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.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
War Room (from Privateer Press) is most definitely not free, and quite pricey if you want all the factions... however there are free alternatives like Forward Kommander.

It's also completely optional though. I love Warroom, but you don't need to buy it to play. Also it's a one time payment and that's it, no subscription.

 Rork wrote:
But generally if you stick to your own army you're paying £5. It's not a major expense unless you really want all the factions. PP at least seem to make their output increasingly concrete while GW decide to get vaguer and vaguer with every release.

Both good points on War Room, and I've been meaning to get it... just felt a little wrong with how much it costs if I want to be able to see my opponent's rules, too. Just buying my own faction is a good idea... I think I'll do that

A monthly subscription for GW's sounds a lot worse, but also very salty... and perhaps just wishlisting that they will somehow add balance / point values when right now they're saying there are absolutely none needed.

 RiTides wrote:
Both good points on War Room, and I've been meaning to get it... just felt a little wrong with how much it costs if I want to be able to see my opponents rules, too. Just buying my own faction is a good idea... I think I'll do that tonight

I have all the factions on it, I just got one a month for a few months really. Works out a bit more expensive than the bundle but it's like one less magazine or something a month, I'm not sorry I got them haha.

But yeah the subscription does sound a bit like grasping at some last hope for points or a balancing system but this is GW so who knows!

Motograter wrote:
The paid monthly sub has fail written all over it. I subscribe for a month get all the points for my stuff and just cancel the subscription. Job done no cost to me. GW wont do that. Plus say I didn't cancel all that I then need to do is put the points online and no one else needs to subscribe. Sorry but this pay monthly thing is pure BS

While I agree with the last part if this rumor is true, the first part isn't necessarily correct. If the end result of calculating the "points" for balance is to result in a series of battle or victory conditions to "even out" the forces, they don't have to tell you squat actually. For instance, if your army is 10% "better" than the other guys, he gets an extra objective X to score for points. If your army is 20% "more", he gets a +1 to certain rolls on top of the extra objective. The TO's would enter in the armies and get the extra conditions for each game.

The other thing they could do is simply to give you the final value only of the whole army and/or institute a sliding scale for more of the same unit (a bloodthirster is Y pts but 2 bloodthirsters are 1.85xY pts). You could feasibly make individual armies of a single unit/warscroll/whatever to figure it out for each model in each army... which is borked as soon as they change something behind the scenes for "balance" or simply to mess with folks like you or you buy an additional model (meaning you'd have to get another month's subscription). It all depends on just how much control they want over the information.

Both of the above are simply conjecture to point out that subscribing for one month isn't the perfect solution it sounds like initially because we don't have really any of the details.

 streamdragon wrote:


1. We can make our own scenarios based on what? How do you build two balanced forces? There are pretty much 0 guidelines.

2. We don't even know that there are scenarios. There is pretty much 0 evidence for their existence beyond "if fate intervenes" (which could mean anything) when talking about units not making into deployment.

The same way historical wargamers and oldhammer players do it. Look at the stats and guess. It won't be perfectly balanced, but neither will points. I'm not saying it's an ideal solution for everyone, but that's how people have done it before and will do it again. Besides, we don't know for certain yet that there won't be any guidelines.

No, we don't know for certain there are scenarios. There might not be. This particular part of the discussion is concerned with "if there are scenarios and they're the assumed way to play, what do we do if we don't want to play the supplied scenarios".

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Both good points on War Room, and I've been meaning to get it... just felt a little wrong with how much it costs if I want to be able to see my opponents rules, too. Just buying my own faction is a good idea... I think I'll do that tonight

I have all the factions on it, I just got one a month for a few months really. Works out a bit more expensive than the bundle but it's like one less magazine or something a month, I'm not sorry I got them haha.

But yeah the subscription does sound a bit like grasping at some last hope for points or a balancing system but this is GW so who knows!

you know if they had a funding option for armies and gamesthat you actually wanted to see you know like nippon or SoB or necromunda 3.0 id be fine with that ( like KS) but this nope

In an earlier post, Flashman probably summed it up best.

If GW can't be bothered to make proper rules, then I can't be bothered to hand over my money.

No more needs to be said.

Farewell, fantasy, we had some good times. I'll miss you..

One rule conundrum seems to be the part about measuring from "the model". It's interesting that people seem to assume that "the model" and "the base" are different things. From what I can see the rules don't make this distinction. Read the rules and think that you do all measurements from the base; that makes sense.

And, if it's NOT supposed to mean "base", why have reach values for weapons?

 gorgon wrote:
Just playing devil's advocate, Dakka (for all its vast experience) also declared allies completely inappropriate for competitive 40K at the advent of 6th edition. Hell, there was also conversation about how Aegis lines would likely have to be houseruled to only be deployed in loops, etc. Ah, those broken, broken Aegis lines.

What, are you kidding? Allies were bad for the game, and still are. Hell, especially now, with IoM and Eldar armies being the only ones that can really take advantage of them.

Are you forgetting Taudar, too? The most-hated army build for months, made possible because of allies, and if I'm not mistaken it usually included an aegis line, too, just to annoy people further.

 gorgon wrote:
But with some playtesting, it didn't take long for opinions to shift. 40K may have jumped the shark to some degree in the time and edition since, but in retrospect there were many TAME changes in the transition from 5th to 6th that even experienced gamers kinda freaked out about unnecessarily at the time.

I don't think people shifted their opinions much, rather the ones that didn't leave decided to just shut up and deal with it if they wanted to keep playing the game at all. And it's not like all these guys running popular events are just going to up and quit, either, they'll make it work if they need to.

And yeah, those changes look tame now, after all the flying rodent gak insane stuff GW's been doing since then, but don't downplay it as if it wasn't really a big deal and everyone overreacted to nothing because it really did screw up the game. And it kept getting WORSE!

 gorgon wrote:
I don't think anyone can deny that there are some headscratching aspects to AoS. But some patience is needed IMO, especially since we don't and can't know if GW has plans or ideas for AoS going forward.

Of course, any request for patience in modern society will almost certainly be denied.

I'm starting to think the only thing that would appease you guys demanding "patience" is complete and utter silence until the big day. In which case, as I've been saying, we should stop pretending that this is a discussion and just lock it already so that no one can post their opinions. Really, whether positive OR negative, any opinion formed at this point is equally senseless because you simply have no fething clue how everything will play out until the release. If we're not allowed to talk about what we've seen, direct scans of the rules/scrolls, etc., then there's really nothing to talk about here. At all. For anyone.

But of course everyone's allowed to fawn over the models and praise GW for a game they know no more about than us "negative Nancies" do, but who are the ones that get called out for posting their opinions and told they need to stop, even though there's no rule against it? Every single time?

 unmercifulconker wrote:
One of the main aims for this revamp is to make the game more accessible, kids (parents) cant afford to buy 100+ skeletons and stuff.

Charges monthly for list building.

Well we don't know for sure that they actually are, but yeah, that would be like the cherry on top of this gak sundae for sure.

I don't mind helpful apps if they're not required to play the game. An army-building app is a cool idea. But intentionally leaving out points costs so you have to buy the app in order to play the game? Sounds really dickish even for GW, but I could see it happening. Because it's GW.

Anyway, I guess it is possible that the warscrolls will have points on them, and it's just the ones in the box that don't, assuming there are indeed scenarios in there that pretty much tell you what to play with like past starters. But then if you want to use the models in the box I assume you would need to have another set of scrolls for them, so you'd still have to get the "right" ones from GW's site then? What would the point be in putting scrolls in the box without points and then making ones later for the same models with all the same content on them that do have points, why not just put the ones with the points on them in there and tell the player "This is the unit's point cost, just ignore this for the time being" and have that be that? Won't that be kinda confusing for new players, too, thinking they already have what they need for their new faction and then finding out later they need new scrolls because they can't actually use those due to the lack of point costs?

 pinkmarine wrote:
One rule conundrum seems to be the part about measuring from "the model". It's interesting that people seem to assume that "the model" and "the base" are different things. From what I can see the rules don't make this distinction. Read the rules and think that you do all measurements from the base; that makes sense.

And, if it's NOT supposed to mean "base", why have reach values for weapons?

There's an "experienced player" assumption lurking here ...

Rules page 1 under "Warscrolls and Units". Last sentence. Bases exist purely to make your model stand up.

Sorry, it's under "Tools of War". Last sentence of the first paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Really, the whole "bases don't matter" is basically just the worst band-aid ever for the transition they wanted to make. They couldn't come up with a way to reconcile square bases vs round bases so they just said "frell it" and ignore bases all together.

migooo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Just playing devil's advocate, Dakka (for all its vast experience) also declared allies completely inappropriate for competitive 40K at the advent of 6th edition. Hell, there was also conversation about how Aegis lines would likely have to be houseruled to only be deployed in loops, etc. Ah, those broken, broken Aegis lines

I hear you, gorgon, but wasn't it the case that tournament organisers and people like Yakface had to do a major salvage job to correct 40k's flaws and make it ready for the tournament scene?

I keep using the car analogy, but if I buy a brand new car, I don't expect the salesman to tell me that' I'll have to replace the radiator, or fix the transmission or buy my own steering wheel!

There are tons of companies, with a fraction of GW's budget, who make tight rule sets year after year.

Why can't GW do this?

and do open beta tests.

No TO has "fixed" 40K. They each run what they want based on their own individual preferences. And the trend has undeniably been toward more allowance and not more restriction.


Open beta tests? As a nod to the fans and PR move, sure. As a means for actually improving the game...no. Can you imagine what the noise-to-signal ratio would be for that? It'd be like reopening the Eye of Terror.

I think just perusing current forums and generally listening to the buzz would accomplish the same thing as an open beta, without all the hassle. Then do closed beta testing with good players in whom you have confidence in their ability to deliver valuable, pertinent feedback.

I don't think GW's old playtesting formula was ever broken. My understanding was that even when playtesters felt strongly about something, the designers didn't always agree. And to be fair, the playtesters might not have been privy to the entire picture, nor any constraints that the designer(s) had to deal with.

IMO, the core 7th edition ruleset is quite strong. Others may disagree with that, but from my viewpoint most frustrations seem to be related to army construction -- multiple detachments, formations, etc. -- and the power level of a codex or two.

 streamdragon wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:
One rule conundrum seems to be the part about measuring from "the model". It's interesting that people seem to assume that "the model" and "the base" are different things. From what I can see the rules don't make this distinction. Read the rules and think that you do all measurements from the base; that makes sense.

And, if it's NOT supposed to mean "base", why have reach values for weapons?

There's an "experienced player" assumption lurking here ...

Rules page 1 under "Warscrolls and Units". Last sentence. Bases exist purely to make your model stand up.

Sorry, it's under "Tools of War". Last sentence of the first paragraph.

Ah, Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n ! Now that IS seriously weird. Thx for pointing it out (I'll blame reading it on my phone ...)

No problemo. Even with the rules being only 4 pages I've missed stuff. Like the enemy player picking your assassination target for Sudden Death. I thought the player with the least models chose it, but nope, the player with more does.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I'm starting to think the only thing that would appease you guys demanding "patience" is complete and utter silence until the big day.

So what valuable insights and conversation from you am I trying to "silence," bud?

 gorgon wrote:



Open beta tests? As a nod to the fans and PR move, sure. As a means for actually improving the game...no. Can you imagine what the noise-to-signal ratio would be for that? It'd be like reopening the Eye of Terror.

You mean the one Privateer Press had in their Fieldtest which actually improved the game by.. you know .. alot?

...on the other hand, perhaps you could see it as making a point of actually playing with toy soldiers, rules wise? I mean, Warmahordes is actually more conveniently played with 30 mm wide and 1,75" high cylinders ...

I guess it works ok as long as all play along and don't try to be aholes.

 Sidstyler wrote:
What, are you kidding? Allies were bad for the game, and still are. Hell, especially now, with IoM and Eldar armies being the only ones that can really take advantage of them.

Are you forgetting Taudar, too? The most-hated army build for months, made possible because of allies, and if I'm not mistaken it usually included an aegis line, too, just to annoy people further.

That's all soooooo 6th edition of you. Try and keep up.

Yep, the rules specifically say that bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement. From a practical viewpoint, this is an incredibly terrible idea.

RoninXiC wrote:

 gorgon wrote:



Open beta tests? As a nod to the fans and PR move, sure. As a means for actually improving the game...no. Can you imagine what the noise-to-signal ratio would be for that? It'd be like reopening the Eye of Terror.

You mean the one Privateer Press had in their Fieldtest which actually improved the game by.. you know .. alot?

I think any decent game designer could flick through the comments of an open beta and realise which ones are actually real issues and which ones are noise. You don't expect every comment to be gold, or even every 10th comment, but the real issues will rise to the surface.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yep, the rules specifically say that bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement. From a practical viewpoint, this is an incredibly terrible idea.

If I were a WYSIWYG WAAC beardy rules-lawyery type, I would base all of my models on 60mm+ so other models couldn't come with 1".

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yep, the rules specifically say that bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement. From a practical viewpoint, this is an incredibly terrible idea.

Yeah, I agree there. It's just so much easier to go by base. The only reason I can see for this is because they wanted to make sure it didn't matter how your figures were based. Which I can sort of get behind. Means potentially more interesting formations, and the return of the open order/closed order difference (battlefield control vs concentration of force).

 MLaw wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yep, the rules specifically say that bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement. From a practical viewpoint, this is an incredibly terrible idea.

If I were a WYSIWYG WAAC beardy rules-lawyery type, I would base all of my models on 60mm+ so other models couldn't come with 1".

All your Ranged archers right?

 MLaw wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yep, the rules specifically say that bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement. From a practical viewpoint, this is an incredibly terrible idea.

If I were a WYSIWYG WAAC beardy rules-lawyery type, I would base all of my models on 60mm+ so other models couldn't come with 1".

Except that other figures are allowed to move onto your bases now apparently!

 MLaw wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yep, the rules specifically say that bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement. From a practical viewpoint, this is an incredibly terrible idea.

If I were a WYSIWYG WAAC beardy rules-lawyery type, I would base all of my models on 60mm+ so other models couldn't come with 1".

Doesn't work, since your base doesn't matter for any measurements so I just walk on top of it. Doesn't that sound fun?

 MLaw wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yep, the rules specifically say that bases are not part of the model and don't count for measurement. From a practical viewpoint, this is an incredibly terrible idea.

If I were a WYSIWYG WAAC beardy rules-lawyery type, I would base all of my models on 60mm+ so other models couldn't come with 1".

Yep, and get your models damaged when I just move mine on top of yours

Where do you guys play that people have zero social manners and would put their models bases on top of other peoples bases? You all fixate on the dumbest things.

Haven't been keeping up with this thread, so it may have already been mentioned but GW has pulled all of the WHFB FAQs from the Rules Errata Page.

Chopxsticks wrote:
Where do you guys play that people have zero social manners and would put their models bases on top of other peoples bases? You all fixate on the dumbest things.

The same place where people are WAAC beardy rules lawyer types who make their bases too large for you to charge them without moving your model on top of theirs?

 Ghaz wrote:
Haven't been keeping up with this thread, so it may have already been mentioned but GW has pulled all of the WHFB FAQs from the Rules Errata Page.

Im surprised they even remembered they HAD a errata page.

I am actually quite interested in how this turns out because after all new stuff is coming out and that is pretty exciting, just curious on the direction they'll take.

Chopxsticks wrote:
Where do you guys play that people have zero social manners and would put their models bases on top of other peoples bases? You all fixate on the dumbest things.

Prestor Jon wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:


Need to re-read those rules tonight and check if this is true.

It's true. The rules are very clear that bases don't matter, players measure from model to model. Those two models are more than 0.5" apart even though they are in base to base contact. The rules also state that it's ok to put models on top of the bases of other models (which strikes me as impractical due to how some scenic bases are constructed and can have destructive effects on bases) which needs to happen to get the actual models within 0.5" to avoid the situation shown in the picture. According to the rules the Chaos Warrior model should be moved forward and its base should be placed on top of the Ogre's base to get the models within 0.5" of each other. It certainly seems like a problematic rule but that's the way GW wrote it.