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.

Personally I think a good house rule to fix the cards is this:

Each player draws 5 cards at the start of the game; if any cards are unobtainable (e.g. kill a flyer, and your opponent has no flyers) you may immediately discard that card and draw another. You do not draw cards during the course of the game at all, instead the cards you have represent your army's secondary orders in addition to completing the mission selected.

This puts the cards closer to the 2nd edition Mission Cards and offer extra objectives that you can achieve.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Personally I think a good house rule to fix the cards is this:

Each player draws 5 cards at the start of the game; if any cards are unobtainable (e.g. kill a flyer, and your opponent has no flyers) you may immediately discard that card and draw another. You do not draw cards during the course of the game at all, instead the cards you have represent your army's secondary orders in addition to completing the mission selected.

This puts the cards closer to the 2nd edition Mission Cards and offer extra objectives that you can achieve.

I've been using the cards and I think the current setup is pretty good. Without drawing cards throughout the coarse of the game, we get back to same old --> only the final turn matters issue.

If you draw a bad card remember you can always discard one per turn anyway.

Hah, I bought the rulebook today and.. I must say I'm pretty excited. Of course my reasons to get happy about it may vary from your opinions and as opinions go, my opinion is my own, but yeah. So here's a few things that struck me as really nice change from 6th:

- FOC changes. Yes, really. I really dig the idea of being able to make more relaxed armies with Battle-Forged and have the(now official) ability to play whatever you want with Unbound. Fluffy armies are more possible than ever and some new opportunities have been created such as Word Bearers CSM summoning daemons. Extra awesome when used in moderation.

- Balance tweaks. Yeah, those little tweaks such as vehicle chart, (some of) the allies chart changes(no more Taudar for example), D-weapon rebalances, jink saves and so on. I think the game gained more than it lost in the change.

- Tactical Objective cards.Yepp, I love them! And I play gunline-ish Tau! Can't wait to put some pulse carbine FWs in devilfish transports and race them around the table to do the random card objectives - that really sounds like a lot of fun instead of that old "grab objective by turn 5/6 or table the opponent". I mean.. I can always play regular elimination game if I want - the objectives add another layer of random fun and.. really tests me as a general by checking if I can react properly to various stuff happening on the table AND watch my opponent.

-The possibilities and.. change. Lots of stuff will change now with new FOC idea, new scoring rules, new psychic stuff as lists will be tailored for 7th edition and shift from the old, worn-out and stagnant style of army building.

Now don't get me wrong, old sports, I ain't saying that 7th is purely good changes as our dear cheese factory workers will sooner or later come up with broken netlists that'll ruin fun for some people, but I don't really care because my group is a bunch of reasonable grown-ups that don't act like 12 yo's with issues, so I get my perfect spherical gaming fun in a vacuum where most people care more about common fun and fluffy lists than winning at all cost as that'd cost them a few friends after some time. Nobody likes douchebags anyway. And if someone's list is powerful even though it's fluffy, then we figure out some kind of handicap for those whose lists are much weaker.

I think I'm gonna like it. Been playing off and on since 2001.

My mom likes the IG tanks, and Unbound will give us an opportunity to have a nice battle with my infantry+tanks against an army of tanks. Or hell, even tanks vs tanks with no infantry at all would be kinda neat. : D

I know we could do it before with stuff like Spearhead and Apocalypse, but this gives us a legitimate way to do it without having to resort to an expansion or house rules.

 Pouncey wrote:
I think I'm gonna like it. Been playing off and on since 2001.

My mom likes the IG tanks, and Unbound will give us an opportunity to have a nice battle with my infantry+tanks against an army of tanks. Or hell, even tanks vs tanks with no infantry at all would be kinda neat. : D

I know we could do it before with stuff like Spearhead and Apocalypse, but this gives us a legitimate way to do it without having to resort to an expansion or house rules.

Your.. mom? That's actually awesome.

As for tanks vs tanks, you can always make a tiny exception for veterans in chimeras and never disembark them. This way you'll have even more various vehicles with various loadouts on the table! Then you could slap some meltas or even heavy weapons into them.

 Klerych wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I think I'm gonna like it. Been playing off and on since 2001.

My mom likes the IG tanks, and Unbound will give us an opportunity to have a nice battle with my infantry+tanks against an army of tanks. Or hell, even tanks vs tanks with no infantry at all would be kinda neat. : D

I know we could do it before with stuff like Spearhead and Apocalypse, but this gives us a legitimate way to do it without having to resort to an expansion or house rules.

Your.. mom? That's actually awesome.

As for tanks vs tanks, you can always make a tiny exception for veterans in chimeras and never disembark them. This way you'll have even more various vehicles with various loadouts on the table! Then you could slap some meltas or even heavy weapons into them.

My parents met while playing board games (Axis&Allies and such) and AD&D at the strategy club at their college.

Would be nifty. : D I also have a Baneblade that has never seen a single dice roll.

She doesn't like how the blast templates seem to scatter off-target so much, but she's only used the Leman Russes in one game so far. Might see about trying out an Exterminator for anti-tank (she keeps shooting her Demolisher and Battle Cannons at my tanks when there are footslogging power armored infantry in sight, but it WAS her first game with IG) and maybe an Executioner with Plasma Cannon sponsons to really melt the hell out of a squad or two of Space Marines (poor dice on scatter won't matter as much when you've got 5 chances to roll well with pretty much the same effect as a Battle Cannon, minus area). And if I seem vicious towards my own troops, it's because games are more fun when both sides are slaughtering each other. : D

WayneTheGame wrote:
Personally I think a good house rule to fix the cards is this:

Each player draws 5 cards at the start of the game; if any cards are unobtainable (e.g. kill a flyer, and your opponent has no flyers) you may immediately discard that card and draw another. You do not draw cards during the course of the game at all, instead the cards you have represent your army's secondary orders in addition to completing the mission selected.

This puts the cards closer to the 2nd edition Mission Cards and offer extra objectives that you can achieve.

Would definitely be a better way to play than drawing during the game, for reasons discussed int he tactics card thread.

We're running a team RTT on Tuesday. I think we'll use a lightly modified deck and see how it goes. Pretty small, 4 teams of 2.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It kind of seems to me that they write the game on the assumption that everyone plays in the UK style "gaming club" where a lot of the possible issues can be alleviated. In fact, I'd wager since the GW staff seem to have that sort of club themselves, they are incapable of seeing any issues that arise with pick-up games to say nothing of competitive games (the last competitive person they had on the staff was I believe Alessio) which is where the issues arise. After all, if you play with a group of friends, nobody is going to be a jerk and bring some steamrolling list to crush everyone, but if you play against whoever turns up to the game store on miniatures night then you're at the mercy of whomever, and whatever they show up with so you might get stuck with TFG or you might not.

Not sure if anyone has posted this (haven't finished reading the thread), but I find it very interesting how they want the game to be played at Warhammer World:

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

 Kavish wrote:
If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.

Not for nothing, but chess has been around in its current form since 1475. Something tells me that Warhammer 40K isn't going to enjoy a 539 year run.

The power of good game design, I guess.

 Gangrel767 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
It kind of seems to me that they write the game on the assumption that everyone plays in the UK style "gaming club" where a lot of the possible issues can be alleviated. In fact, I'd wager since the GW staff seem to have that sort of club themselves, they are incapable of seeing any issues that arise with pick-up games to say nothing of competitive games (the last competitive person they had on the staff was I believe Alessio) which is where the issues arise. After all, if you play with a group of friends, nobody is going to be a jerk and bring some steamrolling list to crush everyone, but if you play against whoever turns up to the game store on miniatures night then you're at the mercy of whomever, and whatever they show up with so you might get stuck with TFG or you might not.

Not sure if anyone has posted this (haven't finished reading the thread), but I find it very interesting how they want the game to be played at Warhammer World:

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

The points values for armies shall remain the same (1,500).
We will be using the ‘Battle Forged’ rules to select armies, from page 117 of the rulebook.
You can only take the “Combined Arms” Detachment on page 122 once at a Throne of Skulls event.
There will be no other changes to the standard Battle-Forged rules.
We will be using the Eternal War missions as stated in the Events Pack.
WHW battle brothers warhammer 40,000 logo square

The points values for each team shall remain the same (1,500).
We will be using the ‘Battle Forged’ rules to select armies, from on page 117 of the rulebook.
Each team only take the “Combined Arms” Detachment on page 122 once at a Battle Brothers event.
There will be no other changes to the standard Battle-Forged rules.
We will be using the Eternal War missions as stated in the Events Pack.
WHW council of war warhammer 40,000 logo square

For the Singles Games on day one we will be using the following rules:

The points values for armies shall remain the same (1,500).
We will be using the ‘Battle Forged’ rules to select armies, from on page 117 of the rulebook.
You can only take the “Combined Arms” Detachment on page 122 once at a Council of War singles game.
There will be no other changes to the standard Battle-Forged rules.
We will be using the Eternal War missions as stated in the Events Pack.
For the Doubles Game on day one we will be using the following rules:

The points values for each team shall remain the same (1,500).
We will be using the ‘Battle Forged’ rules to select armies, from on page 117 of the rulebook.
Each team only take the “Combined Arms” Detachment on page 122 once at a Council of War event.
There will be no other changes to the standard Battle-Forged rules.
We will be using the Eternal War missions as stated in the Events Pack.
- See more at: http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/#sthash.E3hmHqbP.dpuf

Pretty revealing, really. See. Even the GW staff makes pretty close to the same changes most of us do when looking to run an event.

That's hilarious!

 Triton wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
If you want a perfectly balanced game that is all skill, then buy a chessboard and replace the pieces with 40k models.

Not for nothing, but chess has been around in its current form since 1475. Something tells me that Warhammer 40K isn't going to enjoy a 539 year run.

The power of good game design, I guess.

And yet there are still arguments raging to this day about whether or not the White player has an unfair advantage over Black.

Even when the sides are literally exactly the same, the game is unbalanced.

Just finished a team RTT with maelstrom of war missions. All random VPs where considered 2, reroll anything impossible, other than that follow a toned down general house rules earlier in this thread.

What a blast. Tons of fun. I think my club really likes 7th.