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.

Guys, just wanted to add a few more things here. Not responding to anyone in particular, more to general sentiments.

First, let's discuss what I will call the "plight of the fluffy player". There seems to be some thought that fluff-driven players are getting totally screwed in 7th edition, and that every army will be like the one i proposed in my OP (which i was hesitant to do, because it should be obvious that that was just one silly example and certainly not something that every army would even consider taking). The truth is that purely fluff-driven players have often found that their lists are not completely optimized within a rule system, because in 40K fluff often revolves around a certain factions specialties and weaknesses, meaning that most fluff armies will necessarily have those same strengths and weaknesses.

7th edition actually opens up more options for fluff-driven armies in two important ways. First, by throwing the limitations of the force-org chart out the window, you now have a sanctioned framework to build an army as fluffy as you like. Did you ever want to build a strike-force of Ultramarines Terminators backed up by Vindicators and Librarian Tigurius, but didn't want to proxy using Deathwing rules or have to ask an opponents permission to break the force-org chart? Now you can.

7th edition also makes fluff armies more competitive. People who rebelled against allies but felt some offense at the fact that they opened up more force-org options can rejoice. Now, even if your best units are highly concentrated in one or two slots, you can easily build a battle-forged army that allows you to use all of your goodies. Sure, you can spam things, but you can also create potent, well-rounded armies without feeling like people who use allies have one over on you.

Now let's talk about the psychic phase, which people seem to have an issue with because certain armies can press the advantage there to a greater extent than other armies. I touched on this in the OP, but just to reiterate, there is one variation of one army in the entire game that can do the thing everyone is terrified of. That army has to render itself completely impotent in the early game in order to build up a frightening number of summoned Daemons. As someone else pointed out, even in the Frontline video that has scared the bejeesus out of everyone the Daemons still lost.

Also, I just have to say from a fluff perspective, why wouldn't Tzeentch control the Psychic Phase compared to the likes of Tau, Necrons, or Imperial Guard (or anyone else for that matter, bar Eldar)? Their fluff positions them as the masters of psychic power. They are literally made of charged psychic matter. They certainly don't control the shooting, movement, or assault phases, even with their summoned Daemon buddies.

For those suggesting that the addition of new options somehow decreases the number of competitive options...I just don't buy it. First off, even with Unbound armies, there are heavy restrictions. The two most important are points and allies interactions. I am not concerned about facing down these "Killer Combos" that have to deploy 12" away from each other and can't move within 6" of each other without potentially debilitating themselves and can't score effectively.

Finally, I certainly believe that GW has made some of the changes they've made to make money. I don't blame them for that, though I do think some of their methods are unsavory. That being said, I don't think they're going to making a killing off of new players buying one or two additional codexes to field allies. And as far as the whole Escalation/Lord of War thing goes, the argument always fails to take into consideration that people have wanted to include superheavy units in games outside of Apocalypse, which for my area anyway are almost always few and far between. With the nerfs to D Weapons in 7th I don't even think they are that scary anymore.

So, again, it is a different game. One that not everyone has to enjoy or agree with. But any claims that the game is somehow "worse" now is entirely subjective. It is simply different, and everything else is opinion.

Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.

The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.

Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.

Wonderful.

7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.

No Fun

Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.

Might be fun.

Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.

 ArmyC wrote:
Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.

The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.

Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.

Wonderful.

7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.

No Fun

Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.

Might be fun.

Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.

I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.

How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?

PhantomViper wrote:

 ArmyC wrote:
Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.

The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.

Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.

Wonderful.

7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.

No Fun

Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.

Might be fun.

Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.

I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.

How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?

Here's the thing, though.Seasoned tournament players playing tournament lists will win just about every game they play against random "pick-up game" opponents. That has nothing to do with 7th edition. That's been the case in every edition, and for every tabletop war game that I can think of.

So the auther of the thread wants me to believe that the only solution is to list build to counter every OP combo we come accross?

1. How does that make us (players who want a tactical challange and fun game) any better than the people who WAAC. The answer is it doesn't.
2. most people lack the models and money (one of the follies that restrict recriutment into the game) to make that happen

Ok so you list build to kill the deamon factory maybe even without using a deamon factory, what exactly have you proved? anything? nothing is more like it....very few forged armies have a chance againts deamon factory. There are a few I agree

Many of us are stuck on the idea of single force organization or forged armies because thats what makes a fun and tactical game....not the super uber poop lists like deamon factory. Yes it is a poop list, and I will not play it or anyone who builds a OP list again.

Here is what will happen at my LFGS when ask to play from a deamon factory of some other combo that breaks/warps the rules into a one way game.....extend my hand to shake his and say "congratulations you win, not going to waste my time not having fun"

If that makes me a jerk (or a worse word), well then there are several of us at my LFGS


[not a personal attack just disagree totally with you thats all.

 Bludbaff wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?

Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.

People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.

Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.

Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.

Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.

Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.

Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.

Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?

^This.

By banning the handful broken things, you get a plethora of possibilities.

For every broken unit/rule taken down, a score of new units/lists become viable all of a sudden.

Another example of the same reasoning: by banning a few TFG players when their behaviour is unacceptable, the rest of the players are able to enjoy the game, so they keep playing and attrack new players.

Allowing something that is hurtful is not a good idea. Restrictions exist for a reason.

Why fix the game when we can just level insults at our fellow gamers, that should fix it. - the ideology of a 5 year old

Will keep it short, played for a long time, just finished reading 7th rules:

1) Pickup games suck, the combinations of power levels have escalated so it is that much easier "bringing a knife to a gun fight".
2) "Fluff" has suffered: bitter enemies can be fighting together on a whim, demons can be universally summoned where whole planets were destroyed to hide their existence. But hey, you can bring pretty much anything so you can act out the most outlandish of stories.
3) The changing objectives become as much of a game loser as who goes first or what army list you selected.
4) I have easily over 6 different armies, not many can say that. I can "neck beard" the hell out of people with selection that would cost a freaking fortune for anyone starting out. It is looking more like pay to win which is how GW likes it. <edit> Forgot all the buildings and terrain... Fortress of Redemption anyone?
5) The only way this game now seems to work is crafting scenarios, that is not for everyone (I am OK with it but not so good for playing new people).

<edit2> Guess I am trying to get at that "tactical challenge" is a bit of a joke, army selection and MORE random elements that impact winning has made it even less competitive a game. It truly should be sold as a mass, highly detailed RPG game.

I will now go through my list of stuff and see what would be the most unholy combination of models I can find (Baneblade, Shadowsword, Imperial Knight, Grey Knights, Inquisitors, IG/AM, CSM, Daemons, BT)

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
So the auther of the thread wants me to believe that the only solution is to list build to counter every OP combo we come accross?

1. How does that make us (players who want a tactical challange and fun game) any better than the people who WAAC. The answer is it doesn't.
2. most people lack the models and money (one of the follies that restrict recriutment into the game) to make that happen

Ok so you list build to kill the deamon factory maybe even without using a deamon factory, what exactly have you proved? anything? nothing is more like it....very few forged armies have a chance againts deamon factory. There are a few I agree

Many of us are stuck on the idea of single force organization or forged armies because thats what makes a fun and tactical game....not the super uber poop lists like deamon factory. Yes it is a poop list, and I will not play it or anyone who builds a OP list again.

Here is what will happen at my LFGS when ask to play from a deamon factory of some other combo that breaks/warps the rules into a one way game.....extend my hand to shake his and say "congratulations you win, not going to waste my time not having fun"

If that makes me a jerk (or a worse word), well then there are several of us at my LFGS


[not a personal attack just disagree totally with you thats all.

I definitely don't take this as a personal attack, but I also think you missed the point of my post.

My point is not that you should counter WAAC or cheesy armies with even more WAAC or cheesy armies, but rather just stating that we are selectively looking at some of the more seemingly powerful builds that arose out of 7th through the lens of 6th edition limitations. If we are going to condemn 7th because of some of the issues that arise, I think its only fair we try to redeem it with the options available to us as well.

If you personally believe that tactics only exist in a game played with a single force-org chart, and that anything that doesn't meet that restriction can't be played strategically or tactically, then you are absolutely correct in saying 7th is not for you. I do not personally agree with that sentiment at all, because I think if anything 7th has opened up the possibility for a dramatically larger number of tactics and strategies.

themadlbb wrote:
(stuff about 'fluffy' players)

I would like to point out that I think you are wrong. This is just an opinion, of course, and I guess you are probably right in other things. But in this specific thing you are utterly, completely wrong.

As a 'fluffy' player, I want 'fluffy' rules. I want to read the rule and think 'yeah, that is exactly the way it would happen in the background'. I don´t think about if it is competitive or not. If I read about Farseers invoking Daemons and using them in battle I don´t start trying to imagine some extremely odd situation where this insane abomination is possible, I just start feeling something inside me hurting. I hate it when it happen, and the 7th edition is almost unbearable in this regard. The butchering in the background section, the 'do what you want!' rules and the dwindling relation between the rules and the setting make me feel that I am not 'bringing the universe of warhammer 40000 to live', I am just pushing some plastic models from here to there. And since I am not into competition, that makes me really sad. 6th and 7th have been like seeing an old friend dying.

(not that this stops me from playing though, I think I am becoming a masochist)

 da001 wrote:

 Bludbaff wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?

Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.

People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.

Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.

Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.

Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.

Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.

Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.

Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?

^This.

By banning the handful broken things, you get a plethora of possibilities.

For every broken unit/rule taken down, a score of new units/lists become viable all of a sudden.

Another example of the same reasoning: by banning a few TFG players when their behaviour is unacceptable, the rest of the players are able to enjoy the game, so they keep playing and attrack new players.

Allowing something that is hurtful is not a good idea. Restrictions exist for a reason.

But this assumes that there existed a state of 40K where there were no OP units or lists. A counter-argument to your point might be: once you remove one layer of cheese, you open up the door for different levels of cheese.

But in any case, this again is not an issue of 7th. It is an issue for any game that offers variety in units and army composition. O'vesa Star, Screamerstar, Seerstar were broken right before 7th dropped. Farsun Bomb and Cron Air were broken before that. Draigowing and Psyback Spam before that. Leafblower and Nidzilla before that. Nob Bikerz before that.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

As of right now, the "Broken" army is Daemon Clown Car. To be honest, that is not all that scary given the new tools at our disposal. I'm sure there will be more broken armies after that that make Clown Car seem like a joke. There will always, always be ways to break this game. 7th has just given us the opportunity for quite a bit more variety.

"It is impossible to design a car that can completely eliminate fatalities from car crashes. Therefore we should not care if a badly designed car has higher fatality rates."

themadlbb wrote:
If you personally believe that tactics only exist in a game played with a single force-org chart, and that anything that doesn't meet that restriction can't be played strategically or tactically, then you are absolutely correct in saying 7th is not for you. I do not personally agree with that sentiment at all, because I think if anything 7th has opened up the possibility for a dramatically larger number of tactics and strategies.

The problem is the game is a combination of rules.
Do not look through the lens of only the changes to force organization.
Just the change for objectives and victory points have an extra random element added.
YES "tactics" will be more... frantic as they change during a game and pretty much throws "strategy" out the window.

The problem is they keep hammering "forge the narrative" and this is just a whole bunch of discrete parts we slap together supposedly to try out some new mixing and matching options for the win.

I find the proposed acceptance of this new paradigm silly in the extreme when applied to pick-up games or tournaments since the assumption of a reasonably matched force based on points is rather comical.

themadlbb wrote:
(...)
But this assumes that there existed a state of 40K where there were no OP units or lists. A counter-argument to your point might be: once you remove one layer of cheese, you open up the door for different levels of cheese.

But in any case, this again is not an issue of 7th. It is an issue for any game that offers variety in units and army composition. O'vesa Star, Screamerstar, Seerstar were broken right before 7th dropped. Farsun Bomb and Cron Air were broken before that. Draigowing and Psyback Spam before that. Leafblower and Nidzilla before that. Nob Bikerz before that.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

As of right now, the "Broken" army is Daemon Clown Car. To be honest, that is not all that scary given the new tools at our disposal. I'm sure there will be more broken armies after that that make Clown Car seem like a joke. There will always, always be ways to break this game. 7th has just given us the opportunity for quite a bit more variety.

Nope. The balance is broken and a broken balance kills the variety.

Also, I think your reasoning is wrong. It is not a matter of getting a 'perfect state' in 40k.

It is all a matter of how wide is the gap between a top list and a bottom list. It doesn´t matter if there is a small difference between army A and army B. It matters when the difference is so big that list B has no choice. It matters when the gap is so big it kills the fun for most players.

And getting more playable lists is an improvement in itself . To achieve for perfection is indeed foolish. We should try to improve the game for the sake of improvement itself, not because we are aiming for a 'perfect' situation.

To use again the 'banning people' example: by banning the player who randomly attacks other players with a knife, we improve the environment. Saying that it would be better to accept him because otherwise we should start talking about the 'no-shower' guy makes no sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:
"It is impossible to design a car that can completely eliminate fatalities from car crashes. Therefore we should not care if a badly designed car has higher fatality rates."

^Same thing I said, with less words.

The worst thing that could happen is that the "everything is included" means that people can do whatever they want from a casual perspective and abuse it without recourse. If you have players who value winning at all costs, they will reach a point where either other players will adapt or they lose the support base to play against. That's fine. That's life. You get to pick your friends and your hobbies and who you want to play with. I'd be fine with everything goes but within a restraint consideration mode.

What will really hurt is in the tournament scene. The end game is competitive players narrowing their selections to the extreme point of picking from a limited pool of models they feel represents the best choices and the best combos. I don't want to go to an Unbound tournament and see mash ups of Tau/Eldar/Inquisition/Imperial Knights fielding a single Servo Skull Inquisitior, Riptides supported by Markerlights, Eldar Seer Councils, and backed by a beastly Imperial Knight or two in half the armies I see and 30+ Warp Point generated Daemon summoning armies in the other half.

GW has handed the keys to the future of Warhammer 40k to the players and it is up to us to make the adjustments.

I enact my GW-given right to refuse to play against any list or unit I want... for good!

themadlbb wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 ArmyC wrote:
Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.

The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.

Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.

Wonderful.

7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.

No Fun

Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.

Might be fun.

Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.

I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.

How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?

Here's the thing, though.Seasoned tournament players playing tournament lists will win just about every game they play against random "pick-up game" opponents. That has nothing to do with 7th edition. That's been the case in every edition, and for every tabletop war game that I can think of.

I can think of several where this isn't true. I mostly play pickup games a few times a month as well. I win most of them also. 40k is dead in my area(dying in your area as well) we play a lot of Warhmachine. I play three factions and win with solid tactics most of the time.

Not so for 40k 7th ed the cutes and ladders edition.

 WarOne wrote:
The worst thing that could happen is that the "everything is included" means that people can do whatever they want from a casual perspective and abuse it without recourse. If you have players who value winning at all costs, they will reach a point where either other players will adapt or they lose the support base to play against. That's fine. That's life. You get to pick your friends and your hobbies and who you want to play with. I'd be fine with everything goes but within a restraint consideration mode.

What will really hurt is in the tournament scene. The end game is competitive players narrowing their selections to the extreme point of picking from a limited pool of models they feel represents the best choices and the best combos. I don't want to go to an Unbound tournament and see mash ups of Tau/Eldar/Inquisition/Imperial Knights fielding a single Servo Skull Inquisitior, Riptides supported by Markerlights, Eldar Seer Councils, and backed by a beastly Imperial Knight or two in half the armies I see and 30+ Warp Point generated Daemon summoning armies in the other half.

I don´t think the tournament scene will suffer: the TO writes down some extra rules, perhaps after doing some surveys among the players, and the people going there abide by the rules. It was already needed in 6th.

I don´t see where lies the problem. (coming to think of it, this is probably because I know nothing about tournaments)

Anyway, I think the short end of the stick goes to the 'casual' player, the player who goes to one place to find a stranger to play with. A casual player can bring a list to a place and find out no one plays with him. This is already a problem and it is getting worse.

It's interesting how a lot of posts seem to miss the point of the thread by looking at 7th thorough 6th ed point of view.

In particular a number of posters say:

-"allowing everything will lead to abuse", demonfactory is game breaking. Exactly the same thing has happened in every edition release - there are a small number of net lists from a couple of codexes which are highly overpowered compared to every other list. The difference with 7th is that this spam effect can now come from every codex, not just the latest one.

-"Restrictions are necessary to balance the armies". Fallacy. Restrictions simply create new kings of the castle. And there won't be "more variety" because powergames will always focus on the top 2/3. 7th gives more variety because every codex *could* spam their best unit(s). But that unit(s) is different in every codex and has differing tactical counters.

- there are a lot of concerns expressed about cost of entry and how new players won't play because they can't afford to buy the books. I disagree with this completely. The number of rules applicable to an individual model is small and quickly become widely known. It is certainly not what GW would prefer, but in the real world people are not going to buy an entire codex to get the rules for a riptide/wraithknight/shiny model. They might buy it for the contained fluff or if they really like the army and plan to add more models.

- getting pickup games might be harder. However, people showing up in 6e with triptide/tripdrake/seer council/taudar weren't exactly the most popular people were they? I agree this can and probably will continue to happen, but hopefully the wider player base will get used to playing a wider variety of lists.

- There are new missions. Remember, in the Frontline Demonfactory game, the Demon player LOST. Setting up a list to be able to capture objectives fast is going to be far more important than bringing x excessively powered non troop models.

Overall, it is somewhat disheartening that the general assumption is that 40k wargamers will actively try to break the game and we will all rush out and buy demons. I'm sure there is a small minority who will do that because there always is.

But there are a lot of gamers that won't, hopefully the majority. I'm not. Anyone in Perth, Australia, is welcome to PM me and I'll play a maelstrom mission against any list you bring.

Except the new missions will likely be banned because they are absolutely horridly broken in every way.

Really? Based on what evidence? Two battle reports from Frontline gaming?

There is certainly a tweak required to enable a player with unusable tactical objectives to discard them and draw new ones, but other than that in my games so far they have been great.

They go a long way towards making the game more dynamic.

I like the concept, don't get me wrong, but they are very messy. They are unequal, uneven, random for random sake, and more random. They can give you d3 points when it should either be a solid 2 or 3 and will require things like: Cast a spell! which is easy for one army and worthless for another and so on. It doesn't help the objectives opt for the same thing. Capture this random objectives. Overall it's just silly with rewards for meaninglessly trivial things. Great concept, terrible execution.

On a side note, they are great inspiration.

 Accolade wrote:

 AesSedai wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For myself, I am not interested in a play style in which there are no restrictions. The tactical interest comes from the limitations you have to work within and try to transcend.

When you can do that by pic'n'mixing any units at all, there is no meaning to the game. It becomes a dice fest, especially when random changing objectives are added.

So yes, a paradigm shift to what is IMO a very bad paradigm that I reject. I also rejected the start of this move in 6th edition -- D weapons, Allies, etc. These things are designed mainly to sell more models, not because they improve the game.

The way forwards for players like me is to ignore and/or reject/ban the new stuff that has been crammed into the rules and strip it back to the core essentials. This is fairly simple to do, in fact, and the only problem is that rather than simply not playing optional add-ons, like Apocalypse used to be, we are being cast in the role of joyless nay-sayers stopping other players from having their legitimate fun.

This is exactly the way I feel. GW has been cannabalizing 40k for the sake of pushing models. I reject their attempts to sell me gak I don't need. No SA, no escalation, no double FOC, no unbound, no armies spawning armies, no forge world, no lords or war in "normal" 40k. 1 FOC + 1 ally OR formation/dataslate is plenty for me.

I have to piggyback on these comments. Love or hate the new rules, I think that it is clear the rules are becoming more and more of a vehicle just to sell models.

Apocalypse already existed to allow for superheavies, but when GW didn't feel like they were moving enough Baneblades they bumped the superheavy rules into a new expansion (Apocalypse-lite with a new nice price tag) then insisted these rules were core to the game at all times. A new book was required to play these units, and superheavies had the nice benefit of devaluing core troops whose battlefield roles shrank as they were going up against significantly more powerful units (thus needing more troops to be effective at their previous role).

And I feel like this has to be said- GW's intention on adding in more allies, formation, superheavies is for you to buy more books. I keep seeing people say "just get the rules from...places.' I don't think stealing the rules (or copying them from a buddy) is a good solution and is certainly the opposite of what GW is trying to foster by adding in all this content. Unbound is the next step in this thought process-
Okay, I want to use a Riptide, an Imperial Knight, and some Imperial Guard for my Tau robot force, I just need the Imperial Knights, the Tau Empire, and Astra Militarum books, so $150 in rules (not including the Escalation book).

Some people might like all this extra content, but I think it imposes a stark wall against anyone wanting to start playing the game. And what we end up with is veteran players who don't mind spending an extra $50 a month on a new rulebook here or there, but no new people and a continually dwindling game.

I cannot exalt this enough. It's exactly how I feel only stated clearly and level headed.
The new edition is neither conducive to fair games, fluffy armies and it makes collecting armies more of the game than actually playing it.
There are too many OP units that ruin the game. For example, a Transcendent C'Tan, put that in a normal game of 1850 against a tac list. It will dominate the game make the game one sided.
In -another game which I won't name- you can add in super heavies without gross imbalances. It just means you have less units but the same power level. It's fair and not OP so you don't get people rejecting playing games against them. Thus, you get to play the models you like rather than the models your opponent allows you to play.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.....Hold on there..........did you just say games Workshop, a company that operates on the basis of selling toy soldiers.....MAKES RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING MORE TOY SOLDIERS!!!!! :O

Mind totally blown.

How dare they make rules for a game whose sole purpose is to facilitate selling more cool toy soldiers help sell more toy soldiers. GET YER torch and pitchforks gents it's time for a good ol fashioned mob to storm GW.

Alright....I'll stop with the troll like sarcasm now...but really guys? As for the C'tan thing...isn't that like a minimum of 600-700 points? So it's a third of your army....and therefore you have less models than your opponent but the same power level...you know like that other game? Has it really come down to just blind flailing about complaining about anything and everything until something sticks? You name me one model company that doesn't make rules for the purpose of selling models and I'll mail you a cookie.

Orktavius wrote:
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.....Hold on there..........did you just say games Workshop, a company that operates on the basis of selling toy soldiers.....MAKES RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING MORE TOY SOLDIERS!!!!! :O

Mind totally blown.

How dare they make rules for a game whose sole purpose is to facilitate selling more cool toy soldiers help sell more toy soldiers. GET YER torch and pitchforks gents it's time for a good ol fashioned mob to storm GW.

Alright....I'll stop with the troll like sarcasm now...but really guys?

Really.

MMO companies are in the business of making money as well. Some have attempted to do so by implementing pay-to-win paradigms, which is more or less the profile that Games Workship is pursuing.

Others learned that you are far more successful making a fun, engaging, balanced game that a lot of people want to play, thus growing your customer base, rather than creating a small, niche, self-cannibalizing game that's dependent on your static or shrinking customer base spending more and more money to remain competitive.

I cannot exalt this enough. It's exactly how I feel only stated clearly and level headed.
The new edition is neither conducive to fair games, fluffy armies and it makes collecting armies more of the game than actually playing it.
There are too many OP units that ruin the game. For example, a Transcendent C'Tan, put that in a normal game of 1850 against a tac list. It will dominate the game make the game one sided.
In -another game which I won't name- you can add in super heavies without gross imbalances. It just means you have less units but the same power level. It's fair and not OP so you don't get people rejecting playing games against them. Thus, you get to play the models you like rather than the models your opponent allows you to play.

I'm gonna go ahead and counter this with my own opinion that the new edition actually lets you play bigger games without having to buy new models, and in fact reduces the amount of models you have to buy. If Unbound were really just a toy advertisement to rake in more cash, then there would have been some stipulation that adding whatever you wanted meant you needed to include additional models just to have them.

You know, like 6th edition and the '2 troops and an HQ' tax.

Now? You can throw whatever you want in there without having to buy a couple boxes of troop choices and an expensive HQ just to play the game. You can play the game with the cheapest boxes on the shelf if you wanted. You can make anyone your HQ. How exactly is this a money grab? I mean, holy crap there's plenty of things to complain about in regards to GW, find something a little more solid.

BTW I'm not directing this at the above quote, it's just a common complain I keep seeing about this edition when it's pretty much the farthest thing from the truth in my possibly completely wrong opinion (impcwo).

Why are we speaking as though Unbound armies are the only way to throw whatever models you want into a game regardless of how little sense it would make to have the two (or three...or four) factions allying together?

Battle-Forged armies allow you almost as much flexibility to rape the fluff as Unbound armies do. You can make a perfectly legit Battle-Forged Grey Knights/Chaos Daemon list.

People arguing for that kind of freedom aren't people I take seriously.

Orktavius wrote:
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.....Hold on there..........did you just say games Workshop, a company that operates on the basis of selling toy soldiers.....MAKES RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING MORE TOY SOLDIERS!!!!! :O

Mind totally blown.

How dare they make rules for a game whose sole purpose is to facilitate selling more cool toy soldiers help sell more toy soldiers. GET YER torch and pitchforks gents it's time for a good ol fashioned mob to storm GW.

Alright....I'll stop with the troll like sarcasm now...but really guys? As for the C'tan thing...isn't that like a minimum of 600-700 points? So it's a third of your army....and therefore you have less models than your opponent but the same power level...you know like that other game? Has it really come down to just blind flailing about complaining about anything and everything until something sticks? You name me one model company that doesn't make rules for the purpose of selling models and I'll mail you a cookie.

Whoa whoa whoa!
Way to just totally like not even understand what I was talking about bro.
Okay, annoying ignorant troll voice off.
I'm saying that the rules suffer because their main purpose is to sell models, not create an entertaining game. That's my problem with it. Ironically, if they did that, their shares wouldn't be dropping like they are and you'd see more people actually playing 40k.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?

Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.

People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.

here is a menu that has more options:

aids
cancer
broken glass
syphilis
rotten eggs
month old potatoe salad
human flesh
steak and French fries

here is one with fewer

aids
cancer
rotten eggs
steak and French fries

-------------------------------

Did more options help? Why is it I think I am able to predict what most players would like to eat for supper in both instances?




And question for the op: Have you ever played apocalypse? I think you'd love it.

Surprisingly, that has a lot more meaningful choices than 7th edition 40k.

LOL! Seriously? Because of 7th ed, there is only 1 viable codex? Just out of curiosity, which one is it, in your opinion?