion still has to contend with the fact t hat any of those cards could still essentially just award free vp's without really having to do anything. The one balancing act is both players are aware, so for example if the stupid challenge card comes up, yeah, you might be screwed no matter what but you may also be able to factor the card into your decisions, perhaps ensuring your opponent has no viable close combats. If you see your opponent eyeing some objective you both know will reward bonus vp's for holding, you may be able to address that and vice versa. Still the problem that just flipping the card may just pretty much automatically reward you or your opponent with a free vp.

The only benefits to the method I suggested is, fewer overall vp's in play over the course of the game, so that hopefully the mission/scenario in play will still matter and transparency, you're not all of a sudden informed that some incredibly innocuous action on the part of your opponent has resulted in them receiving victory points.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Man, 7th looks great! Before the game, you have to:

1. decide on whether you want to play Regular 40k or Unfun and

2. decide on whether you want to play normal scenarios or Maelstrom

3. decide on whether you want to play with FW or not

4. make all upcoming unclear rules clear (i.e. fortifications).

Sounds awesome.

Yeah, as if 6th wasn't slow enough already. I could get a 1850pt game of 5th done in 2-3 hours, a similar game of 40k just takes nearly an hour to just get everything set up...

 TheKbob wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
1-you are great at objecting things you never tried.

2-dear god, so hard.

3-why is this even a discussion still?

4-if the fortification rules are not clear to you, the problem is not in the game.

Swing and miss. More so number four... GW has had to "fix" the fortifications and building rules several times. I will be quite amused if seventh further invalidates the rules found in stronghold assault.

This. You've never played against a Skyshield before, have you?

I have...not too complex...
You cant KILL the damn thing, even with a nuke, and that's silly, but otherwise its logical.
You need to delve deep into the logical process, yes, but there IS a final conclusion on how it works that you really can't get wrong without warping whats written.

 BoomWolf wrote:
but there IS a final conclusion on how it works that you really can't get wrong without warping whats written.

Really, I have yet to see much consensus on how it works. Plenty of people play it using ruin rules to cut around the rough edges. Tanks can apparently just drive on to and off of it... which is in no way logical.

 BoomWolf wrote:

You cant KILL the damn thing, even with a nuke, and that's silly, but otherwise its logical.
You need to delve deep into the logical process, yes, but there IS a final conclusion on how it works that you really can't get wrong without warping whats written.

The Skyshield is commonly regarded as one the most illogical collection of rules in 6th.

Wait, weren't you the guy claiming that Wave Serpents or Riptides weren't op?

 Crablezworth wrote:
And random is the opposite of narrative. It's like writing a screenplay mad lib style, it's absurd. No one writes a story with a D6, because it will be a terrible terrible terrible story.

I mean can you imagine the command channel for these cards "go secure that objective in the enemy zone, scratch that, have your nco's start fights they can't possibly win.. on second thought turn the army around and go back for the objective you just bypassed... wait wait have your men kill something, I don't really care what, it will pleaes me. Now if you'll excuse me, my crack pipe needs me"

How long before the troops just stop listening, drop the vox and pray to the immortal god emperor that lord commander ford will just check into rehab?





We have only scratched the surface of the cards, granted and 1 of the 4 isn't terrible in that it at the very least interacts in some way with the scenario. Still no idea on if objective 3 will be placed somewhere specific or if it's literally just the 3rd objective to be placed. Some cards could be the same or potentially better.

None of that changes the fact that just randomly plopping them out over and over is a terrible mechanic, takes nothing into account and can easily just awarded victory points without even really incentivizing certain actions.

I can already think of better methods.

Here's one: shuffle the deck, deal 7 cards face down. At the top each turn, flip a card over. Both armies can make use of the card, but must do so in the turn alloted. Continue doing the same thing for all 5-7 turns of the game.

Even that suggestion still has to contend with the fact t hat any of those cards could still essentially just award free vp's without really having to do anything. The one balancing act is both players are aware, so for example if the stupid challenge card comes up, yeah, you might be screwed no matter what but you may also be able to factor the card into your decisions, perhaps ensuring your opponent has no viable close combats. If you see your opponent eyeing some objective you both know will reward bonus vp's for holding, you may be able to address that and vice versa. Still the problem that just flipping the card may just pretty much automatically reward you or your opponent with a free vp.

The only benefits to the method I suggested is, fewer overall vp's in play over the course of the game, so that hopefully the mission/scenario in play will still matter and transparency, you're not all of a sudden informed that some incredibly innocuous action on the part of your opponent has resulted in them receiving victory points.

Just because you draw the cards doesn't mean you have to go for them immediately that turn. Think of them as bonus objectives. You have your main objective and then a few that come up as the game progresses.

Champions of Chaos rule for the win!

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

You cant KILL the damn thing, even with a nuke, and that's silly, but otherwise its logical.
You need to delve deep into the logical process, yes, but there IS a final conclusion on how it works that you really can't get wrong without warping whats written.

The Skyshield is commonly regarded as one the most illogical collection of rules in 6th.

Wait, weren't you the guy claiming that Wave Serpents or Riptides weren't op?

Never said anything about the wave serpents not being OP, as for riptides, it might be taken a bit out of context.

I said the problem lies not in the riptide itself, but in the ion accelerator, and without THAT, the riptide is ok.


Back to skysheild, while highly illogical as to the WHY on earth it works the way it works, the HOW it works seems pretty clear, at least to me and the people I play with. we never had trouble there. (not that he is that much of a common sight)

 Xerics wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
And random is the opposite of narrative. It's like writing a screenplay mad lib style, it's absurd. No one writes a story with a D6, because it will be a terrible terrible terrible story.

I mean can you imagine the command channel for these cards "go secure that objective in the enemy zone, scratch that, have your nco's start fights they can't possibly win.. on second thought turn the army around and go back for the objective you just bypassed... wait wait have your men kill something, I don't really care what, it will pleaes me. Now if you'll excuse me, my crack pipe needs me"

How long before the troops just stop listening, drop the vox and pray to the immortal god emperor that lord commander ford will just check into rehab?





We have only scratched the surface of the cards, granted and 1 of the 4 isn't terrible in that it at the very least interacts in some way with the scenario. Still no idea on if objective 3 will be placed somewhere specific or if it's literally just the 3rd objective to be placed. Some cards could be the same or potentially better.

None of that changes the fact that just randomly plopping them out over and over is a terrible mechanic, takes nothing into account and can easily just awarded victory points without even really incentivizing certain actions.

I can already think of better methods.

Here's one: shuffle the deck, deal 7 cards face down. At the top each turn, flip a card over. Both armies can make use of the card, but must do so in the turn alloted. Continue doing the same thing for all 5-7 turns of the game.

Even that suggestion still has to contend with the fact t hat any of those cards could still essentially just award free vp's without really having to do anything. The one balancing act is both players are aware, so for example if the stupid challenge card comes up, yeah, you might be screwed no matter what but you may also be able to factor the card into your decisions, perhaps ensuring your opponent has no viable close combats. If you see your opponent eyeing some objective you both know will reward bonus vp's for holding, you may be able to address that and vice versa. Still the problem that just flipping the card may just pretty much automatically reward you or your opponent with a free vp.

The only benefits to the method I suggested is, fewer overall vp's in play over the course of the game, so that hopefully the mission/scenario in play will still matter and transparency, you're not all of a sudden informed that some incredibly innocuous action on the part of your opponent has resulted in them receiving victory points.

Just because you draw the cards doesn't mean you have to go for them immediately that turn. Think of them as bonus objectives. You have your main objective and then a few that come up as the game progresses.

I'm starting to think you haven't read the original post...