PDA

View Full Version : 7th Edition Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Wolf Lord Balrog
30-04-2014, 01:23
So it has been confirmed up in News and Rumors that Warhammer 40K 7th Edition is coming very soon, much sooner than most people anticipated I think. As Darnok seemed to be getting a bit cranky about people getting off-topic in the News thread about it, figured I'd start one down here in General. So, thoughts, wishes, comments, have at it! :)

Ssilmath
30-04-2014, 01:29
Thoughts? I don't think it will be a major overhaul, but rather a refining of 6th with the expansions incorporated and Forgeworld given a nod.

Wishes? I wish for them to clean up the more egregious balance issues, particularly those caused by allies. I wish for them to make area terrain block LOS through it again or at least say that a good portion of terrain needs to do so. I wish for vehicles to get a bit more survivable and for melee to get a decent bump up without going too far overboard.

Expectations? I expect that Warseer will be alight with complaints no matter what GW does, and I expect that I'll argue with them just as much as before. I also expect that I'll keep playing as I always have.

Scribe of Khorne
30-04-2014, 01:46
Thoughts? I don't think it will be a major overhaul, but rather a refining of 6th with the expansions incorporated and Forgeworld given a nod.

Wishes? I wish for them to clean up the more egregious balance issues, particularly those caused by allies. I wish for them to make area terrain block LOS through it again or at least say that a good portion of terrain needs to do so. I wish for vehicles to get a bit more survivable and for melee to get a decent bump up without going too far overboard.

Expectations? I expect that Warseer will be alight with complaints no matter what GW does, and I expect that I'll argue with them just as much as before. I also expect that I'll keep playing as I always have.

Essentially this, though without the commentary on Terrain, thats not going to fix the game. ;)

Ssilmath
30-04-2014, 01:50
Essentially this, though without the commentary on Terrain, thats not going to fix the game. ;)

Oh you :p

Fix? No. Help? Certainly.

Scribe of Khorne
30-04-2014, 02:12
I feel ya. I just dont want people to hold out hope that its the magic bullet. It does nothing to fix deathstars, or other things that are really hurting the game imo (MC's vs Walkers, weakness of Troops, etc).

Ssilmath
30-04-2014, 02:20
True that. And it's a whole other conversation.

I really want to see deathstars go away and troops to be more represented. Monstrous Creatures also need reigning in a bit, to the point where a Hive Tyrant vs Dreadnought is an epic confrontation, not a curb stomping (And buffing walkers to MC levels isn't the answer. Power creep is never the answer).

Losing Command
30-04-2014, 02:26
In addition to some adjustments to Ignore Cover and how readily available it has become :p It feels a little like Eternal Warrior in 5th, when almost everybody and their pet cat's favorite squeeky toy had that rule.

JPThunda
30-04-2014, 02:28
I hope they do something to help vehicles out. Getting glanced to death is just silly right now. I'd like to see the vehicle damage chart change to something like this:

1-Crew Shaken
2-Crew Stunned
3-1 Hull Point
4-Weapon Destroyed, 1 Hull Point
5-Immobilized, 1 Hull Point
6-Vehicle Explodes

That, with the following modifiers:

Glancing Hit: -2
AP -: -1
AP 2: +1
Open Topped: +1
AP 1: +2
Armourbane: 1 Hull Point in addition to other results (instead of +1 D6 to armor pen).

And then introduce ways to give Armourbane to units and weapons. For example, to give a model with an Autocannon Armourbane on that weapon, you pay +15 points/gun or so.

Also, and this is a pet peeve of mine, exploded vehicles should not be replaced with a crater imho. It is highly unlikely that a vehicle would be so utterly destroyed by anything short of a D-weapon. The wrecks should stay to add terrain to the map.

Vet.Sister
30-04-2014, 02:34
Thoughts: 7th edition will be different... not better, not improved, not worth-while... just different.

Wishes: I wish that "if Games Workshop does not actually put serious effort (aka the dark eldar treatment) into producing a full Adepta Sororitas Codex, they are forced to produce Codex Female Space Marines"

Comment: I think I am going to wait for Rick Priestly's ruleset and see how you can port WH40K into it.

Thirdeye
30-04-2014, 03:22
Comment: I think I am going to wait for Rick Priestly's ruleset and see how you can port WH40K into it.

Yeah, pretty much. I have far more hope for Priestly right now than I do for GW.

I just want a good skirmish game with unit activation and clean core rules, and some military simulation, but with a fun sci-fi / gothic / horror / superhero twist so I can use my GW figs. (Is that too much to ask?) Now you would think I could get that from GW. But I've been waiting a long time, so long I'm convinced it's never going to happen. Such a shame. Such a missed opportunity.

Vet.Sister
30-04-2014, 03:47
Now you would think I could get that from GW. But I've been waiting a long time, so long I'm convinced it's never going to happen.

Probably a safe bet.

Chem-Dog
30-04-2014, 05:39
Thoughts.
I've said this before recently, but it could just be that 6th was a place-holder, an interim measure to avoid instantly invalidating 5th edition Codexes whilst shifting the game into a shape that makes it possible to publish "7th ready" books. Things like Escalation, the arrival of Knights and Stronghold Assault seem to bear this out. It would also go some way to explaining the break-neck speed of Codex releases these last two years.

Also consider the continued support for Cities of Death and Planetstrike (in the Supplements) with a noticeable lack of update for those two books (which are both in need of a re-write to work with 40K as it stands now). One possible deduction is that a new 40K edition will give us multiple game types in one package.

Another thing that suggests that 6th may be a caretaker edition is the unfinished feel of several of the key changes - The Flyer rules are clunky and consist of a lot of "like other vehicles except...." clauses, Psychics leave a lot to be desired too which hints that maybe both of those elements are simply stepping stones to something else. - "it'll do for now" kind of thing.

Whatever the content of 7th, I'm convinced it's not as simple as a churn to earn, I've a gut feeling that this is necessary for some kind of business reason, my feeling is IP and Copyright, issues that have plagued GW more than normal these last couple of years and if one takes "Astra Millitarum" and "Militarum Tempestus" as a sign that GW are fixing that it stands to reason that the flagship product would need to be overhauled post haste to bring it into compliance.

As for wishes.
In short, a better game.

Fix things like weapons that can't glance a tank but can penetrate it (if you can't glance it normally, all pens are glances- simple really).

Adjust the to hit chart to allow both 2's and 6's to hit in combat (especially with the abundance of "reduced to Ws1" effects in the game).

Make "scoring" a special rule that is applied to appropriate units regardless of their location in the Codex.. I don't really play Marines but I am bugged by the fact that Tacticals can capture and contest an objective but Assault Squads can't - unless they're Blood Angels.

There's a whole heap more that I can't remember right now.

Azulthar
30-04-2014, 08:54
My hope is that I'm wrong, and that 7th edition is an actual new edition with actual rule changes.

It won't be though. It will be edition 6.1, updated with the Fortification (and other) errata, and with references to the concept of Dataslates and the Escalation supplement.
New starting set, perhaps with Orks? They're getting a new codex soon. Oh, and maybe they'll split the core book up again in 2 or 3 smaller ones. Seems to be the trend.

But really, I hope that I'm wrong. Terribly wrong :)

eldaran
30-04-2014, 09:03
I'd like them to do something about combat - make it a bit more exciting (even if that's just allowing fleeted troops to charge after running or allowing units to charge out of a stationary transport again)

I miss not really being able to run my Banshees any more... though that would make Iyandened wraithblades terrifying...

Szalik
30-04-2014, 10:24
Thoughts: I think they are doing it because they have a knife on their throats when it comes to financial issues. They are already quite nervous and inconsistent with their releases (what was the point of making a separate army for Militarum Tempestus, when it clearly belongs to faction supplement section like Legion of the Damned ?) On the other hand this premature edition release at least give me slight hopes that they will repair some glaring issues that 6th underlined or caused.

Wishes: To put it simple, the game has two glaring issues that need to be addressed, allies and assault phase.

Allies need to be incorporated into the standard FOC, without giving an additional slots to the user. The rest is good enough in my opinion (but then I play rarely and never in tournaments). Single FOC should be used up to 2500.

When it comes to Assault phase there is a LOT to be done:

Tone down assault distance randomness - a must in my opinion; 3-4+d6 should be good. You may risk and charge further, you may play cautiously, up to the player.

Make it once again possible to charge from a stationary vehicle.

Make it once again possible to charge from outflank. Appearing from outflank should look like that: move up to 2 inches from the edge of the board (or in a way that the whole vehicle fits on the board.

Make it possible to shoot overwatch at full bs for units that weren't shooting in the previous shooting phase.

Rework challenges shenanigans. Make it an option but not a game changing mechanic (model refusing challenge may fight normally but it's ld cannot be used for this combat round).

Those above were mandatory, those below are optional:

Give players freedom on how do they want to move to cc (making holding back and avoiding terrain allowed).

Rework Sweeping Advance, so it does not allow removing whole squads, omitting "to hit", "to wound" "armour save" mechanics. Make it work like a bonus round of combat for the winner without fighting back from the loser.

Make it possible to engage units in cc by consolidation move (with overwatch being included of course, combat being fought in the next assault phase without charge bonuses).

And I will repeat this one, incorporate 2+ and 6+ hits to "to hit" chart and add auto wounds for hits being over 2x stronger that target's toughness.

Comments: If they will just tone down this assault range random bs I will be satisfied. But I'm rather sceptical.

BlackTemplar307
30-04-2014, 12:01
The Skyfire rule was the one I hated the most. Flyers proliferated naturally because there were suddenly more of them available. But they became so overpowering because so few units could shoot at them. I'd like to see the skyfire rule go. Make the minimum flyer AV 12 and give zooming flyers Jink. (I actually think there isn't a flyer below AV 12 now, but I could be wrong.) Flyers already ignore terrain and are so fast anyway, I feel like they don't need a mechanic that makes armies spend extra points just for the privilege of shooting at them.

Commissar_42
30-04-2014, 12:15
Eh I'm pretty happy as it is. Personally I hope they add a few more cheesy/OP combos just to **** off competative players, but beyond that...meh. A lot of the rumoured changes seem pretty cool, but I still think it's too soon.

Ulfrik
30-04-2014, 12:31
Not 7th but 'Living' !?!?

Gungo
30-04-2014, 12:46
Eh I'm pretty happy as it is. Personally I hope they add a few more cheesy/OP combos just to **** off competative players, but beyond that...meh. A lot of the rumoured changes seem pretty cool, but I still think it's too soon.
People are complaining this is just a cash grab and while I sorta agree there I think there is more to it then that. I see this edition less of a cash grab and more the fact GW sees there is an issue where they are losing profits and market share. And the rush to release a new edition is not just to grab a few dollars to tack onto this years financial report but a genuine attempt to fix the issue that is causing them to bleed market share. However even of 7th edition is a genuine attempt to fix rules issues I don't believe that gw has the ability to do it well enough to regain the market they already lost.

BlackTemplar307
30-04-2014, 13:28
I think that with kickstarters, self-publishing and 3D printing making it possible for smaller companies to jump start their own efforts, and with the ease of marketing through mass social media, as well as the wide swatch of 40k players becoming increasingly fed up with GW's bullfunky...the planets are aligning for another game to come along and take those angry players away from them. GW is maybe realizing that their throne is finally tenuous for the first time in their history.

Before the internet, players couldn't amass and complain in any significant and discernible voice. If you wanted to complain about the state of the game, what were your options to engage the player base on any significant scale? An angry letter to White Dwarf? What were the odds of that being published? So even if you got everyone in your local playgroup mad at an edition or set of mechanics? You probably just shrugged your shoulders, made house rules and said, "What other option is there?"

Before social media and refined internet search tools, sites like Warseer were intermittent and specialized. If you were lucky and really looking through yahoo, lycos or webcrawler,; you might find it. And even then, those sites capped at a few hundred members, max. So even if you got everyone on a small web forum mad at an issue in the game? You probably just shrugged your shoulders, made house rules and said, "What other option is there?"

Before 3D printing and people coming together to turn their own talents to model making, and the ability to network and find other people to help bring your work to life, the thought of actually knocking the king of his throne was a laugh. But now, the possibility exists that someone can say, "Hey I can sculpt models." Someone else can say, "Hey, I have some ideas for rules." Someone else can say, "Hey I can write a backstory." We're seeing these gaming systems springing up here and there already. Small labors of love by people fed up with the existing system for whatever reason. For far too long, Games Workshop's primary business model has been, "Where else are you going to go?" They've been relying on, "Where else are you going to go?" Nobody had the communication tools, the knowledge base or the resources to challenge them.

However, the writing is on the wall. 3D printing is only going to become cheaper, better, and more prodigious. Creativity and desire is becoming concentrated in places like this. I've seen incredible efforts made by people on 40k blogs and forums. Just take a look at the terrain project logs on this site alone if you don't believe me. I saw someone who made a remarkable 36"x48" space ship from scratch on this forum. And it's not the only one I've seen. People are sculpting their own terrain, their own models in some cases...it is only a matter of time before someone makes a mechanically sound game that challenges 40k. For the first time, that's a very real possibility. Maybe GW is realizing this and taking proactive measures. Actually listening when their player base says, "These rules are borked." Maybe they're finally realizing that "Where else are you going to go?" is no longer a viable business strategy, nor an advisable customer relations stance.

That's a glass half full take, anyway. With GW the idea is usually to empty the half-full glass and refill it level-full with raw sewage garnished with a cherry and pretend it's a milkshake.

But one can hope.

Sanai
30-04-2014, 13:31
I think its far from confirmed. Someone just posted information stating that its just a new 6th ed Core rulebook with the faqs/erratas, super heavies & stronghold assault folded into the main book, which to me sounds far more likely than thrusting a new edition on us so early.

Lanacane
30-04-2014, 13:53
I think its far from confirmed. Someone just posted information stating that its just a new 6th ed Core rulebook with the faqs/erratas, super heavies & stronghold assault folded into the main book, which to me sounds far more likely than thrusting a new edition on us so early.

true.

If it was a new edition GW would be selling the boxset and rulebook upto the hour it goes off sale. its happened 5times that way..

eldaran
30-04-2014, 14:13
true.

If it was a new edition GW would be selling the boxset and rulebook upto the hour it goes off sale. its happened 5times that way..

That's what I've heard too; I've also heard two core sets, one with Blood angels vs. Dark Eldar and another with Wolves vs. Orks, but I'm taking that with a pinch of salt until I get a second confirmation...

RandomThoughts
30-04-2014, 17:29
I think that with kickstarters, self-publishing and 3D printing making it possible for smaller companies to jump start their own efforts, and with the ease of marketing through mass social media, as well as the wide swatch of 40k players becoming increasingly fed up with GW's bullfunky...the planets are aligning for another game to come along and take those angry players away from them. GW is maybe realizing that their throne is finally tenuous for the first time in their history.

You mean the way Warmachine/Hordes is digging deep into GW's market share and other games like Infinity and Malifaux are supposedly growing?


Before 3D printing and people coming together to turn their own talents to model making, and the ability to network and find other people to help bring your work to life, the thought of actually knocking the king of his throne was a laugh. But now, the possibility exists that someone can say, "Hey I can sculpt models." Someone else can say, "Hey, I have some ideas for rules." Someone else can say, "Hey I can write a backstory." We're seeing these gaming systems springing up here and there already. Small labors of love by people fed up with the existing system for whatever reason. For far too long, Games Workshop's primary business model has been, "Where else are you going to go?" They've been relying on, "Where else are you going to go?" Nobody had the communication tools, the knowledge base or the resources to challenge them.

However, the writing is on the wall. 3D printing is only going to become cheaper, better, and more prodigious. Creativity and desire is becoming concentrated in places like this. I've seen incredible efforts made by people on 40k blogs and forums. Just take a look at the terrain project logs on this site alone if you don't believe me. I saw someone who made a remarkable 36"x48" space ship from scratch on this forum. And it's not the only one I've seen. People are sculpting their own terrain, their own models in some cases...it is only a matter of time before someone makes a mechanically sound game that challenges 40k. For the first time, that's a very real possibility. Maybe GW is realizing this and taking proactive measures. Actually listening when their player base says, "These rules are borked." Maybe they're finally realizing that "Where else are you going to go?" is no longer a viable business strategy, nor an advisable customer relations stance.

I don't think we have to wait for that new competition anymore, there are already serious contenders clawing at the thrown.

BlackTemplar307
30-04-2014, 17:43
Precisely. I couldn't think of examples because none have made an impact in my play group, yet. But I've heard those systems are pretty cool. Either way, more are going to come. I'm just not in the loop enough to spot them. I figured someone would have better ideas than I did :D

Metal Handkerchief
30-04-2014, 17:52
Well I know that if the start set really is to be replaced by one that contains Eldar and Imperial Guard I and my mates will have to buy our first anything in the past 2-3 years. A start set with Eldar, Necrons, Tau or Dark Eldar has been a dream of mine for a damn long time, ideally it would be two of those, but one is good too as I have other players I can offload the Imperial scum on :P

As for the rules, I couldn't give any less of a crap, we've locked in our rules quite a while ago.

shaw3029
30-04-2014, 18:03
My wishes for 7th edition.

Change challenges, why should a unit made up of minor characters be able to hold up a powerful combat character for the whole game? They are incredibly boring as they currently stand.

Monstrous creatures. Especially those that are essentially vehicles like the wraith knight & rip tide. Why should the survive sustaining wounds with no negative effects, fighting at full effectiveness where as a vehicle can be immobilised & lose weapons slowly knocking it out of the game. Not to mention the added bonus of armour saves for monstrous creatures.

A dreadnought vs a wraith lord should be a great combat, not a lopsided near automatic victory as it currently stands.

Vehicles. See above but also having the ability to assault out of a vehicle that remained stationary.

Assault. Specifically the random assault distance. How many times no matter how rare it might sound have you rolled that dreaded double 1 & then sat out in the open only to be annihilated the next turn?

3d6 or 4d6 picking the highest two might go a fair way to alleviating this although I prefur the option to have two charge distances.

A standard 6 inch prepared tactical charge where you can use assault grenades & the enemy cannot overwatch.

A more random 2d6 (hell make it 3 or 4d6 picking the 2 highest) unprepared heroic charge where you cannot use assault grenades & the enemy can overwatch.




Those are all relatively minor tweaks which we could see with 7th as well as the obvious rolling in of the supplements & changes to allies. If GW wanted to push the boat out a bit I'd be very interested to see,

Turn order. How many of us have played games where the victor is decided by who gets the 1st turn? I have annihilated half of my opponents army in the first turn before. This usually happens with larger games which is certainly the direction 40k is sprinting towards.

I'd like to see 7th implement a less of a you go, I go system & use a turn order something like they used with The Lord of the rings. The turn order that is used for warlord games WW2 game bolt action looks like it would make for some very fun, tense & exciting games! Which is where 40k should be!

Wolf Lord Balrog
30-04-2014, 22:15
The new rumor information does indicate that the new book will be more like a minor revision than a new edition. Might not even be a 6.5, more like a 6.1

In a way that's kinda disappointing, but also reassuring.

ashc
30-04-2014, 22:38
A rebalance of the psychic powers wouldn't go amiss.


Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

Ozendorph
30-04-2014, 22:49
In a way that's kinda disappointing, but also reassuring.

But mostly disappointing ;)

On the upside I wouldn't feel the need to purchase yet another $75 book. Of course I'm as curious as anyone to see what GW puts forward, but I'll be reading the reviews before plonking down any money.

As far as changes I'd love to see:
- Focused fire gone
- LoS! removed (alternative would be ICs only, 4+ save at best)
- Challenges removed (alternative would be ICs only, with overkill wounds applying to squad)
- Overwatching units cannot fire on previous shooting phase, but fire at full BS (basically to waste less time)
- Infantry may assault from stationary vehicles (Drive me closer!..)
- Outflankers may assault when they come on the table
- Basically nix all the pre-game rolls. Just pick your powers, gifts, traits, whatever. Maybe pay a few points for the privilege as another poster suggested
- Area terrain goes back to blocking LOS (less leaning and squinting)
- I'll just sum up and say CC like 5th. It had faults, but so much faster
- Melee hit moving vehicles on a 5+. 3+ is just silly.
- Probably a couple dozen other changes. I'm just throwing stuff against the wall. Bottom line is speed the game up, don't be so fiddly

Ananiel
30-04-2014, 23:09
The Dark Angel FAQ is back up on the new Black Library site, but it looks like no changes and is still dated April 2013.

buddy_revell
30-04-2014, 23:19
id like to see "cover" saves split into saves provided by terrain, and saves provided by other means, such as holo fields or the like. these can stack, but "ignore cover" would specify which type of save is being ignored. a flamer, for example, would ignore all cover. whereas, a tau markerlight would reduce cover saves provided by terrain only.

also, a return to a seperate psychic phase.

Voss
01-05-2014, 00:55
The new rumor information does indicate that the new book will be more like a minor revision than a new edition. Might not even be a 6.5, more like a 6.1

In a way that's kinda disappointing, but also reassuring.

Makes the whole thing seem pointless. Particularly if propaganda posters and mandatory manager meetings are really involved.
A big deal it isn't if all it amounts to is a minor FAQ for the main rules and some copy pasta of bits of Escalation & etc.

Now it just seems like a slap to anyone who bought Escalation & etc (which thankfully I did not)

Commissar_42
01-05-2014, 00:59
Makes the whole thing seem pointless. Particularly if propaganda posters and mandatory manager meetings are really involved.
A big deal it isn't if all it amounts to is a minor FAQ for the main rules and some copy pasta of bits of Escalation & etc.

Now it just seems like a slap to anyone who bought Escalation & etc (which thankfully I did not)
How is it "like a slap to anyone who bought Escalation"? That the very same rules are now available, packaged in a slightly different format?

MajorWesJanson
01-05-2014, 00:59
But mostly disappointing ;)
As far as changes I'd love to see:
- Probably a couple dozen other changes. I'm just throwing stuff against the wall. Bottom line is speed the game up, don't be so fiddly

- Focused fire gone

Agreed.

- LoS! removed (alternative would be ICs only, 4+ save at best)

Look Out Sir is fine, just integrate the errata about it being before making a save and goes to the closest model.

- Challenges removed (alternative would be ICs only, with overkill wounds applying to squad)

That would invalidate a lot of abilities. And Challenges are fun. I don't think overkill wounds should go into the squad, but they should count towards combat resolution.

- Overwatching units cannot fire on previous shooting phase, but fire at full BS (basically to waste less time)

Overwatch is fine as is. It's also enough of a balance mechanism that they should remove disorganized charge from multi-charges. And let a unit that wins a combat in it's own turn consolodate into another unit, but as a disorganized charge and allow overwatch.

- Infantry may assault from stationary vehicles (Drive me closer!..)

Agreed. Stationary Vehicles should also get the splitfire rule and be able to fire ordinance and other weapons normally. Combat speed should allow all weapons (or one ordinance weapon) to fire at full BS, and cruising speed should allow one non-ordinance weapon to fire and the rest snapfire.

- Outflankers may assault when they come on the table

As a disorganized charge, sure.

- Basically nix all the pre-game rolls. Just pick your powers, gifts, traits, whatever. Maybe pay a few points for the privilege as another poster suggested

No, the various rolls force some flexibility into fighting your army, rather than just making the combo of traits and powers that you want every time.

- Area terrain goes back to blocking LOS (less leaning and squinting)

Maybe

- I'll just sum up and say CC like 5th. It had faults, but so much faster

I like the CC system we have now. Needs a few tweaks, but it feels less abstract.

- Melee hit moving vehicles on a 5+. 3+ is just silly.

Agreed. Should be based on speed. Stationary, autohit. Combat speed, 3+. Cruising speed, 4+. Flat Out, 5+.

Voss
01-05-2014, 01:07
How is it "like a slap to anyone who bought Escalation"? That the very same rules are now available, packaged in a slightly different format?

That they paid to beta test the rules, and those big expensive books they bought are reduced to a couple pages tacked onto the main rule booklet.

Graned it is probably slightly better (if you like the rules; for those that don't its a rather a nightmare) rather than the complete abandonment GW usually performs with supplementary material, but personally I find publishing books with an intended shelf life* of less than a year to be fairly offensive, just on general principles.

*because its not like they didn't know the were going to do this when they published those books, given the time publication takes.

infamousme
01-05-2014, 02:26
That's what I've heard too; I've also heard two core sets, one with Blood angels vs. Dark Eldar and another with Wolves vs. Orks, but I'm taking that with a pinch of salt until I get a second confirmation...

Where did you hear this?
If they ever brought out a dark eldar vs blood angels starter set, I think that i would have a lot of extra mini rule books kicking around.

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2

Commissar_42
01-05-2014, 03:32
That they paid to beta test the rules, and those big expensive books they bought are reduced to a couple pages tacked onto the main rule booklet.

Graned it is probably slightly better (if you like the rules; for those that don't its a rather a nightmare) rather than the complete abandonment GW usually performs with supplementary material, but personally I find publishing books with an intended shelf life* of less than a year to be fairly offensive, just on general principles.

*because its not like they didn't know the were going to do this when they published those books, given the time publication takes.
But those rules will still be valid? I really don't get what you're getting at here, you'll still be able to use escalation as before, but now newcomers will have to buy one book rather than three.

Honestly I never expected Games Workshops' attempts to streamline and clarify 6th edition to be met by anything other than scorn and derision by the fanbase. GW could halve prices over-night and the internet would still be full of "hnah typical price gouging, kirby lining his golden parachute", "i've never felt this personally offended by GW before", etc.

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-05-2014, 06:07
GW could halve prices over-night and the internet would still be full of "hnah typical price gouging, kirby lining his golden parachute", "i've never felt this personally offended by GW before", etc.

I think that's a bit hyperbolic. If GW lowered prices across the board by even as little 20% I think there would be jubilation in these forums. Heck, even a credible promise to freeze prices for a couple years would be welcomed. But that's neither here nor there in regards to this topic ...

Wakerofgods
01-05-2014, 06:31
Do you think GW could see the rebalancing of the rules as a requirement to stay competitive in the industry and as a desirable sales move?

Wouldn't that speak very positively of GWs potential future?

Wolf Lord Balrog
01-05-2014, 06:44
Do you think GW could see the rebalancing of the rules as a requirement to stay competitive in the industry and as a desirable sales move?

Wouldn't that speak very positively of GWs potential future?

If that were what they are doing, yes, it would be great. Somehow I suspect not though.

Voss
01-05-2014, 06:48
But those rules will still be valid? I really don't get what you're getting at here, you'll still be able to use escalation as before, but now newcomers will have to buy one book rather than three.
Right. And had they not just released them, everyone would have been able to buy one book rather than three. With a further expectation that at least some of those buyers will rebuy those rules as part of the consolidated new rulebook, especially since they still aren't making clear whether it is a new edition or not. Due to the (complete lack of) communication, there was no real reason to expect the new supplements were different from the old supplements which get release and some people play until they get bored with them, and almost everyone moves on. Integrating them into the real rules is a significantly different approach, and questionable at best with what may be a minor FAQ reprinting.


Honestly I never expected Games Workshops' attempts to streamline and clarify 6th edition
Now I'm confused. Where did you get the sense that streamlining and clarification is in the cards for... whatever this is?


Do you think GW could see the rebalancing of the rules as a requirement to stay competitive in the industry and as a desirable sales move?

No. As in, I don't think GW could see it that way, nor do I think they see it as anything other than getting a confused and uninformed customer base to buy new books mid-edition. Or actually doing a new edition or... whatever is actually happening. Beyond trying to sell more rules, I have little idea what their thinking is.

eldaran
01-05-2014, 07:27
Where did you hear this?
If they ever brought out a dark eldar vs blood angels starter set, I think that i would have a lot of extra mini rule books kicking around.

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2

It's nothing even vaguely definitive - pretty much just something I overheard the local manager say. Take with a large pinch of salt until one of our more prominent rumour-gatherers corroborates it with a second confirmation from a better source... Personally, I'd love it, but it could be a desire for it to be real, so I'll stay suspicious.

agurus1
01-05-2014, 07:34
BoLS is spreading a rumor of % replacing FoC.

Spiney Norman
01-05-2014, 07:40
Remove the rules for allies and make imperial knight primary detachments Apoc only, that would correct the majority of abuses currently available under the 6E system. The flyer rules probably need tweaking as well, change Skyfire so that it is fire at all units with full BS and change the interceptor rule so it is snapshot at DSing units

The Emperor
01-05-2014, 08:16
BoLS is spreading a rumor of % replacing FoC.

Personally, I think it's garbage. According to that rumor Troops are minimum 40% while Heavy Support is max 25%. You couldn't take a squad of 3 Grav Centurions in a Land Raider in a 2000 point army under those rules.

OuroborosTriumphant
01-05-2014, 08:27
Personally, I think it's garbage. According to that rumor Troops are minimum 40% while Heavy Support is max 25%. You couldn't take a squad of 3 Grav Centurions in a Land Raider in a 2000 point army under those rules.

The percentages look odd as well. I can see GW doing it in 50s and 25s, but the BOLS rumour has it in 10s, 20s, 25s, 30s, 40s. I can't see having the ultra-fine distinction between "25% can be Heavy Support, but only 20% can be Elite". Doesn't smell right.

duffybear1988
01-05-2014, 09:01
Are the rules for flakk missiles found in the rulebook? If so I could see them maybe updating them to armourbane or S8. Nobody takes flakk missiles because they are so damn expensive for what they do. Come on GW! Come on! (Anyone else ever think praying to the GW gods is a bit like making a pact with the devil?)

Slayer-Fan123
01-05-2014, 09:02
Doesn't BoLS post anything they hear though from any source? How reliable could they really be?

Thomson
01-05-2014, 09:49
Personally, I think it's garbage. According to that rumor Troops are minimum 40% while Heavy Support is max 25%. You couldn't take a squad of 3 Grav Centurions in a Land Raider in a 2000 point army under those rules.
Well it would be the final proof that there are some people at GW who don't have the slightest idea how the game works. But currently it would really surprise me. The AM codex was the best codex they did in a long time. With the exception of the Wyvern there seems to be no unit which is underpriced.

don_mondo
01-05-2014, 12:14
Personally, I think it's garbage. According to that rumor Troops are minimum 40% while Heavy Support is max 25%. You couldn't take a squad of 3 Grav Centurions in a Land Raider in a 2000 point army under those rules.

Which might be the point......? IIRC, those percentages are actually the old 2nd ed format. Would have to dig the old books out of the storage unit to be sure. Aslo IIRC, back then the Allied points came out of your Heavy Support allotment, so to take Allies you had to give up your own Heavies. Or do 10% one and 15% the other.

Commissar_42
01-05-2014, 12:19
Right. And had they not just released them, everyone would have been able to buy one book rather than three. With a further expectation that at least some of those buyers will rebuy those rules as part of the consolidated new rulebook, especially since they still aren't making clear whether it is a new edition or not. Due to the (complete lack of) communication, there was no real reason to expect the new supplements were different from the old supplements which get release and some people play until they get bored with them, and almost everyone moves on. Integrating them into the real rules is a significantly different approach, and questionable at best with what may be a minor FAQ reprinting.
That's a lot of words, but no explanation whatsoever of why this is "a slap in the face". It's two things, that you both own, combined into one product. If that is your standard for offense then God forbid you ever set foot in a supermarket, only to spot the peanut butter and chocolate in the spread isle...yet you already own both! The money-grabbing corperate stooges, bah. Just shop over the road at Mantic Superstores. The food tastes like crap and it costs just as much as at GW, but at least they won't "slap you in the face".



Now I'm confused. Where did you get the sense that streamlining and clarification is in the cards for... whatever this is?
Interpretation of rumours. Combining different books into one could be reasonably interpreted as streamlining and clarifying. Except in the fanbase, where it's interpreted as "yet another cash grab", "painting themselves into a corner", etc. I'm sure you'll dig up some classics.

RandomThoughts
01-05-2014, 15:01
BoLS is spreading a rumor of % replacing FoC.

I'd applaud that.

eldaran
01-05-2014, 15:08
I'd applaud that.

I wouldn't say never, but I'd be surprised if they did replace the FoC with percentages... though if it came with a corresponding average points game increase, I wouldn't mind too much.

Retrospectus
01-05-2014, 15:44
Thoughts.

Fix things like weapons that can't glance a tank but can penetrate it (if you can't glance it normally, all pens are glances- simple really).

Adjust the to hit chart to allow both 2's and 6's to hit in combat (especially with the abundance of "reduced to Ws1" effects in the game).

Make "scoring" a special rule that is applied to appropriate units regardless of their location in the Codex.. I don't really play Marines but I am bugged by the fact that Tacticals can capture and contest an objective but Assault Squads can't - unless they're Blood Angels.

There's a whole heap more that I can't remember right now.

what weapons can glance but not pen?

also it wouldn't make sense for assault marines to score. that's not their job. they're meant to clear objectives so that the tacticals can hold them, if assault marines are holding an objective they aren't doing their jobs. I think blood angels assaults are troops so you can take more of them

OuroborosTriumphant
01-05-2014, 16:13
what weapons can glance but not pen?

Any rending weapon attack a tank whose AV is equal to the weapon's Str+6. Most commonly assault cannons shooting at AV12, but also Punisher Pask shooting at AV11 or Genestealers attacking AV10.

wanderingblade
01-05-2014, 16:53
I'd applaud that.

I might applaud it if they redid all the codices so they all had interesting, useful troop choices that people wanted to take - but then they wouldn't need the restriction and could let people take whatever without impinging. Instead, game balance slides towards the (currently) 4 armies with really strong troop choices imo.


Well it would be the final proof that there are some people at GW who don't have the slightest idea how the game works. But currently it would really surprise me. The AM codex was the best codex they did in a long time. With the exception of the Wyvern there seems to be no unit which is underpriced.

Preachers and Primaris Psykers did very well for themselves - possibly undercosted - which is why we know have a new type of Deathstar. One that will merrily survive most of the rumoured changes too. Balanced, that thing ain't.

BlackTemplar307
01-05-2014, 17:30
The fact that the Psyker cards were pulled is something I keep coming back to. I wonder if they're changing that system up at all.

I don't see them fixing any of the major complaints of this edition. Flyer spam. Death Star spam. The complete disappearance of assault. The complete lack of competitive balance due to codex creep. These seem to be the things that have ****** off people the most, and I don't think what amounts to a software patch is going to fix all of them.

Sgt John Keel
01-05-2014, 19:46
Personally, I think it's garbage. According to that rumor Troops are minimum 40% while Heavy Support is max 25%. You couldn't take a squad of 3 Grav Centurions in a Land Raider in a 2000 point army under those rules.

It would seem a bit unnecessary to change the FOC to a percentage based system if it didn't actually change something on the tabletop, though. Personally, if the 40 % minimum troops includes transports, I think it's just about right. 25 % is way too little with transports. Sucks for vanilla SM (except for the few people who enjoy Tactical Marines), but as a Guard and jump Blood Angels player, I'm used to being fairly troop heavy anyway.


Which might be the point......? IIRC, those percentages are actually the old 2nd ed format. Would have to dig the old books out of the storage unit to be sure. Aslo IIRC, back then the Allied points came out of your Heavy Support allotment, so to take Allies you had to give up your own Heavies. Or do 10% one and 15% the other.

Nope. At least not in the 2nd edition Imperial Guard codex. 50 % max characters, 25 % minimum Battle Line (infantry and tanks mostly) and 25 % max Support (Allies). IG had further restrictions which required one command squad for every three infantry (or heavy weapons) squads, and one other unit for every infantry (or heavy weapons) squad, so you couldn't just run tanks.

wanderingblade
01-05-2014, 20:33
It would seem a bit unnecessary to change the FOC to a percentage based system if it didn't actually change something on the tabletop, though. Personally, if the 40 % minimum troops includes transports, I think it's just about right. 25 % is way too little with transports. Sucks for vanilla SM (except for the few people who enjoy Tactical Marines), but as a Guard and jump Blood Angels player, I'm used to being fairly troop heavy anyway.


I thought all VSM players used grav biker armies. I thought that was the law :p

In all seriousness, competitive Vanilla Space Marine players would do extremely well out of it, on account of having at least one genuinely very good choice to fill the 40pc with, while large numbers of armies get a kick to the balls, as do armies that used things like Centurions in Land Raiders that, in all honesty, don't really need banning.

Whitetip
01-05-2014, 20:35
40k Radio, on their Facebook page, are strongly denying the change to percentages.

hobojebus
01-05-2014, 20:55
40k Radio, on their Facebook page, are strongly denying the change to percentages.

That the 40k radio that said they are out of the rumour business is it?

That lasted what a week?

superdupermatt
01-05-2014, 21:00
Even if it's a one off return to qualm something completely off base as the rumoured % system, I'd still them over what BOLS, Natfka or Faeit dredge up.

Theocracity
01-05-2014, 21:03
That the 40k radio that said they are out of the rumour business is it?

That lasted what a week?

To be fair, they only presented it as a debunk - no new information beyond putting a lid on the idea of percentages.

Saunders
01-05-2014, 21:10
A much welcomed debunk. A lot of people seemed utterly convinced that 40k was going to percentages when it was never on the table.

Sgt John Keel
01-05-2014, 21:31
I thought all VSM players used grav biker armies. I thought that was the law :p

In all seriousness, competitive Vanilla Space Marine players would do extremely well out of it, on account of having at least one genuinely very good choice to fill the 40pc with, while large numbers of armies get a kick to the balls, as do armies that used things like Centurions in Land Raiders that, in all honesty, don't really need banning.

Probably, but bikes are much more expensive money wise than Tacticals, so not great for the casual gamers. Any changes made in the core rulebook will inevitably hit a lot of units that maybe didn't need the change (regardless of whether this specific rumour is true). Using the core rules as a (post facto) balancing tool is hard.

superdupermatt
01-05-2014, 21:36
For the record, this is the 40k Radio post on Facebook:

192536

hobojebus
01-05-2014, 21:43
Its a shame though because i hate the take the minimum troops builds.

Using specialists is all well and good but they should not really outnumber your troops.

PaperHawk
01-05-2014, 21:44
I would have thought the percentage was a good idea the way it was presented to force points into troops essentially keeping it from the more powerful slots. It won't really stop the real death stars but will help min-maxing

Sent from my nokia 3210

Voss
01-05-2014, 21:57
I would have thought the percentage was a good idea the way it was presented to force points into troops essentially keeping it from the more powerful slots. It won't really stop the real death stars but will help min-maxing

Hmmm. Yes. Calculating out to an exact decimal place does make min maxing easier. Percentages look more vulnerable to my eye to shenanigans, especially with some armies more than others (those with cheaper elites, FS, HS are innately more game-able under this system).
It also has the possibility of the carry on effect it currently has in fantasy- 'convincing' players they have to up the game size to fit in their big stuff, its either that or drive out certain units entirely for not having the proper points/effectiveness ratio.



Doesn't BoLS post anything they hear though from any source? How reliable could they really be?

Honestly, no. BOLS rarely posts anything from sources, unless you count copying things from other forums with attribution. Most of what they come up with is apparently written in letters of fire inside Larry's head.


@Commisar_42 - You are quite welcome to disagree. However, it has zero to do with you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to make it personal.

Thomson
01-05-2014, 22:11
40k Radio, on their Facebook page, are strongly denying the change to percentages.

I would really like to thank them. The percentage stuff sounds a lot like the improved to hit chart for 6th, where your to hit roll depends on unit type and what the unit did in the preivious turn. I didn't think it was impossible but highly impropable that GW would introduce such a game design hedache into their game.

infamousme
02-05-2014, 01:16
The percentages system worked well in 5th edition fantasy (and eighth from what i hear), but i couldn't see it working for a lot of people in 40k. It wouldn't change my armies comps, but i go troop heavy as my main armies have awesome troops (imo anyway, I'm sure there's someone out there that would bitch about my armies' troops choices sucking)

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2

The Emperor
02-05-2014, 01:36
Which might be the point......? IIRC, those percentages are actually the old 2nd ed format. Would have to dig the old books out of the storage unit to be sure. Aslo IIRC, back then the Allied points came out of your Heavy Support allotment, so to take Allies you had to give up your own Heavies. Or do 10% one and 15% the other.

I played 2nd edition. They would be nothing alike. You could take up to 50% of your army in Support (Which was essentially vehicles, dreadnoughts, and artillery), while your Squads choices were 25% or more (Which is where units like Centurions, Terminators, Devastator Squads, etc. would fall).

Fear Ghoul
02-05-2014, 11:40
Hmmm. Yes. Calculating out to an exact decimal place does make min maxing easier. Percentages look more vulnerable to my eye to shenanigans, especially with some armies more than others (those with cheaper elites, FS, HS are innately more game-able under this system).
It also has the possibility of the carry on effect it currently has in fantasy- 'convincing' players they have to up the game size to fit in their big stuff, its either that or drive out certain units entirely for not having the proper points/effectiveness ratio.

I'm just going to insert a previous comment I made regarding percentages here:

"If you had a 25% limit on Heavy Support then people would only be able to take two Riptides or Helldrakes in a 1500 pts game, and to take a third you would need to be playing above 2000 pts. Of course the final responsibility for balance lies in the points costs (and therefore the designers), but a simple percentage system restricts players from spamming as much of the good stuff simply because it is much harsher on expensive (and likely good) units than bad ones. Another advantage of the system is scalability, which means we don't have bizarro rules surrounding doubled FOC's at random points limits, and which also aids balance by ensuring more powerful stuff can only appear en mass in larger games where their impact on the game is reduced. Such a system is evidently MUCH more balanced than anything 40k currently offers."

Furthermore, I don't know where you're getting this game-size creep stuff from in Fantasy. People play 2500 pts because of issues surrounding the scalability of magic (principally) and its dominance in smaller games, not because of the percentages system. Also, last I checked the standard game size of 40k has been creeping upwards for some time despite the lack of a percentages system.

malisteen
02-05-2014, 13:31
Honestly, percentages have worked fairly well in fantasy, and the sideboard gimmick seemed like a neat idea. The individual percentages given weren't really workable (40% is way too much for troops, and also not easily calculated at all points values without a calculator or pen & paper).

If it turns out to be true, I'd actually be pretty interested in trying it out. If not, as seems to be the case, then that's too bad.

don_mondo
02-05-2014, 13:33
I played 2nd edition. They would be nothing alike. You could take up to 50% of your army in Support (Which was essentially vehicles, dreadnoughts, and artillery), while your Squads choices were 25% or more (Which is where units like Centurions, Terminators, Devastator Squads, etc. would fall).

I played it as well, just couldn't remember the exact numbers.

Voss
02-05-2014, 14:53
I'm just going to insert a previous comment I made regarding percentages here:

"If you had a 25% limit on Heavy Support then people would only be able to take two Riptides or Helldrakes in a 1500 pts game, and to take a third you would need to be playing above 2000 pts. Of course the final responsibility for balance lies in the points costs (and therefore the designers), but a simple percentage system restricts players from spamming as much of the good stuff simply because it is much harsher on expensive (and likely good) units than bad ones. Another advantage of the system is scalability, which means we don't have bizarro rules surrounding doubled FOC's at random points limits, and which also aids balance by ensuring more powerful stuff can only appear en mass in larger games where their impact on the game is reduced. Such a system is evidently MUCH more balanced than anything 40k currently offers."

My point was simply that people will find new things to spam that fit neatly into the percentages. Which means a power shift to the armies that can do that, rather than an end to power armies. What you're suggesting will just set supporters of armies that can no longer spam their power stuff into new fits of rage.


Furthermore, I don't know where you're getting this game-size creep stuff from in Fantasy. People play 2500 pts because of issues surrounding the scalability of magic (principally) and its dominance in smaller games, not because of the percentages system. Also, last I checked the standard game size of 40k has been creeping upwards for some time despite the lack of a percentages system.

Haven't seen 40k get bigger at all. I have seen fantasy get bigger, and the reason cited are never magic. Its to fit the large (and high point) models into the percentage system, often in multiples. High elves have to have their phoenix(es) and special characters, Lizards want Slann and Daemons want to fit maxed out greater daemons, which do not fit in under 25% of 2000 points or less.

hobojebus
02-05-2014, 15:27
My point was simply that people will find new things to spam that fit neatly into the percentages. Which means a power shift to the armies that can do that, rather than an end to power armies. What you're suggesting will just set supporters of armies that can no longer spam their power stuff into new fits of rage.



Haven't seen 40k get bigger at all. I have seen fantasy get bigger, and the reason cited are never magic. Its to fit the large (and high point) models into the percentage system, often in multiples. High elves have to have their phoenix(es) and special characters, Lizards want Slann and Daemons want to fit maxed out greater daemons, which do not fit in under 25% of 2000 points or less.

Really because i've seen 40k grow an awful lot, we've gone from 30 guys to 80 for space marines, Orks have gone from 50 guys to 150, average games have gone from 1k to 2k, points per model has dropped and now they are forcing in apocalypse models into regular 40k.

Hasn't got bigger, yeah right.

Ssilmath
02-05-2014, 15:32
Really because i've seen 40k grow an awful lot, we've gone from 30 guys to 80 for space marines, Orks have gone from 50 guys to 150, average games have gone from 1k to 2k, points per model has dropped and now they are forcing in apocalypse models into regular 40k.

Hasn't got bigger, yeah right.

My average sized game, when I started 9 or so years ago, was 1750 or so points. My average sized game now is 1500 points.

wyvirn
02-05-2014, 15:49
I had a dream last night where GW published a 6.5 update as a free PDF. The rule changes were based on the abuses and the current meta, with clear and concise reasons stated for each change. Then I woke up. :(

Theocracity
02-05-2014, 15:52
I had a dream last night where GW published a 6.5 update as a free PDF. The rule changes were based on the abuses and the current meta, with clear and concise reasons stated for each change. Then I woke up. :(

I had a dream last night that a beautiful woman gave me a can of Ecto Cooler. It tasted just like I remembered, and the can was much more easy to drink from than those stupid juice boxes. Then I woke up :(

hobojebus
02-05-2014, 16:07
My average sized game, when I started 9 or so years ago, was 1750 or so points. My average sized game now is 1500 points.

Awww yer nowt be a wee bairn, when i started we trekked 6 mile up hill through teh snow carryin our lead minatures on our backs because we had to carry our rhino's in an old shoe box, and we were glad fer it!


I had a dream last night that a beautiful woman gave me a can of Ecto Cooler. It tasted just like I remembered, and the can was much more easy to drink from than those stupid juice boxes. Then I woke up :(

Does she know where i can get some tang?

Theocracity
02-05-2014, 16:14
Does she know where i can get some tang?

She does, in fact. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B002WWHXS6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1399043607&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165)

hobojebus
02-05-2014, 16:34
She does, in fact. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B002WWHXS6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1399043607&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165)

Find and marry her now sir!

Lanacane
02-05-2014, 20:29
Awww yer nowt be a wee bairn, when i started we trekked 6 mile up hill through teh snow carryin our lead minatures on our backs because we had to carry our rhino's in an old shoe box, and we were glad fer it!



A whole shoe box? When i was just a wee nipper, we had to trek 15 mile barefeet up t'hill covered in ice just to fetch half a shoebox for my army ;)

hobojebus
02-05-2014, 20:57
A whole shoe box? When i was just a wee nipper, we had to trek 15 mile barefeet up t'hill covered in ice just to fetch half a shoebox for my army ;)

Ahh well yasee rhino's were slimmer in them thar days not like these newfangled ones, and if you saved up fer a good shoebox, one with a lid you could carry three.

Inquisitor Shego
02-05-2014, 21:05
When ah were a lad you had to walk up hill there and walk up hill back. None of those newfangled down downhill contraptions

murgel2006
02-05-2014, 21:11
Gentlemen,
quite frankly I am not sure about your needs. It either is a very special jacket or some funny fancy candy... ;)

Ps: might be its both.

hobojebus
02-05-2014, 21:27
'course we didnt haf candy when i were a lad, we had twigs and it was a good thing too cause we used em as tooth brushes after, 'coursee ya got teh odd splinter but that just built character.

Telemachus
02-05-2014, 22:47
Pah, yer all southern softies; them's not hills, they're ever so slight gradients.

Unfortunately, not a sniff of what is going to be happening regarding the new rulebook in the digital version of White Dwarf.

Ach well, at least another week of speculation, rumour, rant and wishlisting.

murgel2006
02-05-2014, 23:58
I have another wish.
I would like to see a good ebook version. Not iPhone/iPad but a real ebook version. Then I might very well be tempted.
(Else I have a set of rules which are very good, even if they are not GW ...)

hobojebus
03-05-2014, 01:23
Ebooks would be okay as long as you can navigate it quickly and find what you want not swipe through page after page.

Wolf Lord Balrog
03-05-2014, 02:56
Ebooks would be okay as long as you can navigate it quickly and find what you want not swipe through page after page.

Indeed, I've looked at some of the ebooks that a friend has, and I was astounded at how incredibly inconvenient they are to navigate. Why the hell does a book whose print version is 100-110 pages become an ebook with 800+ pages each with like 1-2 paragraphs on them? Why can't they just make something like a PDF version of the print book?

Marshal
03-05-2014, 03:11
Indeed, I've looked at some of the ebooks that a friend has, and I was astounded at how incredibly inconvenient they are to navigate. Why the hell does a book whose print version is 100-110 pages become an ebook with 800+ pages each with like 1-2 paragraphs on them? Why can't they just make something like a PDF version of the print book?

Most the time you can adjust the font of the ebooks. A simple adjustment can take it from something like 800 pages down to 300 as long as you don't mind the smaller font.

Hendarion
03-05-2014, 06:31
I actually think there isn't a flyer below AV 12 now, but I could be wrong.(Dark) Eldar have AV 10. What you maybe mean is that Imperial Flyers have AV12 mostly.

BigHammer
03-05-2014, 07:24
(Dark) Eldar have AV 10. What you maybe mean is that Imperial Flyers have AV12 mostly.

Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Orks; all factions whose flyers are not AV12. Space Marines also have an AV11 flyer too, and DA have two IIRC.

The only AV12 ones in the core rules are Valks/Vends, Stormravens and Heldrakes. Considering Vendettas got a considerable (and deserved) nerf, Ravens are expensive and CSM don't really see much use as a primary faction, their numbers are fairly limited. Triple Heldrake lists are something I don't see a lot of these days, and even the relatively cheap Valkyrie has rear armour 10.

No faction in 40k lacks anti-air now, and it really shows in my local meta at least. Flyers are usually restricted to one or two per list, if they're taken at all, and their "abuse" is pretty much gone from 40k IMO. The Hard to Hit issue isn't really even that much of an issue; with the dominance of prescience in so many lists, and twin-linked weapons, as well as the ubiquitous quad-gun emplacement, very few people have to do much different to counter them. Sure, the heavy flyers can be a problem if your army isn't built to handle them, but effective counters are so cheap and plentiful now that they don't weaken an army to take.

My main armies are Eldar, Tau and Dark Eldar, for example, and I take either a Crimson Hunter Exarch, a Skyray, or a Voidraven in every list I write above 1k points now. Even one of those 3 units is plenty AA, I find. I don't bother with a quad-gun, either (puny Imperial armaments have no place in the more civilised armies of the galaxy).

In short, I think the zooming flyer rules work fine for the current game. In a world where most small arms don't shoot beyond 100m, the abstracted behaviour of jetfighters limiting their active combat window to a tiny area isn't all that silly ;)

I would like to see a clearing up of the snapshot and hard to hit rules language, though, as they interact poorly with other BS-modifying special rules in places (mostly just snapshot and vehicle speeds, though).

murgel2006
03-05-2014, 10:34
As I said, a good ebook.
Which means:
- a table of content that can be used to jump to the paragraph. (standard in almost any software)
- an index with the same jump to function. (standard in almost any software)

It is just those two features would make it usable.

hobojebus
03-05-2014, 11:29
No faction in 40k lacks anti-air now

My SW are outside and they'd like a word with you.

gitburna
03-05-2014, 11:37
The Imperial Guard and Tyranid codexes both have a contents page which is accessed via the reader itself . Maybe it was just the reader you were using which was the problem? I can also confirm that changing the text size settings helps so that you don't end up with hanging lines of text etc. The epub versions are set out well enough on the minimum size that i can read them on my phone or have a two page setting on my laptop. They aren't as fancy as the apple iBooks versions but then the epub is supposed to be a basic standard format

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

eldaran
03-05-2014, 13:17
My SW are outside and they'd like a word with you.

As would mine; at least, they would, if they hadn't been cooked a lot by helldrakes...

Wayshuba
04-05-2014, 03:04
People are complaining this is just a cash grab and while I sorta agree there I think there is more to it then that. I see this edition less of a cash grab and more the fact GW sees there is an issue where they are losing profits and market share. And the rush to release a new edition is not just to grab a few dollars to tack onto this years financial report but a genuine attempt to fix the issue that is causing them to bleed market share. However even of 7th edition is a genuine attempt to fix rules issues I don't believe that gw has the ability to do it well enough to regain the market they already lost.

Yes, they see there is an issue obviously, with their revenue dropping off fast. What they don't understand it is mainly driven by their absolutely insane pricing, especially on newer kits (I mean a 70% price increase on stromtroopers is bordering on complete business suicide). The rules do have some effect, for veterans, but the rules don't matter to someone new you are trying to get into the game when they look at the prices and simply laugh at how out of whack they are.

6.5 or 7th Edition is not going to fix this. It will simply give them a little short term revenue bump towards the end of the period (which is the real reason I believe they are doing it), but it doesn't fix the systemic issues that are causing them to bleed customers at an atrocious rate right now.

Thomson
04-05-2014, 08:49
From the recent natfka rumor there seems to be more to percentages than I thought, but I could not find in in the preview pages. So I would guess the FOC stays but some slots are limited by a max percentage.

Scammel
04-05-2014, 09:01
From the recent natfka rumor there seems to be more to percentages than I thought, but I could not find in in the preview pages. So I would guess the FOC stays but some slots are limited by a max percentage.

Pretty much the one, almost inviolable fact we know about 7th is that percentages aren't going to be present.

Telemachus
04-05-2014, 09:57
Apologies in advance if someone else has posted similar thoughts, but I had a read through the big 6th rulebook the other night and one thing that struck me was how out of date it was. Now, we can argue and moan about balance and LoS and how Assault's been 'nerfed' etc etc until we're blue in the face and that it's a cash grab because it's only been 2 years since 6th came out, but none of that changes that fact.

Sisters of Battle? Nope, they're the Adepta Sororitas.
Imperial Guard? Nope, they're the Astra Militarium.
Imperial Knights? Can't find them in the 6th edition rulebook.
Including Lords of War? Not in there either.
An easy guide to including detachments and updated Allies and FOC? It's not there.

There's bound to be more than that, but the simple fact is that with the pace the hobby is moving these days, the rulebook as it stands just isn't fit for the purpose that it was designed for.

Me? I'm looking forward to something that tidies things up a bit.

TheBearminator
04-05-2014, 10:42
Forgot this thread existed, so excuse me for starting a new thread. But is the rulebook to be expected before orks or after?

budman
04-05-2014, 11:04
before

street date of the 24th may

manager at the store stated only a few changes to balance out some things he hoped it did not swing back to far.

TheBearminator
04-05-2014, 11:14
That soon. So we'll probably see it up for preordained Friday 16th then. Then perhaps first week of orks for preorder Friday the 23th or 30th?

BigHammer
04-05-2014, 11:18
Preorder for the new rulebook is being said to be 24th. Out on the 31st. I haven't read anything about Orks lately at all.

Scammel
04-05-2014, 11:24
Preorder for the new rulebook is being said to be 24th. Out on the 31st. I haven't read anything about Orks lately at all.

I recall them being 'confirmed' for the first release after '7th'. 40k Radio apparently know what's headed on the Ork front but would rather remain quiet for the future.

hobojebus
04-05-2014, 13:45
Orkz need the update no doubt I just hope they fare better than nids or chaos.

AmBlam
04-05-2014, 19:38
In 5th MCs were overpowered and vehicles were underpowered.
In 6th MCs were overpowered and vehicles were underpowered.

If this trend continues I think it will tell us all we need to know about GW.

AmBlam
04-05-2014, 19:41
Orkz need the update no doubt I just hope they fare better than nids or chaos.

I see Chaos being wiped off the map with the next update. Chaos are so heavily dependent on a flyer for competitiveness and that's one category I think will get a nerf.

I think GW have been trying to cash in on making Chaos players collect other armies for a long time now. This may explain why allies exist at all and why daemons are always good.


Yes, they see there is an issue obviously, with their revenue dropping off fast.

How do people tell what GWs revenue is?

hobojebus
04-05-2014, 20:57
I see Chaos being wiped off the map with the next update. Chaos are so heavily dependent on a flyer for competitiveness and that's one category I think will get a nerf.

I think GW have been trying to cash in on making Chaos players collect other armies for a long time now. This may explain why allies exist at all and why daemons are always good.



How do people tell what GWs revenue is?

They are a public company so they release their financial report:

Revenue £60.5m
Revenue at constant currency* £59.8m
Operating profit pre-royalties receivable £6.6m
Royalties receivable £1.0m
Operating profit £7.7m
Pre-tax profit £7.7m
Cash generated from operations £8.9m
Basic earnings per share 17.7p
Dividend per share declared in the period - 18p

They were 7 million down on same period year before (think thats how it works no account myself) which was a big drop given the new SM release in that period.

Scammel
04-05-2014, 22:12
In 5th MCs were overpowered and vehicles were underpowered.
In 6th MCs were overpowered and vehicles were underpowered.

If this trend continues I think it will tell us all we need to know about GW.

Pretty large generalisations. Whilst MCs are undoubtedly very, very good, the dominance of mech last edition and of flyers (to an extent) this edition makes your second point a little shaky.

Navar
04-05-2014, 22:49
Yes, they see there is an issue obviously, with their revenue dropping off fast. What they don't understand it is mainly driven by their absolutely insane pricing, especially on newer kits (I mean a 70% price increase on stromtroopers is bordering on complete business suicide). The rules do have some effect, for veterans, but the rules don't matter to someone new you are trying to get into the game when they look at the prices and simply laugh at how out of whack they are.

6.5 or 7th Edition is not going to fix this. It will simply give them a little short term revenue bump towards the end of the period (which is the real reason I believe they are doing it), but it doesn't fix the systemic issues that are causing them to bleed customers at an atrocious rate right now.

You say they have an "absolutely insane pricing", but looking at other companies and their kits and quality I fail to see whatever it is you are talking about.

The stormtroopers notwithstanding (because I have very little idea about stormtroopers, but I THINK that they replaced a 15 year old metal model with a brand new multi part plastic kit with several weapon options, and insane customizability) I have always had a hard time finding an equivilant model for model comparison with significant cost differences and an equal quality.

I often compare the price of GW miniatures to that of PP, and they seem to usually be about a wash.

The difference is game size, and I can pretty much promise that 7th edition isn't going to be a skirmish game.

(And with that said Warmachine seems to be moving in the direction of requiring more and more figures . . .)

I am VERY excited for 7th and the most recent rumor I just heard was that Lords of War will be in the codices (an Ork rumor.)

I am really excited that they pulled the Psychic power cards though. If they only incorporate Stronghold Assault and Escalation and rebalance the Psychic powers then I will be a very happy gamer.

Scammel
04-05-2014, 22:51
I am VERY excited for 7th and the most recent rumor I just heard was that Lords of War will be in the codices (an Ork rumor.)


Oo, perhaps not in this thread, but do tell!

Edit: Actually, no worries - as the rumours were probably from Larry Vela my money is now on the complete abolition of super-heavies from 40k.

hobojebus
05-05-2014, 01:41
You say they have an "absolutely insane pricing", but looking at other companies and their kits and quality I fail to see whatever it is you are talking about.

The stormtroopers notwithstanding (because I have very little idea about stormtroopers, but I THINK that they replaced a 15 year old metal model with a brand new multi part plastic kit with several weapon options, and insane customizability) I have always had a hard time finding an equivilant model for model comparison with significant cost differences and an equal quality.

I often compare the price of GW miniatures to that of PP, and they seem to usually be about a wash.

The difference is game size, and I can pretty much promise that 7th edition isn't going to be a skirmish game.

(And with that said Warmachine seems to be moving in the direction of requiring more and more figures . . .)

I am VERY excited for 7th and the most recent rumor I just heard was that Lords of War will be in the codices (an Ork rumor.)

I am really excited that they pulled the Psychic power cards though. If they only incorporate Stronghold Assault and Escalation and rebalance the Psychic powers then I will be a very happy gamer.

12 point storm trooper £4 per model, 15 point grey Hunter £2 per model, £21 gets you half a scion squad £22 gets you a full space marine squad.

The scion set is a massive rip off for guard players.

Commissar_42
05-05-2014, 02:10
12 point storm trooper £4 per model, 15 point grey Hunter £2 per model, £21 gets you half a scion squad £22 gets you a full space marine squad.

The scion set is a massive rip off for guard players.
The scion set is also usable as a hq for the tempestus faction, and features a bucket load of kit options.

Navar
05-05-2014, 02:13
Oo, perhaps not in this thread, but do tell!

Edit: Actually, now worries - as the rumours were probably from Larry Vela my money is now on the complete abolition of super-heavies from 40k.

See, the way I follow rumors is pretty much that they are all to be taken with salt, but I pick the ones I like and hope for those. I understand that some rumor providers are more reliable than others, but I don't follow them closely enough.

It is all just fun to me at any rate.

And I like Lords of War and big games of Stronghold Assault and 500-1,000 point tanks/walkers/MCs/etc.


12 point storm trooper £4 per model, 15 point grey Hunter £2 per model, £21 gets you half a scion squad £22 gets you a full space marine squad.

The scion set is a massive rip off for guard players.

11 point unit of Trollblood Kriel Warriors $105.95 (11 models)
11 point unit of Cygnar Trencher Commandos $55.98 (10 models)

I feel like this is a "problem" that every game system faces. I would imagine that the capital outlay of the average AM army is more than the capital outlay of the average AA army.
I have not done any analysis to back this up however.

It could be that the storm troopers are the worst monetary unit per point value unit GW makes, it still doesn't invalidate my main point that unless 7th becomes a skirmish level game or unless Games Workshop decides to vastly sacrifice quality then I don't think that pricing should even be relevant to this discussion.

I am CRAZY excited for 6th Reloaded* (or whatever) because of the standardization of Stronghold Assault and (to a lesser extent) Escalation. I am intrigued that the Psychic cards were pulled as well, and VERY excited for what that may hold.

*And if GW has any sense this is what they will call it.

R.D.
05-05-2014, 02:20
12 point storm trooper £4 per model, 15 point grey Hunter £2 per model, £21 gets you half a scion squad £22 gets you a full space marine squad.

The scion set is a massive rip off for guard players.

If you have a bunch of old IG torsos lying around you could potentially make up to about 17 Scions from the new box.

wyvirn
05-05-2014, 04:34
In 5th MCs were overpowered and vehicles were underpowered.
In 6th MCs were overpowered and vehicles were underpowered.

If this trend continues I think it will tell us all we need to know about GW.

What 5th were you playing? I remember people suggesting the Carnifex becoming a vehicle so they would have some use at the end of 5th.

ehlijen
05-05-2014, 04:50
Vehicles in general haven't been overpowered since they did away with glancing only for obscurement and switched to saves.

What 5th ed had problems with were transports, or rather, their destruction not affecting their contents. Marines crashing into your lines with rhinos and firing smokes, not caring if their box lived or died, was the order of the day.

In the MC vs walker debate, MCs have been winning since GW started giving MCs actual armour saves (mid third ed).

Greyhound
05-05-2014, 05:09
With Wolves, Blood Angels and Orks still to come in the 6th edition reboot, I hope for some "subtle" changes in the way assault or movement plays out to bring an edge back in assault armies.

We had a good shooty ruleset while tau, eldar and space marines were rebooted, maybe they'll bring just one or two word changes which will help assault to come back.

I seriously hope we can use nobs again for something useful at the moment between the sniping from barrage (which makes 'eavy armour mandatory and expensive model which can be taken out in 2-3 barrages), and the ability to isolate the big lads in challenges (you over there, step out and blow apart one model while we murder your friends, then when you come back run like a little girl and we'll sweeping advance you), I have found nobs a waste of points.

Baaltor
05-05-2014, 07:15
Pretty large generalisations. Whilst MCs are undoubtedly very, very good, the dominance of mech last edition and of flyers (to an extent) this edition makes your second point a little shaky.

Yes, Mech, not vehicles. The subset of vehicles that didn't suffer from their unreliability, short effectiveness due to damage, and benefited from rules not really attacking what makes a transport a transport, all the while being the cheapest form of vehicle. I don't remember many battle tank heavy armies siezing the tables, with very narrow exeptions.


What 5th were you playing? I remember people suggesting the Carnifex becoming a vehicle so they would have some use at the end of 5th.

I remember way crazier, and stupider things than that, but they don't prove much. So what if the carnifex wouldn't take a wound from 20 bolters a turn, if it's shredded by melta joe and his guard crew? The likelyhood of 250 point landraider going up in flames to a 15 melta toting guardsmen is staggering. I know there's a host of things to consider in that operation, but factually the numbers don't add up, and you see that in competition.


Vehicles in general haven't been overpowered since they did away with glancing only for obscurement and switched to saves.
...
In the MC vs walker debate, MCs have been winning since GW started giving MCs actual armour saves (mid third ed).

Am I the only one a little disappointed that no story time followed these?

AmBlam
05-05-2014, 07:27
What 5th were you playing? I remember people suggesting the Carnifex becoming a vehicle so they would have some use at the end of 5th.

Yes, that is one example of a weak MC, but it doesn't detract from the fact MCs as a whole have been OP for too long now.

Maybe GW could create a new category for vehicles and MCs so they share the same rules.

hobojebus
05-05-2014, 12:21
The scion set is also usable as a hq for the tempestus faction, and features a bucket load of kit options.

Yeah and your going to have 6+ extra command sprues you have no use for and can't sell because anyone else doing a scion force already has them.

Multi kits are not a good thing your paying double for half the models just because you have a choice what to make, I'd rather have the choice spend £25 on 10 immortals or the snipers, rather than pay £25 for five models and a bunch of bits I can't use.

And price is really the problem here because we were promised 6th would be good for near a decade, people paid for those over priced books because they thought it would be useful for more than a year, I bet they would not of if they thought they'd just get folded into the next edition.

And it's a worrying trend how they are rushing out stuff now, will 7th last two years, will those £30 codexes get replaced in two years instead of 4 or 5?

Unless the new edition makes real changes to the mess 6th has become all it will be is a cash grab.

Matous1983
05-05-2014, 12:30
hey isn that way too fast to print new edition? I started gaming last summer. I just finished my CSM army and learned rules for 80%. My guess is that they cant make big changes, cant imagine that I will throw away my army after year when some units become useless because of new rules.

Matous1983
05-05-2014, 12:30
what about rather they come woith come campaing?

hobojebus
05-05-2014, 13:05
what about rather they come woith come campaing?

Sorry I have no idea what your saying.

ashc
05-05-2014, 13:58
Through the typos I believe that the question is what about rather they come up with some campaign.

On that, they are making campaign books like Crusade of Fire i guess.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

DVeight
05-05-2014, 13:59
Sorry I have no idea what your saying.

Is he saying what he's typing or typing what he's saying?

SanDiegoSurrealist
05-05-2014, 14:04
not going to be a whole new ruleset, just a minor overhaul of what we already have.
JUst speculation but I wonder if it will get rid of the allies chart and instead replace it by data slates?

gitburna
05-05-2014, 14:04
Yes, that is one example of a weak MC, but it doesn't detract from the fact MCs as a whole have been OP for too long now.

Maybe GW could create a new category for vehicles and MCs so they share the same rules.

I think walkers per se don't have bad rules. They work fine for Sentinels, Armoured Sentinels and Warwalkers. And they'd be fine for Rifleman-type dreadnoughts and forgefiends too (IMO).

I think assault dreadnoughts need a little something though...perhaps some sort of add-on rule for Dreadnought CCW which allows them to compete in close combat in the same way that monstrous creatures can.

hobojebus
05-05-2014, 14:08
Through the typos I believe that the question is what about rather they come up with some campaign.

On that, they are making campaign books like Crusade of Fire i guess.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

I thought he was asking if it should come with some camping gear.

RandomThoughts
05-05-2014, 15:00
hey isn that way too fast to print new edition? I started gaming last summer. I just finished my CSM army and learned rules for 80%. My guess is that they cant make big changes, cant imagine that I will throw away my army after year when some units become useless because of new rules.

That's what happened every 4 years anyway, every two years if you were lucky enough to play a codex that gets updated to the current rules each edition.

Fear Ghoul
05-05-2014, 16:15
I can already predict that GW can't win with this latest development. Either the changes are so minimal they can be covered by an FAQ/Errata, causing people to complain that the game is still broken and GW doesn't care, or the changes address many people's most glaring concerns but now they have to buy a new book so they complain.

Gungo
05-05-2014, 16:27
I can already predict that GW can't win with this latest development. Either the changes are so minimal they can be covered by an FAQ/Errata, causing people to complain that the game is still broken and GW doesn't care, or the changes address many people's most glaring concerns but now they have to buy a new book so they complain.
I don't expect sweeping changes however the rumours state that gw is releasing a FAQ for the original 6th edition book and updating the current digital versions. While I don't think these changes are a normal FAQ update it's going to be far less then a massive new edition update. And yet people will still complain even in this best case scenario. It's actually a good idea they are including all the faqs and changes during an edition. So a new person buying then6th edition doesn't need to download 10 pages of faqs. Personally I own the hard copy but plan on picking up the digitally version even if I don't need too since the iPad mini is so much easier to carry w me.

Wayshuba
05-05-2014, 16:50
You say they have an "absolutely insane pricing", but looking at other companies and their kits and quality I fail to see whatever it is you are talking about.

The stormtroopers notwithstanding (because I have very little idea about stormtroopers, but I THINK that they replaced a 15 year old metal model with a brand new multi part plastic kit with several weapon options, and insane customizability) I have always had a hard time finding an equivilant model for model comparison with significant cost differences and an equal quality.

I often compare the price of GW miniatures to that of PP, and they seem to usually be about a wash.

The difference is game size, and I can pretty much promise that 7th edition isn't going to be a skirmish game.

(And with that said Warmachine seems to be moving in the direction of requiring more and more figures . . .)

I am VERY excited for 7th and the most recent rumor I just heard was that Lords of War will be in the codices (an Ork rumor.)

I am really excited that they pulled the Psychic power cards though. If they only incorporate Stronghold Assault and Escalation and rebalance the Psychic powers then I will be a very happy gamer.

Everyone who thinks GW pricing is okay, generally almost always compares it to PP - who are simply taking advantage of the GW pricing ceiling. However, PP is NOT an army based game the size of Warhammer or 40k, so while the models are a bit more expensive, you need a lot fewer of them. Better to compare it to other army based games. Perry miniatures - 38 models for $32. Warlord Games - 1000 pt. US Airborne Army - 50 models (including two jeeps and two support weapons) is $156.80. Dark Sword pewter character miniatures - $8.

Also, their own pricing is all over the map. Troop boxes from $25-$60 (for the same amount of models and plastic), Standard 28mm character models on foot are all over the place in pricing.

I could go on with many, many manufacturers whose prices are no where near close to GW. GW prices all their miniatures now as if you are only going to buy 15 ever (like a skirmish or RPG) yet designs a game that needs hundreds of models.

And a far as the bits and bobs, many other manufacturers do this now as well. In addition, two sprues of plastic is still two sprues of plastic, no matter how many bits and bobs you fit on those sprues.

Navar
05-05-2014, 17:50
Everyone who thinks GW pricing is okay, generally almost always compares it to PP - who are simply taking advantage of the GW pricing ceiling. However, PP is NOT an army based game the size of Warhammer or 40k, so while the models are a bit more expensive, you need a lot fewer of them. Better to compare it to other army based games. Perry miniatures - 38 models for $32. Warlord Games - 1000 pt. US Airborne Army - 50 models (including two jeeps and two support weapons) is $156.80. Dark Sword pewter character miniatures - $8.
And a far as the bits and bobs, many other manufacturers do this now as well. In addition, two sprues of plastic is still two sprues of plastic, no matter how many bits and bobs you fit on those sprues.

I chopped up your post a bit to address points you made specifically, but your last statement is wrong. I don't know any other way to say this. A sprue that is 35% empty space is NOT the same a a sprue with 5% empty space.

I don't even understand how one would argue the opposite.

You are trying to compare the below 2 products:

192768192769

There is literally no argument. You receive more plastic from buying from GW than from Perry Miniatures. (again I could list other examples, but 1 should be sufficient.)

Let me address your second point by opening with the fact that I like Dark Sword miniatures, but 2 things are going on here.

#1 their newer miniatures are closer to $10.00 each, but much more importantly
#2 their quality is no where near what GW produces.

I am not saying that they are "bad," but their poses are fairly static, and they just aren't up to the level that GW produces.

Again uou are trying to compare the below 2 products:

192770192771

The shadowdancer costs $5.00 more, and I would argue that it is definitely worth that much more.


Also, their own pricing is all over the map. Troop boxes from $25-$60 (for the same amount of models and plastic), Standard 28mm character models on foot are all over the place in pricing.

I already addressed this with an example from Privateer Press.

Also I would argue that the reason people always use Privateer Press as their examples is because they are close in volume of product you receive AND in quality.

I don't see how you can enter into this debate and say "The quality of the product doesn't matter." (or to be less hyperbolic "The quality of the product shouldn't impact the price.")


I could go on with many, many manufacturers whose prices are no where near close to GW. GW prices all their miniatures now as if you are only going to buy 15 ever (like a skirmish or RPG) yet designs a game that needs hundreds of models.

I don't know if this is true or not, but it isn't really relevant to the discussion.

ehlijen
05-05-2014, 18:49
I chopped up your post a bit to address points you made specifically, but your last statement is wrong. I don't know any other way to say this. A sprue that is 35% empty space is NOT the same a a sprue with 5% empty space.

I don't even understand how one would argue the opposite.
[...]
There is literally no argument. You receive more plastic from buying from GW than from Perry Miniatures. (again I could list other examples, but 1 should be sufficient.)

That means little to most as they don't use large quantities of those bits. Having options and extra bits is nice. Getting more actually usable models out of the box is also nice. There is a happy medium somewhere but while Perry games is probably too far along the quantity over quality scale, GW is even further too far down the other direction these days.

Konovalev
05-05-2014, 19:51
we were promised 6th would be good for near a decade

We were? I must have been awake at the time.

Sephillion
05-05-2014, 20:43
We were? I must have been awake at the time.

It was something safe to assume, or at least to hope for. The BRB’s price has doubled during the transition from 5th to 6th (a bit less than doubled, actually); the price of Codices has increased by 50%, everything went from soft-cover to hard-cover. It gives the impression that it would last longer, or at the very least as long as previous editions.

The fact that it lasted not even 2 years is… baffling.

Theocracity
05-05-2014, 20:54
It was something safe to assume, or at least to hope for. The BRB’s price has doubled during the transition from 5th to 6th (a bit less than doubled, actually); the price of Codices has increased by 50%, everything went from soft-cover to hard-cover. It gives the impression that it would last longer, or at the very least as long as previous editions.

The fact that it lasted not even 2 years is… baffling.

Though to his point, "we were promised 10 years" and "we assumed at least four" are statements with very different connotations ;).

Anyhow, there's confirmed leaks about the new version floating around from the latest WD. A psychic phase, an optional way to play without an FOC, and shifting objectives are all mentioned.

Baaltor
05-05-2014, 21:43
We were? I must have been awake at the time.

It was a claim circulating frequently at the time. But I'll admit not know anything about who said it/why/whatever, because whenever I saw a reference to that claim I immediately stopped taking article seriously.

Voss
05-05-2014, 22:45
Yes, that is one example of a weak MC, but it doesn't detract from the fact MCs as a whole have been OP for too long now.

Maybe GW could create a new category for vehicles and MCs so they share the same rules.

Or, has been argued before, just go back to having toughness and wound(damage) values on vehicles rather than the terrible charts.

Since they're reaching all the way back into rogue trader to bring the psychic phase and daemon summoning back, they might as well bring some of the good ideas as well as the bad.


7th is looking like a weird fusion between a tweaked 6th and a bunch of stuff from 2nd and 1st. I have no idea if it is good, but honestly after reading the Unbound stuff, I have no idea if it will even be playable.

Baaltor
05-05-2014, 23:12
7th is looking like a weird fusion between a tweaked 6th and a bunch of stuff from 2nd and 1st. I have no idea if it is good, but honestly after reading the Unbound stuff, I have no idea if it will even be playable.

I've not been keeping to closely with the rumours, but if this' true I'd have little trouble believing it. Many people've remarked the seemingly half-measured nature of the 6th ed. book, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who was wondering if 6th ed. was only a stepping stone some flat out changes. Some patterns in the releases themselves seem to favour this theory in my opinion.

TheBearminator
05-05-2014, 23:15
If you have a bunch of old IG torsos lying around you could potentially make up to about 17 Scions from the new box.

Seriously? You get 17 pairs of legs in that box?

Spiney Norman
05-05-2014, 23:44
Or, has been argued before, just go back to having toughness and wound(damage) values on vehicles rather than the terrible charts.

Since they're reaching all the way back into rogue trader to bring the psychic phase and daemon summoning back, they might as well bring some of the good ideas as well as the bad.


7th is looking like a weird fusion between a tweaked 6th and a bunch of stuff from 2nd and 1st. I have no idea if it is good, but honestly after reading the Unbound stuff, I have no idea if it will even be playable.

From what I've read in the white dwarf leaks 7th Ed will be so inherently abusable that the rules as they are published just won't be playable any more unless you are willing to by x amount of the most powerful unit in your codex where
x= The total points value of the game / the cost of said unit.

I'm not interested in playing a game like that, and I'm not interested in forking out £50 for a rule book just to tell me I can do that and it will give me a fun game.

Since it seems like we're going to have to write out own catalogue of supplementary rules and restrictions just to get a game with more than one viable unit type I don't see why we can't save ourselves £50 and just write out own set of rules from the ground up anyway.

duffybear1988
05-05-2014, 23:50
7th edition sounds great guys. As a long term space wolves player I've always dreamed of running nothing but long fangs. Now I can (insert squeeing like a fangirl here). Now my army can finally be 50 long fangs backed up by 12 basilisks! At long last I get to play the combined IG and SW siege list I have always pictured. Of course it will be led by rune priest Wolfspawn who has some cool fluff as to why he is leading such an army. Basically all the grey hunters and guardsmen died in a previous attempt to charge an enemy citadel and now the only units left at his disposal are basilisks and fangs. He had to kill the IG command squad for incompetence and has assumed complete control. Luckily he did this just before inquisitor Lucksout turned up with his 3 servo skulls to find out what was going on!

Spiney Norman
06-05-2014, 00:03
7th edition sounds great guys. As a long term space wolves player I've always dreamed of running nothing but long fangs. Now I can (insert squeeing like a fangirl here). Now my army can finally be 50 long fangs backed up by 12 basilisks! At long last I get to play the combined IG and SW siege list I have always pictured. Of course it will be led by rune priest Wolfspawn who has some cool fluff as to why he is leading such an army. Basically all the grey hunters and guardsmen died in a previous attempt to charge an enemy citadel and now the only units left at his disposal are basilisks and fangs. He had to kill the IG command squad for incompetence and has assumed complete control. Luckily he did this just before inquisitor Lucksout turned up with his 3 servo skulls to find out what was going on!

Well warseer doesn't have a like button so I'll just say it... "like"

wanderingblade
06-05-2014, 00:33
It was something safe to assume, or at least to hope for. The BRBís price has doubled during the transition from 5th to 6th (a bit less than doubled, actually); the price of Codices has increased by 50%, everything went from soft-cover to hard-cover. It gives the impression that it would last longer, or at the very least as long as previous editions.

The fact that it lasted not even 2 years isÖ baffling.

I don't think it is. What breaks editions are codices. In the last 2 years, we have had a bewildering array of codices. They have compressed all the edition breaking stuff into a very short space of time. Hopefully next time they'll be slightly more careful...


7th edition sounds great guys. As a long term space wolves player I've always dreamed of running nothing but long fangs. Now I can (insert squeeing like a fangirl here). Now my army can finally be 50 long fangs backed up by 12 basilisks! At long last I get to play the combined IG and SW siege list I have always pictured. Of course it will be led by rune priest Wolfspawn who has some cool fluff as to why he is leading such an army. Basically all the grey hunters and guardsmen died in a previous attempt to charge an enemy citadel and now the only units left at his disposal are basilisks and fangs. He had to kill the IG command squad for incompetence and has assumed complete control. Luckily he did this just before inquisitor Lucksout turned up with his 3 servo skulls to find out what was going on!

In a 2k game you can already have 36 Long Fangs, 6 Basilisks and the Inquisitor. 4 Wraithknights, 5 (or 6 I guess with the data slate) Riptides and 12 Leman Russes are all legal sub-2k builds already (assuming you've got enough points for them...).

As such, I don't see any point complaining about the force org chart going, because it had already effectively done so. At least this way the field is levelled by everyone joining the madness. I guess that mightn't be the fix people were looking for but at best its a fix and at worst - well, can't really make things worst.

ehlijen
06-05-2014, 01:05
It was something safe to assume, or at least to hope for. The BRBís price has doubled during the transition from 5th to 6th (a bit less than doubled, actually); the price of Codices has increased by 50%, everything went from soft-cover to hard-cover. It gives the impression that it would last longer, or at the very least as long as previous editions.

The fact that it lasted not even 2 years isÖ baffling.

It's not baffling to anyone who understands what GW is doing. Yes the books became needlessly prettier (and thus less cost effective to the end user, but more profitable), but they were also released more frequently. GW's sales depend on a regular book release schedule. Once all faction books are released, a new edition is needed to justify the next cycle. 6th ed did not have another year at the current pace left in it, let alone two. It makes the hardcover book prices even more infuriating, but it should not have been a surprise.

edit:



As such, I don't see any point complaining about the force org chart going, because it had already effectively done so. At least this way the field is levelled by everyone joining the madness. I guess that mightn't be the fix people were looking for but at best its a fix and at worst - well, can't really make things worst

Are you perchance confusing the terms 'fix' and 'lazy capitulation' ? :p

wanderingblade
06-05-2014, 01:39
Are you perchance confusing the terms 'fix' and 'lazy capitulation' ? :p

Tres droll sir, but no :)

People keep up holding Warmahordes as an example of balance - that is a game that has built its balance on relatively laissez-faire restrictions and a sense that it can't be Overpowered if everyone gets a go. It is certainly possible to build a more balanced version of 40k by making it less restricted and by awarding bonuses if you do, although it might require rewriting a few codices first.

Of course, just because its possible, doesn't mean it will happen.

Wayshuba
06-05-2014, 02:14
I chopped up your post a bit to address points you made specifically, but your last statement is wrong. I don't know any other way to say this. A sprue that is 35% empty space is NOT the same a a sprue with 5% empty space.

I don't even understand how one would argue the opposite.

You are trying to compare the below 2 products:

192768192769

There is literally no argument. You receive more plastic from buying from GW than from Perry Miniatures. (again I could list other examples, but 1 should be sufficient.)

Sorry, but this is wrong. You are simply comparing the contents of one sprue and ignoring the fact that in the GW box you will get two or three whereas in the Perry Box you get enough sprues to make between 36 and 40 troops. Also, you picked a poor example. Here is the Civil War box set:

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/images/Box%20and%20contents.jpg

More on ONE sprue than an enitre box of GW miniatures all together and you get three sprues of them and for $32. To build the same 36 miniatures from GW will cost you almost $100 AT THE CHEAPEST! GW may be good, but they are NOT three times better than the Perry Miniatures. Sorry, I own both and the Perry Miniatures are actually must better quality than the pictures give them credit.


Let me address your second point by opening with the fact that I like Dark Sword miniatures, but 2 things are going on here.

#1 their newer miniatures are closer to $10.00 each, but much more importantly
#2 their quality is no where near what GW produces.

I am not saying that they are "bad," but their poses are fairly static, and they just aren't up to the level that GW produces.

Again you are trying to compare the below 2 products:

192770192771

The shadowdancer costs $5.00 more, and I would argue that it is definitely worth that much more.

Like all miniatures, some are good, some are bad. However, for $10 at Dark Sword you get this (and it is pewter, not plastic or failcast):
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/330x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/g/r/grrm_5021_f_p.jpg

For the same $15, you can get the following and it is the seam or better quality than GW easily (since it is pewter instead of restic):

http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/330x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/v/_/v_7510_toh2_frs_p.jpg



I don't see how you can enter into this debate and say "The quality of the product doesn't matter." (or to be less hyperbolic "The quality of the product shouldn't impact the price.")



I don't know if this is true or not, but it isn't really relevant to the discussion.

As to the quality example, your right, it isn't what GW produces, it is actually better. GW uses junk resin and cheap hard plastics, whereas Dark Sword is using pewter and they are very good casts. Perry uses plastics of the exact ssme quality as GW. Quality is NOT our individual preferences for what we like artistically, but rather who is giving you the better bang for the buck. I'm sorry, but GW gives the worst bang for the buck on the market and it is getting worse with every new release. No one is going to convince me that the new Scions models are 70% better than the previous Kasrkin models and therefore justified a 70% increase AND a substantial decrease in cost at the same time (going from metal to plastic), thereby effectively having GW DOUBLE the price on the "stormtroopers".

Thrax
06-05-2014, 04:18
7th edition sounds great guys. As a long term space wolves player I've always dreamed of running nothing but long fangs. Now I can (insert squeeing like a fangirl here). Now my army can finally be 50 long fangs backed up by 12 basilisks! At long last I get to play the combined IG and SW siege list I have always pictured. Of course it will be led by rune priest Wolfspawn who has some cool fluff as to why he is leading such an army. Basically all the grey hunters and guardsmen died in a previous attempt to charge an enemy citadel and now the only units left at his disposal are basilisks and fangs. He had to kill the IG command squad for incompetence and has assumed complete control. Luckily he did this just before inquisitor Lucksout turned up with his 3 servo skulls to find out what was going on!

I can't believe you would reveal the underlying plot of the next Black Library novel! Have you no shame?

lethlis
06-05-2014, 04:37
I can't believe you would reveal the underlying plot of the next Black Library novel! Have you no shame?

Not gonna lie he is talking about that as if it is a good list. Will it beat a lot of people? Sure, but the second someone shows up with fliers the army is toast. and if that fliers person plays someone with hordes they are toast and so on and so forth.

The extremes wouldn't last in a tournament setting and wouldn't last in a casual setting either.

ehlijen
06-05-2014, 04:58
it can't be Overpowered if everyone gets a go

That only works if the power level at which everyone gets a go is suitable for the core rules the game is built on.

That is not the case in 40k at present. A chess game of all queens for both sides is balanced, but it's not a terribly good game (in fact, I'd expect it might exacerbate the going first advantage of white to allow a perfect attack strategy).

Power level and core rules have to fit together to make an interesting game. GW giving up and casting off all restraints for power levels will be bad for the game, not good.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 05:10
Power level and core rules have to fit together to make an interesting game. GW giving up and casting off all restraints for power levels will be bad for the game, not good.

Just got done wading through the new News and Rumor thread (been at work all day), and based on what I've learned, you have said exactly what I've been thinking. I don't think I want to play 7th Edition 40k. In fact, I think I might see about finishing writing up my own 5th/6th Edition hybrid rules.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 05:19
Just got done wading through the new News and Rumor thread (been at work all day), and based on what I've learned, you have said exactly what I've been thinking. I don't think I want to play 7th Edition 40k. In fact, I think I might see about finishing writing up my own 5th/6th Edition hybrid rules.

Don't you want to know the details of the rules changes before making that decision? At the very least, you might find some interesting stuff to port into your new rules set.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 05:23
Don't you want to know the details of the rules changes before making that decision? At the very least, you might find some interesting stuff to port into your new rules set.

If there is something I think I might like, I will do that. It doesn't cost me anything to go ahead and make the move. I haven't been able to play 40k in over a month anyway, and by the time I foresee being able to do so again, the new rulebook will be available.

Scribe of Khorne
06-05-2014, 05:27
Don't you want to know the details of the rules changes before making that decision? At the very least, you might find some interesting stuff to port into your new rules set.

Not really, it looks like it just wants to bring in more fantasy stuff, (psi phase, warp pools, daemons for all) and throw out the last fragments of even a claim to balance.

When there is no balance...there is balance? I guess?

I spend too much to be getting no rules support. Hopefully FW carries on actually giving a **** so my group can just play Heresy games.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 05:31
Not really, it looks like it just wants to bring in more fantasy stuff, (psi phase, warp pools, daemons for all) and throw out the last fragments of even a claim to balance.

So, you've read the new rules, the rules changes and how they interact? You've also seen the FAQ's that are going to be released? Please then, do provide this knowledge.

I don't know if the new stuff is going to be any good. All I know is that they're making some changes, and an idea of some of the changes.

Losing Command
06-05-2014, 05:31
In a chess game with all queens, no one can slay the king and every game ends in a draw :p

People are drawing way to many conclusions based on a few lines from a yet-to-be-released White Dwarf that vaguely describes some anekdotal examples of what armies you could make with Unbound. It even reveals that there are some restritions to what you can do with Unbound (have to follow allies chart/unit sizes and so on) which could mean there are even more restrictions we know nothing about yet. Hell, apocalypse has been around for years already, and that truly has no restrictions on what you want to field, yet there has been no-one who complained about that :rolleyes:
But as long as we don't know all the rules for missions, armies, allies, objectives, deployment and possible changes to all unit types, shooting, assault psychic powers and so on, there is no way of saying if Unbound is breaking the game or not. It might even turn out that the bonusses you get for a warforged army are so good that that is going to be the next OP thing we all complain about. But we won't know untill may 31th.

AngryAngel
06-05-2014, 05:34
I agree in that you can't base opinion just on what we know right now. However, I'll also say the news sounds, troubling from what we know. As with all of these things time will tell, but saying to the winds with force org, and with all they want to do with psychics, I fear it will be implemented poorly and they've given me no reason to think they've got it all under control. I suppose we'll see soon enough.

Leads me to wonder for the Ork codex which should be following it, what kind of a 40k will they wagggh into ?

Scribe of Khorne
06-05-2014, 05:39
So, you've read the new rules, the rules changes and how they interact? You've also seen the FAQ's that are going to be released? Please then, do provide this knowledge.

I don't know if the new stuff is going to be any good. All I know is that they're making some changes, and an idea of some of the changes.

Brother...doesnt your burden get heavy? Do you honestly believe, at all, that an 'unbound' world will be good for anyone financially? I mean really? Deep in your LOS blocking terrain loving soul?

Unburden yourself. Let it go. Its all an illusion anyway. Balance? GW caring? 'New' rules that are recycled from 2nd Edition or any random version of Fantasy?

Unburden yourself, and just let go of this belief you have that GW is actually, really, doing what is best for the players.

EDIT: AngryAngel, orks coming in right after would be perfect symbolism. Pure chaos, pure anarchy, disorder, and kids screaming WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH. Yeah...HH is calling.

Losing Command
06-05-2014, 05:44
Can't be long before somebody hangs himself based on new edition rumors now :D

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 05:49
Brother...doesnt your burden get heavy? Do you honestly believe, at all, that an 'unbound' world will be good for anyone financially? I mean really? Deep in your LOS blocking terrain loving soul?

I don't know anything about it. Maybe it'll come out borked, and maybe the power games are going to abuse it. But how is that any different from now? I'm not going to buy anything more than I normally would, and I won't play against Unbound if it's really that ridiculous. Or at least not the unbound lists. The only people who are going to suffer financially are the people who are so desperate for trying to win games that they buy as many "power" kits as they can, only to find out that they can't find any games anymore. And that's not even considering what other possible changes could have been made to rules and/or units.

Scribe of Khorne
06-05-2014, 05:53
I don't know anything about it. Maybe it'll come out borked, and maybe the power games are going to abuse it. But how is that any different from now? I'm not going to buy anything more than I normally would, and I won't play against Unbound if it's really that ridiculous. Or at least not the unbound lists. The only people who are going to suffer financially are the people who are so desperate for trying to win games that they buy as many "power" kits as they can, only to find out that they can't find any games anymore. And that's not even considering what other possible changes could have been made to rules and/or units.

But thats not true. Anyone who play's in an environment where 'unbound' is legal suffers. Anyone who turns up at the local store looking for a game where only people who have unbound lists, and so doesnt get a game, suffers.

They need to restrict, not continue to throw away restrictions.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 05:57
But thats not true. Anyone who play's in an environment where 'unbound' is legal suffers. Anyone who turns up at the local store looking for a game where only people who have unbound lists, and so doesnt get a game, suffers.

They need to restrict, not continue to throw away restrictions.

That's a hypothetical situation, and one I don't think is going to be an entirely common one. Or are we once again in the fantasy land where the local store is visited only by complete strangers who refuse to speak with each other outside of a gruff exchange of codex and points costs?

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 06:02
That's a hypothetical situation, and one I don't think is going to be an entirely common one. Or are we once again in the fantasy land where the local store is visited only by complete strangers who refuse to speak with each other outside of a gruff exchange of codex and points costs?

Its not 'fantasy land', you just described the wargaming scene here in Memphis, the back yard of GW's U.S. HQ.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 06:09
Its not 'fantasy land', you just described the wargaming scene here in Memphis, the back yard of GW's U.S. HQ.

I'm inclined to not believe you (for the time being) as I recall IcedCrow's stomping grounds to be in/around Memphis, and he paints quite a different tale. However, if I am incorrect in my recollection, I'll concede that your experience may be that.

Scribe of Khorne
06-05-2014, 06:11
That's a hypothetical situation, and one I don't think is going to be an entirely common one. Or are we once again in the fantasy land where the local store is visited only by complete strangers who refuse to speak with each other outside of a gruff exchange of codex and points costs?

If you could show up at a local, and find a balanced, easy to set up game against a complete stranger, would that not make getting into the game easier? I mean dont you think that is an appealing factor in online gaming? Show up, play, within a balanced framework provided by rules against complete strangers?

Hendarion
06-05-2014, 06:14
Actually I think many online gamers do not seek for a balanced matchup. That's the whole point of MMORPGs for example - grow stronger than your opponents, get an edge over them and then win them to the ground.
But I see where you're coming from and I agree with your standpoint.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 06:20
I'm inclined to not believe you (for the time being) as I recall IcedCrow's stomping grounds to be in/around Memphis, and he paints quite a different tale. However, if I am incorrect in my recollection, I'll concede that your experience may be that.

No, Iced isn't from around here, though you probably won't get any confirmation from him on that any time soon, he hasn't posted on Warseer in over a month. I don't know why you would be inclined to disbelieve me. I've always been consistent in describing where I live and play, check my posts are far back as you care to.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 06:24
If you could show up at a local, and find a balanced, easy to set up game against a complete stranger, would that not make getting into the game easier? I mean dont you think that is an appealing factor in online gaming? Show up, play, within a balanced framework provided by rules against complete strangers?

Well, online gaming isn't balanced, and even with constant patches most MMO's remain quite unbalanced. But, making that assumption.

When I go to a store that I haven't been to before, I go and talk with people. I get to know people quickly, and then chat with the person I'm going to play. That's just me though.

And I honestly don't expect stores to be dominated by cheesed out Unbound lists, not any more than I expect stores to be filled with Riptide spam or Screamerstars. Just as I didn't go to places expecting double Stormwall Haley, even though I knew that it was a possibility and people were crying cheese and unbalanced over that too.

EDIT:
And we still don't know how the rules fit together. So it may all be a moot point.


No, Iced isn't from around here, though you probably won't get any confirmation from him on that any time soon, he hasn't posted on Warseer in over a month. I don't know why you would be inclined to disbelieve me. I've always been consistent in describing where I live and play, check my posts are far back as you care to.

He hasn't posted because he got banned. And I was disinclined because my memory tingled when you said Memphis. But I went and checked, and couldn't find anything about location, so I'll take you at your word.

ehlijen
06-05-2014, 07:27
This isn't about making one player group happier than the other, as far as I see things. This is about GW making their own games less interesting by removing difficult choices.

A game is interesting if each player's choices can affect the outcome. Interesting choices require restrictions. If you can bring any unit you want and said unit can move and shoot and assault at full effect every turn, then the game is less interesting than it would be if each choice made reduced the other options somehow. You can run or shoot but not both. You move or fire heavies, not both. You can fire boltguns or charge, but not both. You can bring some of support unit A and B, more of one but none of the other, or neither and bring some expensive unit C instead, but still need to bring Troop unit D. You can't just fill up the points with just unit As.

The less restrictions there are, the less decisions there are about which restrictions to suffer to gain the corresponding effect. The less decision there are, the more the game will rely entirely on dice and the first turn (also determined by dice).

Those who think no restrictions will mean more fun are, in my opinion, in for a rude awakening. It won't come immediately, but sooner or later they will realise that being made to take different units and having more choices between different restrictions are what made the game interesting. And then they will lose interest in the game and wander off and then everyone who wanted a fun 40k will have lost something.
Those who want restrictions will have lost a game they can respect.
Those who thought no restrictions would be fun will have lost interest and thus a source of fun that could have worked a lot better with a bit more effort from GW.
And GW will have lost quite a few customers and will need to find ways to gouge the remainder even more to make up for it.

duffybear1988
06-05-2014, 08:49
He hasn't posted because he got banned. And I was disinclined because my memory tingled when you said Memphis. But I went and checked, and couldn't find anything about location, so I'll take you at your word.

Wowowowowowowow stop the press! Iced got banned?!

I always hoped it would be me who went first...


I'm genuinely a little tearful now. We may have disagreed like 98% of the time but he was a great chap to bounce thoughts off now and again.

Spiney Norman
06-05-2014, 09:30
Wowowowowowowow stop the press! Iced got banned?!

I always hoped it would be me who went first...


I'm genuinely a little tearful now. We may have disagreed like 98% of the time but he was a great chap to bounce thoughts off now and again.

Yikes, I know I hadn't seen him around for a while, he was always a lively debater but I don't recall him ever doing anything ban-worthy, I figured he had just got bored with us all and wandered off.

williamsond
06-05-2014, 09:49
I've played every edition of 40k now and I've never hated any of them (very frustrated by some of them yes) so I'm hoping the new edition is going to be better if not good, I'm going to try and be positive until I at least play it a few times, this all being said i don't forsee any unbound list games in my future.

Mauler
06-05-2014, 09:53
In a chess game with all queens, no one can slay the king and every game ends in a draw :p

People are drawing way to many conclusions based on a few lines from a yet-to-be-released White Dwarf that vaguely describes some anekdotal examples of what armies you could make with Unbound. It even reveals that there are some restritions to what you can do with Unbound (have to follow allies chart/unit sizes and so on) which could mean there are even more restrictions we know nothing about yet. Hell, apocalypse has been around for years already, and that truly has no restrictions on what you want to field, yet there has been no-one who complained about that :rolleyes:
But as long as we don't know all the rules for missions, armies, allies, objectives, deployment and possible changes to all unit types, shooting, assault psychic powers and so on, there is no way of saying if Unbound is breaking the game or not. It might even turn out that the bonusses you get for a warforged army are so good that that is going to be the next OP thing we all complain about. But we won't know untill may 31th.

This is like someone opening a window and letting a fresh breeze in. Nice work. I'm not flipping a table in rage or excitement until I see the complete rules on Unbound restrictions and Forged bonuses.

Really sucks about Iced, though. What the hell?

murgel2006
06-05-2014, 11:56
Whenever I go to the local GW for a game I find optimized/web lists for a pick up game, nothing else. So even if there would be unrestricted unbound it would make no difference. At least players wise, WAAC vs. IWTHF.

My concern with the discussion here is the negative approach. You only read about the possible abuse, not the chances. What about the players who are hampered by missing slots when making a themed army? All the discussion here is coloured by an underlying tournament mentality which results in this "someone balance it for me". Taking into account how often the meta seems to change and that there is a separate meta in every area, why do you cry foul?

I can play seldom these days, to few people taking 5 minutes to make a story for the game, to many people suffer from victory-fixation.
Personally I suffer from story telling fixation and less restrictions will make my gaming experience better. List building will be more fun to for the total fluff-optimizations possible.

Wayshuba
06-05-2014, 12:27
So far, I've been very disappointed by what I read, but will reserve judgement for when the facts are known after release.

It seems what has leaked, is simply rules changes to drive certain "expensive" model sales. Not ones needed in the game. For example, I'd hoped to have read that there are rules changes for flyers (which are clunky to begin with) among other things, but all we have seen is stuff that is specifically designed to sell the bigger model kits.

The rumored changes to the psychic rules bother me. Back in 2nd edition, psychic use was clunky and psychers were overpowered to the point of dominating battles. It seems we are going full circle here (of course it is probably because not enough of us were willing to plunk down $30 for a plastic space marine librarian).

And hey, let's go Unbound YEAH. So armies will now be 3 Wraithknights, and Imperial Knight, 2 Riptides, and a Baneblade..... So, the fluff everyone has held to for thirty years is now going the way of the dodo as well.

All I personally see here (and this is just my opinion), is a company where revenue is suffering and they are doing everything they can to stop the collapse.

duffybear1988
06-05-2014, 12:53
This is like someone opening a window and letting a fresh breeze in. Nice work. I'm not flipping a table in rage or excitement until I see the complete rules on Unbound restrictions and Forged bonuses.

Really sucks about Iced, though. What the hell?

Surprisingly I am as well! Mostly it's due to mission cards because the current main missions are sooooooooo boring and my club refuse to play special snowflake missions from the extra books.

I didn't realise Iced had gone. I took a trip over to Fantasy to bitch (well it was more a 50/50 split between bitching and liking) about the Wood Elves release and must have missed his great ragefest. Suffice to say I won't be visiting Fantasyville anytime soon. Too many optimistic people for my liking.

Just don't quit on me Mauler and Ssilmath - these new fangled trollslayers aren't a patch on you guys! Too much beard preening if you ask me :D

hobojebus
06-05-2014, 12:59
Well I know me and my friends won't be playing unbound, we don't use allies or escalation and only shegos used fortifications to try and get SoB working, though that backfired I'm told when it got destroyed first turn and four void missiles ate his army.

adreal
06-05-2014, 13:02
Okay with all the doom and gloom I am seeing about unbound doesn't really bother me. Quick pick up games at a local GW (so 3 hours away for me) may suck due to unbound, but my lists have been built with tournie's in mind (even though I seldom get to go to them) so I don't really care, locally I'm going to be playing the same type of lists, rarely will I come up against a 'unbound' list. What I do hope however is the bonus for sticking to a FoC is kept to FoC vs Unbound, because that makes sense.

Magic phase (yes I'm calling it magic) isn't that bad of a idea. Right now, the strongest psychic powers are blessing because there is no chance to stop it (unless you play space wolves, for now), so fortune, forewarning, ignore cover spell, iron arm, all of those make the high level armies really strong, hell even prescience is slightly OP most of the time. But if you get a change, each turn to stop those blessings, then screamer stars and seer councils look less broken combo's of death, and more like strong choices with large points investments. Now it could get messy, GW may see this as an easy way to scale up the game so spells are less devastating, but right now I'm optimistic.

It does seem like GW are trying, were the psychic powers of 6th ed balanced? No, to fix that they will give more oppertunity for the opposing player to stop them.
Competitive players don't like super heavies? Okay, well, make two ways to play the game, cater for all, and let them try against each other, that might be fun.
Is there other things about these rules we don't know yet? Yes, so I say just take it as it comes and wait and see, if you don't like the new rules, and are happy with 6th ed (as it is now), keep playing it, if not, try out the new rules (hopefully at a cheaper starting price).

Avian
06-05-2014, 13:16
I didn't realise Iced had gone. I took a trip over to Fantasy to bitch (well it was more a 50/50 split between bitching and liking) about the Wood Elves release and must have missed his great ragefest.
IIRC he made some statement over in one of those threads in GW General saying he'd put the report button to more use whenever he saw posts with a certain stance (I forget which). Presumably the mods didn't appreciate this.


I guess I can take him off my Ignore List, then.

Scammel
06-05-2014, 13:31
I think it came to a head (could be wrong, Avian could be more on the money here) when a thread started in 40k General and, in a discussion that was going along perfectly fine, started very clearly flamebaiting and goading others - Something along the lines of 'Can't wait to see when the complaining starts!' and contributing nothing.

I wonder what implications this will have for the individual codexes. I can foresee a section in every book dedicated to showcasing a few silly Unbound armies.

Avian
06-05-2014, 13:35
Sounds like the two could be linked.

hobojebus
06-05-2014, 13:38
I think it came to a head (could be wrong, Avian could be more on the money here) when a thread started in 40k General and, in a discussion that was going along perfectly fine, started very clearly flamebaiting and goading others - Something along the lines of 'Can't wait to see when the complaining starts!' and contributing nothing.

I wonder what implications this will have for the individual codexes. I can foresee a section in every book dedicated to showcasing a few silly Unbound armies.

Yeah and in that same thread he was basically calling anyone who disagreed a power gamer and the like, all while claiming he didn't start the flame war.

Mauler
06-05-2014, 13:46
Surprisingly I am as well! Mostly it's due to mission cards because the current main missions are sooooooooo boring and my club refuse to play special snowflake missions from the extra books.

I didn't realise Iced had gone. I took a trip over to Fantasy to bitch (well it was more a 50/50 split between bitching and liking) about the Wood Elves release and must have missed his great ragefest. Suffice to say I won't be visiting Fantasyville anytime soon. Too many optimistic people for my liking.

Just don't quit on me Mauler and Ssilmath - these new fangled trollslayers aren't a patch on you guys! Too much beard preening if you ask me :D

It's alright Duffyface, I don't plan on going anywhere for a while...I need to stick around here and at least try to combat some of the negativity from your lot ;)

Looking at Faeit's blog, it's kinda baffling how many people are lamenting the FOC like it's actually been killed and done away with. In reality, if true, the FOC is still there just as it was before but is now even better in that you get bonuses for using it - but the strength of these remains to be seen. The fact remains that the FOC is now better than it was. We'll see how it goes in a few weeks...rumours -> actual rules -> game-time -> opinion. The sooner along the line an opinion is formed the less it's worth.


I think it came to a head (could be wrong, Avian could be more on the money here) when a thread started in 40k General and, in a discussion that was going along perfectly fine, started very clearly flamebaiting and goading others - Something along the lines of 'Can't wait to see when the complaining starts!' and contributing nothing.

I wonder what implications this will have for the individual codexes. I can foresee a section in every book dedicated to showcasing a few silly Unbound armies.

I don't think that Iced had a say in codex development, Scam... ;)

wanderingblade
06-05-2014, 13:55
That only works if the power level at which everyone gets a go is suitable for the core rules the game is built on.

That is not the case in 40k at present. A chess game of all queens for both sides is balanced, but it's not a terribly good game (in fact, I'd expect it might exacerbate the going first advantage of white to allow a perfect attack strategy).

Power level and core rules have to fit together to make an interesting game. GW giving up and casting off all restraints for power levels will be bad for the game, not good.

You might be right at that - but in which case, we find ourselves in roughly the same place as we are now. It is not GW giving up. It is GW not giving up giving up.

Personally, I don't get how restrictions would have changed the issue either. I've yet to see a comp system - including the probably fake percentage rumour -that can't be twisted and broken. Instead all you get is a situation that buffs some armies and nerfs others. Creating a new set of winners isn't balance. Serpent Spam is probably one of the nastier things in the game. Force a man to mix up his troop choices? Some Serpents, some Jetbike objective stealers - the current core of every Eldar power list anyway. That's only the most obvious example.

I would suggest that the reality is that, if you think 40k's balance is terribly askew to the point of endangering the game*, then nothing is going to satisfy you bar a full codex overhaul. No amount of tinkering with the core rules is is going to fix a series of books riddled with blatantly poor costings and ideas. Even if they did successfully somehow balance the current codices using nothing more than a new set of core rules, their current form says they'd only have broken it in 3 codices' time anyway. Whether you restrict or don't restrict this current round of codices or not is pretty much academic.

*For what its worth, I believe the version of the game where people like to select competitive armies that they push hard while still paying a nod to the background, and in which people like to see a nice variety of armies, is in quite a lot of trouble. But I don't think you can fix that with core rules.

Scammel
06-05-2014, 14:10
I don't think that Iced had a say in codex development, Scam...

I would explain a great many things.... ;)

Inquisitor Shego
06-05-2014, 14:37
I for one feel like they've surrendered simultaneously to the narrative and the tournament players, and now we're both kicking off that the other one's stealing our dinner. I am deeeelighted with these rumours, because my gaming group will take the freedom with glee, but also play the most crazy stuff with some restraint.

Szalik
06-05-2014, 14:43
I think that the key to balance those unbound armies will be objective cards. Spamming one kind of an unit will probably cause inability to score points for objectives.

We have just a few sentences to discuss upon, but already from the sound of it I'm rather negative towards those changes. We do not have details but the whole concept is clearly visible:

I do not feel that this "magic phase" is needed, balancing powers and primaris powers was needed. And another random table this time for the perils, instead of clean losing one wound, bleh.

From the sound of description of objective cards it looks like, objectives will change like in some sort of kaleidoscope - where is a place to actually plan anything here ? Even with the ability to discard some, that's another random factor in a game already reeking of randomness. Once again randomlol instead of clear, well written rules.

There are a lot more issues to be addressed before introducing new rules phases etc. like the working of the whole close combat phase, a lot of problems to be solved here, yet they do not mention even a word about it.

To give my full opinion though, I will wait for the whole set of rules before my eyes. I won't raise my hopes, that they actually repaired anything, that's the first step to disappointment. Still I will at least give those new rules a try (and then move back to my new love, necromunda).

RandomThoughts
06-05-2014, 15:09
He hasn't posted because he got banned.

Sad to hear. We haven't always seen eye to eye, but I respect his opinions and I think IcedCrow respects mine at least partially. Anyway, if anyone still has contact to him, please give him my best regards!

Mauler
06-05-2014, 15:24
I think that the key to balance those unbound armies will be objective cards. Spamming one kind of an unit will probably cause inability to score points for objectives.

We have just a few sentences to discuss upon, but already from the sound of it I'm rather negative towards those changes. We do not have details but the whole concept is clearly visible:

I do not feel that this "magic phase" is needed, balancing powers and primaris powers was needed. And another random table this time for the perils, instead of clean losing one wound, bleh.

From the sound of description of objective cards it looks like, objectives will change like in some sort of kaleidoscope - where is a place to actually plan anything here ? Even with the ability to discard some, that's another random factor in a game already reeking of randomness. Once again randomlol instead of clear, well written rules.

There are a lot more issues to be addressed before introducing new rules phases etc. like the working of the whole close combat phase, a lot of problems to be solved here, yet they do not mention even a word about it.

To give my full opinion though, I will wait for the whole set of rules before my eyes. I won't raise my hopes, that they actually repaired anything, that's the first step to disappointment. Still I will at least give those new rules a try (and then move back to my new love, necromunda).

I think that plan is:

Bring a FOC Forged list, be more flexible to obtain any objectives that may spring up and hope you're canny enough not to get crushed by MC spam or whatever

Or

Bring an Unbound Cheesemonger list, drastically reduce your changes of obtaining objectives and hope that you can wipe the other guy out before the end of the game

Of course, that's assuming that missions favour FOC lists as they currently do. But on the flipside, an Unbound list doesn't have to be a complete spamfest, it could be a list that almost follows the FOC but eschews the FOC-bonuses for an extra HS and/or Elite slot. I doubt that more than two HQs will be on the cards, it can't be a complete FFA...

duffybear1988
06-05-2014, 15:41
I think that plan is:

Bring a FOC Forged list, be more flexible to obtain any objectives that may spring up and hope you're canny enough not to get crushed by MC spam or whatever

Or

Bring an Unbound Cheesemonger list, drastically reduce your changes of obtaining objectives and hope that you can wipe the other guy out before the end of the game

Of course, that's assuming that missions favour FOC lists as they currently do. But on the flipside, an Unbound list doesn't have to be a complete spamfest, it could be a list that almost follows the FOC but eschews the FOC-bonuses for an extra HS and/or Elite slot. I doubt that more than two HQs will be on the cards, it can't be a complete FFA...

Exactly.

If I can bring a balanced list created purely from one codex and still have a reasonable chance to win through these new mission cards then I will be a happy Duffy. It's not the fact that I don't like the idea of lots of random crap that killed 6th ed for me, it's the fact that taking single codex balanced lists pretty much = guaranteed loss unless you pulled something amazing out of the bag.

These new missions could mean pretty much anything for army creation!

You could potentially be looking at all kinds of new builds where killing becomes secondary to objective claiming, moving units off the table etc.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 15:46
Let us savor this moment, Duffy, for it shall be a dozen moons before our opinions are in alignment once again. Let us wait and see what this new ruleset brings.

Mauler
06-05-2014, 15:49
I'm saving this page.

It may never happen again.

Inquisitor Shego
06-05-2014, 15:53
I'm just having fond memories of the missions in 2nd Ed on those cards, where you and your opponent could keep them hidden. Is he after your warlord? Whilst you're out to capture a bunker of his? O.O Oh the mystery :D

hobojebus
06-05-2014, 16:21
I miss the graceful never ending parrying.

Scammel
06-05-2014, 16:39
With any luck these mission cards will encourage balanced and varied armies and help bring the emphasis back to infantry getting their behinds on objectives. If it's simply 'Kill the thing', then spam still does well through denial - getting a card to kill a flyer, MC, character etc. means little to a Knight list.

duffybear1988
06-05-2014, 16:41
Let us savor this moment, Duffy, for it shall be a dozen moons before our opinions are in alignment once again. Let us wait and see what this new ruleset brings.


I'm saving this page.

It may never happen again.

:) It's the new and improved me. Some guy on the Wood Elves thread tore me a new one (well he thinks he did). He mentioned dick measuring and at that point I started to question the point of it all. I realised I don't like most of the changes GW make, I don't like most of the new figures GW make, hell I don't like GW. But at the end of the day I'm addicted and I can't get out so why rail against it? I'm starting to feel like the Comedian in Watchmen - the World's going to burn anyway, so why give a damn?

AngryAngel
06-05-2014, 16:45
If you want to be the Comedian, which I respect Duffy, I'll just be the Joker and I think we'll both be happier. Why so serious ?

Konovalev
06-05-2014, 17:35
the World's going to burn anyway, so why give a damn?

That's rather defeatist. Western Society is going to crumble any day now, just ask all those non-western peoples. For centuries Western society has been on the brink of collapse, ever decaying, ever more decadent, any day now it will all come tumbling down. Amusingly, people say the same thing about GW as a company. All things must come to an end eventually so there's no use getting hung up on it.

duffybear1988
06-05-2014, 17:43
If you want to be the Comedian, which I respect Duffy, I'll just be the Joker and I think we'll both be happier. Why so serious ?

So you're an agent of chaos? We're just gamers chasing balance... we wouldn't know what to do if we had it. :D

To be honest I'm probably more like Night Owl if you replaced his suit with the internet - completely impotent and pointless until I suit up. Then I crack out the gadgets and show Silk Spectre a good time. Hallelujah! ;)

AngryAngel
06-05-2014, 18:28
So you're an agent of chaos? We're just gamers chasing balance... we wouldn't know what to do if we had it. :D

To be honest I'm probably more like Night Owl if you replaced his suit with the internet - completely impotent and pointless until I suit up. Then I crack out the gadgets and show Silk Spectre a good time. Hallelujah! ;)

Exactly, I'm an agent of chaos. As everyone wants this balance, balance, balance. You need to shake up the order, if you lose a game, vs 4 riptides, that you had from allying in farsight, no one bats an eye you were table wiped. However, suggest that soon people can field nothing but armies full of riptides and everyone loses their mind ! So I guess I'll be happy soon with the new 40k, as that's the thing about chaos, it's fair.

On balance, your probably right, even if we had great balance placed in. I am sure we'd then hear how the rules of 40k restrain people too much, how it stifles imagination and creative army builds, so yeah, the gamers wouldn't know what to do with balance even if they had it. Better just to see the funny side, and always keep a smile.

hobojebus
06-05-2014, 18:55
I win alot and i'd welcome more balance, hell i've actively turned to other games like X-wing and battletech searching for a more balanced game to play.

Heck i do my necrons as an assault army because i'm worried they will be too strong.

Removing restrictions is just yet another cash grab move and its not helping the game but hurting it for short term profits.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 19:05
Removing restrictions is just yet another cash grab move and its not helping the game but hurting it for short term profits.

Oh, so you're the one with the all of the rules changes, new rules and FAQ's on hand. Well, come on then, spill the beans. Since you can make these statements right now, you must have all of the information on hand.

warlordbob
06-05-2014, 19:15
Well I know me and my friends won't be playing unbound, we don't use allies or escalation and only shegos used fortifications to try and get SoB working, though that backfired I'm told when it got destroyed first turn and four void missiles ate his army.

Time out there, i'm considering Unbound for some fluff builds, plus you already know i'll be adding Guard to some Knights for a Skitarii force. Don't go making decisions for us until its been descussed Hobojebus, we still have'nt seen the full rules yet.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 19:17
Oh, so you're the one with the all of the rules changes, new rules and FAQ's on hand. Well, come on then, spill the beans. Since you can make these statements right now, you must have all of the information on hand.

I know you are capable of actually contributing to this discussion, rather than just playing the same weak trolling over and over. Give it a shot, please?

Theocracity
06-05-2014, 19:18
Briefly returning to a previous topic, I believe Iced was from the St Louis area. I too am sad he got banned, though I think it was because he stared too long into the troll abyss and the abyss stared back :p. Beyond that, though, he was great and I hope he'll be able to return sometime. He had a good attitude towards the game and a lot of great ideas when he wasn't going all Col. Kurtz in the flame wars ;).

MusingWarboss
06-05-2014, 19:19
Creativity and desire is becoming concentrated in places like this. I've seen incredible efforts made by people on 40k blogs and forums. Just take a look at the terrain project logs on this site alone if you don't believe me. I saw someone who made a remarkable 36"x48" space ship from scratch on this forum. And it's not the only one I've seen. People are sculpting their own terrain, their own models in some cases...it is only a matter of time before someone makes a mechanically sound game that challenges 40k. For the first time, that's a very real possibility. Maybe GW is realizing this and taking proactive measures. Actually listening when their player base says, "These rules are borked." Maybe they're finally realizing that "Where else are you going to go?" is no longer a viable business strategy, nor an advisable customer relations stance.


When I first started it was all like this. People used to buy the little figures sure but scenery and vehicles and actually conversions were commonplace. What it led to was a great amount of variety and interesting ideas.

It was actually the GW of the 2000's that clamped down on this way of thinking and ultimately seems to have outlawed variety from their own publications now. Look how bland the photos are these days. The same mass produced scenery in the same mass produced battlefield. The only difference is the colour of paint used. No more inspirational buildings or whatever, where you were inspired to create - nah, now you can just go and buy it, as seen in the books.

For tournaments I suppose a solidified consistently repeatable battlefield is a godsend as everyone plays equal. Still sucks some of the unique flavour out of people's home setups though. It's great going to a place and playing over scenery you've never used before.

If anything hubs of people actively utilising their creative abilities is returning wargaming to is roots. Generally speaking it was always the more creative types who used to play. The rules lawyers stuck to traditional games where rules, gaming surface and pieces were set in stone.

I totally blame GW for the clamping down and homogenising of its worlds, offering up the plastic scenery is nice for the less creative but the constant pushing to sell sell sell also bred laziness where people paid rather than made. Even if they could. I've had this discussion over Epic scenery. "Oh there wasn't any scenery for it". Err, no, you made it yourself. The most you got from GW was a few card buildings with plastic roofs*. Same with the cardstock. It was supposed to help you start playing, not be the sum total of all you needed.

As for rules, they were deliberately fluid so you could play all sorts of creative and weird games with them. The downside has been a corporate strategy to equate fluidity with anything goes.

If a creative revolution is on the way I'm all for it. It'll be fun, no matter how or what you play! If you're worried about it for competition play, don't be! It won't hurt you a bit.

*EDIT: I think there were some plastic ruins in EPIC 40,000.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 19:21
I know you are capable of actually contributing to this discussion, rather than just playing the same weak trolling over and over. Give it a shot, please?

Right back at you.

Seriously, how can somebody make a judgement about what a new paradigm, only hinted at in a White Dwarf, without anything else that goes with it? Seriously, it's the same weak "mommy and daddy gave me everything I want, so GW should to" entitlement masquerading as intelligent thought. It's an incredibly limited vocabulary. "H-yuck, cash grab", "Derp, no balance" without anything backing it up. No evidence, no information, nothing.

duffybear1988
06-05-2014, 19:33
Briefly returning to a previous topic, I believe Iced was from the St Louis area. I too am sad he got banned, though I think it was because he stared too long into the troll abyss and the abyss stared back :p. Beyond that, though, he was great and I hope he'll be able to return sometime. He had a good attitude towards the game and a lot of great ideas when he wasn't going all Col. Kurtz in the flame wars ;).

I love Nietzsche.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 19:40
Right back at you.

Seriously, how can somebody make a judgement about what a new paradigm, only hinted at in a White Dwarf, without anything else that goes with it? Seriously, it's the same weak "mommy and daddy gave me everything I want, so GW should to" entitlement masquerading as intelligent thought. It's an incredibly limited vocabulary. "H-yuck, cash grab", "Derp, no balance" without anything backing it up. No evidence, no information, nothing.

I think there have been several people, I flatter myself to be among them, that have offered quite substantial and thoughtful contributions on this subject. You don't think past experience, especially the recent past, offers any evidence that might make reasonable people take a less-than-charitable view toward how GW will handle this sort of massive change?

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 19:43
I think there have been several people, I flatter myself to be among them, that have offered quite substantial and thoughtful contributions on this subject. You don't think past experience, especially the recent past, offers any evidence that might make reasonable people take a less-than-charitable view toward how GW will handle this sort of massive change?

You don't have to have a positive outlook. But to make a definitive statement about something you have little to no information about is worthless. There's nothing backing up any of these claims. And to say something as asinine as "cash grab", which is the newest generic, unsubstantiated anti GW catch phrase without knowing anything about how Unbound works is even more worthless.

Zothos
06-05-2014, 19:50
You don't have to have a positive outlook. But to make a definitive statement about something you have little to no information about is worthless. There's nothing backing up any of these claims. And to say something as asinine as "cash grab", which is the newest generic, unsubstantiated anti GW catch phrase without knowing anything about how Unbound works is even more worthless.


Get out of my head.

It is interesting to me that people seem obsessed with the Unbound side of things when it was also said there will be the Battleforged side of things with an FOC.

I am excited, hopefully they take the time to make the Battleforged FOC make sense.

Hell, they even said they were making a new allies chart.

What we do not know far outweighs what we do. Patience folks! Patience!

underscore
06-05-2014, 19:52
To be fair, you have to go with the available evidence until more details comes out. From what we know from the WD editorial is plenty to go on for now. It is, after all, exactly what GW wants us to know to wet our appetite for what's coming next.

So yes, there's still a chance that they'll deliver the tight, scalable rule set I'm hoping for to draw me out from my Kill Team rock... but I'm not optimistic.

Gungo
06-05-2014, 19:54
I'm still kinda wondering why everyone assumes it's a cash grab when gw is tweaking everything people complained about in 6th. Allies, psychic power, foc shenanigans, and gaming victory points. If they tweak assault and certain vehicle survivability it will adjust nearly everything people complained about. Now whether you agree with how hey tweak those issues is subjective however it sure seems to me it's based on designers tackling rules issues and less about $$$. Even more so if the rumour of faqs and digital updates being free allowing people to continue using 6th edition books in games. However people on this board will cont I've to spin the facts to say otherwise because they don't want to admit the things gw is adjusting have no connection to sales.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 19:55
Get out of my head.

It is interesting to me that people seem obsessed with the Unbound side of things when it was also said there will be the Battleforged side of things with an FOC.

I am excited, hopefully they take the time to make the Battleforged FOC make sense.

Hell, they even said they were making a new allies chart.

What we do not know far outweighs what we do. Patience folks! Patience!

I am indeed interested to see what the bonuses are for 'Battleforged', and what the new Allies Matrix looks like. However, what I and many others fear is that they will end up being irrelevant. That taking an Unbound army, with the superior unit optimization that will allow, will just totally swamp everything else in magnitude. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Theocracity
06-05-2014, 20:01
Something interesting to consider: with a Psychic Phase resembling a Magic Phase, could we possibly see psychic shooting attacks shift to resemble magic missiles? The ability to auto hit would certainly help resuscitate the utility of witchfire attacks.

R.D.
06-05-2014, 20:05
I wonder what the bonuses Battleforged armies will get. Automatically deploying and going first? Not needing to roll for reserves? More points from objectives? Could go either way I guess.

wanderingblade
06-05-2014, 20:09
Something interesting to consider: with a Psychic Phase resembling a Magic Phase, could we possibly see psychic shooting attacks shift to resemble magic missiles? The ability to auto hit would certainly help resuscitate the utility of witchfire attacks.

So too would a pool of 'dispel' dice used for everything, rather than the generic Deny the Witch, as the dispel dice would likely be used more often on stopping the blessings.

As for Unbound vs Battle Forged, my guess is...

The rules will be released. People will go wild with all sorts of broken seeming builds.

Then, barring a major change in FOC, people will realise that you can still build very powerful armies using it and decide that the bonuses for being Battle Forged are worth more than slight optimisation possibilities.

Unbound becomes the playground of weird fluff armies and a few nasty power builds only, with the main issue being that any power build will find the meta shaping to kick its buttocks, so they don't end up quite as nasty.

... might be wrong of course.

don_mondo
06-05-2014, 20:11
. However people on this board will cont I've to spin the facts to say otherwise because they don't want to admit the things gw is adjusting have no connection to sales.

No 'spin' necessary, everything GW does has to do with sales. That is the business they are in after all, to sell us stuff.

tneva82
06-05-2014, 20:17
I'm just having fond memories of the missions in 2nd Ed on those cards, where you and your opponent could keep them hidden. Is he after your warlord? Whilst you're out to capture a bunker of his? O.O Oh the mystery :D

Funny that you mentioned this. I have been thinking about these missions a lot since from all the rumours and verifications I have heard mission cards have potential to change our games most(while unbounded is least likely by far). Some things I have been considering:

a) are missions secret or not?
b) is there one 36 card deck shared by players or not? If missions are secret then this has major implication.
c) what else GW is planning for them? Codex specific mission decks? If they are shared this doesn't really work but if both players have own decks this could be in easily.
d) alternative decks for cityfights, planetfalls etc? If decks are shared this could be in.
e) is there potential for missions to change midgame unexpectedly? One Tanith Ghost book comes in mind. Tanith is sent to attack toward chaos-held gateway and are making costly advance when order comes to PULL BACK and Tanith commander(not Gaunt in that book) is like "what the hell is C&C thinking!?!" :D

This could be sooooo much fun. Coupled with rumoured side boards which we will adopt whether they are in or not I predict lots of cool potentials in our games :D

Hey we probably will be doing mix of things either way. Shared decks, own decks, secret missions, public missions. Maybe some secret missions and some public missions for both. The sky is the limit!

(and I'm already starting to think about adding more ork dredds and killa kans. Have had soft spot for idea of those vs SM dreds ever since 3rd armageddon campaign)

6th edition got me psyched up(got me back into miniature games actually...) and 7th edition seems to be even more. If only models weren't so pricey but then again...PP minis aren't much cheaper anyway. At least these days I have job so I can afford it.

hobojebus
06-05-2014, 20:18
I'm still kinda wondering why everyone assumes it's a cash grab when gw is tweaking everything people complained about in 6th.

Simple because recent history has shown us GW dont care about balance, they care about selling as many big models as they can to try and appease the share holders.

Maybe we'll be surprised and they do a good job but given the last two years i doubt it.

gwarsh41
06-05-2014, 20:19
Something interesting to consider: with a Psychic Phase resembling a Magic Phase, could we possibly see psychic shooting attacks shift to resemble magic missiles? The ability to auto hit would certainly help resuscitate the utility of witchfire attacks.

We would need to see a change to how fliers work then. Tzeentch has some nasty witchfire, with those being auto hit, flyers would be immune to them. I would like to see auto hit whichfires though!

Commissar Merces
06-05-2014, 20:20
Frankly, this whole thing is just a big yawn to me. Anyone who didn't see this coming wasn't paying attention.

Not excited to see what comes next, just gonna wait in line for my book and figure it out from there. Honestly, with how much stuff has been dumped on us in the past year in a half, I am kind of burned out of 40k as it is ever changing and I am having a hard time keeping up with everything.

Theocracity
06-05-2014, 20:23
We would need to see a change to how fliers work then. Tzeentch has some nasty witchfire, with those being auto hit, flyers would be immune to them. I would like to see auto hit whichfires though!

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if zooming flyers were immune to witchfire. It seems like the kind of r/p/s thing GW might decide to keep around. I think the increased utility for ground warfare would still make them worth it.

I was also thinking about the rocket-powered boost Tzeentch would get from autohits. Unfortunately, while it makes sense to me as a concept, it is currently still speculation.

silashand
06-05-2014, 20:36
But at the end of the day I'm addicted and I can't get out so why rail against it? I'm starting to feel like the Comedian in Watchmen - the World's going to burn anyway, so why give a damn?

This would be me. I am too invested and love the background too much to really give it up at this point. I have a good group of opponents and frankly none of us are interested in using or playing against broken lists so our games are almost always enjoyable. I suspect the same will be true of the new edition as well.

ColShaw
06-05-2014, 20:38
Frankly, this whole thing is just a big yawn to me. Anyone who didn't see this coming wasn't paying attention.

Not excited to see what comes next, just gonna wait in line for my book and figure it out from there. Honestly, with how much stuff has been dumped on us in the past year in a half, I am kind of burned out of 40k as it is ever changing and I am having a hard time keeping up with everything.

This. I've stopped buying rule updates altogether, as it is:

A) Really expensive;

B) Really ephemeral;

C) Just too darn hard to keep up with everything that's changing.

I think GW was already rushing the updates too much.

leopard
06-05-2014, 20:40
Well a shared deck is not too hard to imagine, even with faction specific cards added - as long as they all have the same back. Just needs to include two options on faction stuff, e.g. something for orks to do, and something for none orks to do - you able to score one or the other. Also makes adding in scenario specific cards easier (CoD, PS etc)

Think they would be hidden, makes sense with them being cards, if they are going to be public would probably be like the various terrain effects and in the book.

Sounds like you may have a hand of cards, not sure how many but with 36 in the deck maybe 3-5, able to dump one and draw each turn, if you 'score' one its dumped and a new one is drawn. So you can hold cards until you can 'win' them and slowly dump stuff you think you have no chance for (because the unit you need to kill etc is not there). Could see a few of the cards being objectives and a few being other 'event' type things ala T&T as well - burn a card and maybe an enemy unit cannot fire this turn.

Ideally a card having an objective and an effect on it, so they are all more or less useful - do you want to grab the objective or use the effect?

Very easy to add, and very easy to add more cards to.

Hidden missions work very well in games, adds a whole level of bluff and feint moves.

underscore
06-05-2014, 20:46
Hidden missions work very well in games, adds a whole level of bluff and feint moves.

Yeah, Warzone has quite a few fun ones in there (as an example: one of the enemy is your informant, so you win points if they survive) and I like the idea of it. However, they're going to have to pull something special out of their hat if they're going to make 'just table them' an unattractive option.

tneva82
06-05-2014, 20:51
Well a shared deck is not too hard to imagine, even with faction specific cards added - as long as they all have the same back. Just needs to include two options on faction stuff, e.g. something for orks to do, and something for none orks to do - you able to score one or the other. Also makes adding in scenario specific cards easier (CoD, PS etc)

That could indeed work like that. Didn't think of having goal for others along with race specific goal. I was thinking along of having new set of 36 cards.

After all if both players have codex specific decks how would the basic deck be created? 18 cards per codex deck? But what if you don't have race specific deck?


Think they would be hidden, makes sense with them being cards, if they are going to be public would probably be like the various terrain effects and in the book.

Well cards also make it easy to randomize without having to reroll dices and have rules visible without needing to recheck rulebook which isn't that bad especially with many of them going on at the same time.


Could see a few of the cards being objectives and a few being other 'event' type things ala T&T as well - burn a card and maybe an enemy unit cannot fire this turn.

Ideally a card having an objective and an effect on it, so they are all more or less useful - do you want to grab the objective or use the effect?

Hey that's bloody good idea. We might adopt that even if GW doesn't do that!

The 7th edition is kicking the tinker-mode in me on a high gear :D

tneva82
06-05-2014, 20:52
Yeah, Warzone has quite a few fun ones in there (as an example: one of the enemy is your informant, so you win points if they survive) and I like the idea of it. However, they're going to have to pull something special out of their hat if they're going to make 'just table them' an unattractive option.

Well if tabling doesn't result in winning if you are behind on objectives...

If the other side can score some quick victory points before getting wiped out he could win anyway even if he has no models left after turn 3. "HAHA take that!" ;)

underscore
06-05-2014, 21:00
Yep, it's not an impossibility for them to pull off, that's for sure. I remain pessimistic about them managing it... but there's a few small embers of hope still burning. :)

Telemachus
06-05-2014, 21:15
I don't know, I'm looking forward to the new release and my biggest hope is that it tidies the whole Detachment/Formation/Allies thing up, hopefully with a nice new shiny picture that even I can understand.

I'm not too sure on the Psychic Phase that's appearing but that could just be down to the fact that I don't use Psykers.
The cards thing sounds as if it could be a fun addition; if implemented properly.

hobojebus
06-05-2014, 21:16
Yep, it's not an impossibility for them to pull off, that's for sure. I remain pessimistic about them managing it... but there's a few small embers of hope still burning. :)

Underscore...man that's how they hurt us all those times before, you promised me you wouldn't go back.

underscore
06-05-2014, 21:18
But what if THIS time it works out!!!

Gungo
06-05-2014, 21:28
Simple because recent history has shown us GW dont care about balance, they care about selling as many big models as they can to try and appease the share holders.

Maybe we'll be surprised and they do a good job but given the last two years i doubt it.
What does the psychic phase have to do with selling big models? What does more restricted allies matrix have to do with selling big models? What does more mission big models? None of those changes have any connection to selling big models. And yet are exactly what people have been complaining about on these boards. You may not have to purchase a single thing with this update if the rumours that a FAQ for the 6th edition codex is true. How is that related in any way to a cash grab?

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 21:43
What does the psychic phase have to do with selling big models?
Selling more grossly overpriced character models.


What does more restricted allies matrix have to do with selling big models?
You are assuming it will be more restrictive. There is nothing to base that assumption on. And a less restrictive Allies system would certainly help with pushing more models.


What does more mission big models?
Changes up the metagame, which forces people to bring different models to stay competitive, which might mean having to buy something you don't already own.


None of those changes have any connection to selling big models. And yet are exactly what people have been complaining about on these boards.
I think I just showed that it could, indeed, mean new pressure to buy additional models.


You may not have to purchase a single thing with this update if the rumours that a FAQ for the 6th edition codex is true. How is that related in any way to a cash grab?
Again, there is nothing reliable backing up this notion of a FAQ to 'patch' the rules from 6th Ed to 7th Ed. In fact, the changes leaked in the White Dwarf article alone are so fundamental that I don't think that would even be possible.

I don't mean to pick on you Gungo, and your optimism may indeed be proven correct. But your arguments there are a little flawed.

hobojebus
06-05-2014, 21:48
What does the psychic phase have to do with selling big models? What does more restricted allies matrix have to do with selling big models? What does more mission big models? None of those changes have any connection to selling big models. And yet are exactly what people have been complaining about on these boards. You may not have to purchase a single thing with this update if the rumours that a FAQ for the 6th edition codex is true. How is that related in any way to a cash grab?

I didnt mention either of those but fine let me illuminate you my child.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Space-Marine-Librarian 1 model £18 there is not £18 worth of plastic there, its maybe 3-4 pounds at most with the extra detail.

If the psychic phase becomes a big part of the game expect that single model to go to £25 and the prices for all other psykers to to up to double what they were before.

As for the allies that's self explanatory, you have to buy a £30 codex to know the rules, them you spend £20+ on the troops choice another £10 on whatever HQ and then if its tau £50 on a riptide, chaos its £41 on a heldrake etc etc.

And hell you've already got X amount of that other army why not make it a full force and BAM £4-500 goes to GW.

A company making money isn't whats wrong here, its the lack of respect for their customers, its the lack of respect for their own product, its running the company we grew up with into the ground just to appease shareholders that don't give two craps about toy soldiers.

It's far from unreasonable to worry that changes are being made not to improve the mess that is 6th but to make people buy a new type of model to compete, last edition it was fliers which they gave out like candy while withholding AA, they could of given FaQ changes to let armies take AA missiles until the new codex arrived but they didn't because that would of slowed the rush to buy fliers.

Disposable Hero
06-05-2014, 22:01
Man, these guys are evil incarnate. Who ever thought the devil itself had it's lair in Nottingham? Or is nottingham the hell?

More seriously, I am not opposed to buying more models. Hell, almost every gamer I know has more plastic then he/she/it ever needs. As long as the game stays fun.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 22:11
Selling more grossly overpriced character models.

Grossly overpriced? They're about the same cost as similarly detailed models from other companies.


You are assuming it will be more restrictive. There is nothing to base that assumption on. And a less restrictive Allies system would certainly help with pushing more models.

There's no reason to assume either way.


Changes up the metagame, which forces people to bring different models to stay competitive, which might mean having to buy something you don't already own.

No matter what GW does, it changes the metagame. They could whip up the most competitively balanced rules set ever, and it's going to change the meta. Is it still a cash grab? They're kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with your type.


I think I just showed that it could, indeed, mean new pressure to buy additional models.

And it could equally mean that there is no pressure at all, especially for those of us with an already decent sized collection.


Again, there is nothing reliable backing up this notion of a FAQ to 'patch' the rules from 6th Ed to 7th Ed. In fact, the changes leaked in the White Dwarf article alone are so fundamental that I don't think that would even be possible.

There's no reason why they couldn't do one. You're assuming that these changes are extensive enough that no FAQ could be made for them.


I don't mean to pick on you Gungo, and your optimism may indeed be proven correct. But your arguments there are a little flawed.

As are yours.

Gungo
06-05-2014, 22:17
A psychic phase has no barring on power level of psykers. Secondly your assuming psykers will be even more powerful then thru are based on absolutely nothing. In fact the only rumour suggest divination getting worse and a new tree. If I were using psykers before you already have models. There is no new giant psyker model. Again nothing to do with sales unless you assume gw is overpowering psykers more then they already are with divination abuse. In fact if they really were trying to cash grab why limit tyrannids?

It is almost impossible to make thr current allies matrix less restrictive without just getting rid of the table almost every at can be tabled togther except tyrannids and there is no indication that's changing. Even though those players have been asking for less restrictions. Again the only rumour is battle brothers nerf. Again your assuming the few come the apocolypse armies is going away or battle brothers as it's currently abuded given to everyone

im mission cards will adjust people's armies which is fine as players are gaming the system. But this hardly means people need to run out and but expensive large models.

Finally not only had multiple rumours say it's being FAQ. The web team said FAQ's are coming. They haven't stopped selling the digital version and most rumours say it's just an update to 6th. Nothing either of you stated has even insinuated a cash grab. The leaked preview doesn't either and most rumours state otherwise yet you assume it's a cash grab and you calls the optimist? I'm bring realistic nothing mentioned means I have to our jade anything else then I already have except at most mission cards if they are not included in a download and are required.

dooms33ker
06-05-2014, 22:31
Just to chime in on the whole "unbound" controversy, I think allowing troops to score during the course of a battle as opposed to only at its end will assure that spam lists won't be viable in actually winning games. Tabling should just end the game and not guarantee victory for they who wiped out their opponent; An army can be be killed to the man and still have victory in the grand scheme of things, i.e. the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Hopefully the objectives will be more like Malifaux now, which is pretty much exactly what I've described, and if they are, I won't complain about the elimination of a required FOC.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 22:31
Grossly overpriced? They're about the same cost as similarly detailed models from other companies.
$30 for a single 28mm character model? Yes, that's grossly overpriced any way you slice it. They aren't worth more than half of that.


There's no reason to assume either way.
And I didn't, I just pointed that either is possible.


No matter what GW does, it changes the metagame. They could whip up the most competitively balanced rules set ever, and it's going to change the meta. Is it still a cash grab? They're kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with your type.
'your type'? That's rather a broad statement, don't you think? And for the record, if GW ever published an excellently balanced ruleset, I would go out the next day and buy an entire army just to reward them, and myself, for it.


And it could equally mean that there is no pressure at all, especially for those of us with an already decent sized collection.
Indeed, it could. But it could also go exactly as I described. That was my point, that it is at least possible, if not indeed likely.


There's no reason why they couldn't do one. You're assuming that these changes are extensive enough that no FAQ could be made for them.
I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Ssilmath
06-05-2014, 22:37
$30 for a single 28mm character model? Yes, that's grossly overpriced any way you slice it. They aren't worth more than half of that.

Opinion, not fact.


'your type'? That's rather a broad statement, don't you think? And for the record, if GW ever published an excellently balanced ruleset, I would go out the next day and buy an entire army just to reward them, and myself, for it.

And yet, they'd be changing the meta. Doesn't that make them cash grabbers? Fact is, you don't know how things are balanced, so accusing them of cash grabbing is a bit premature, isn't it?


I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Your assertions were nothing but opinion, not founded on facts, and require an assumption that the new edition is designed only for making money and that nothing was done to address balance. Thus, they're a bit flawed.

Wolf Lord Balrog
06-05-2014, 22:41
Your assertions were nothing but opinion, not founded on facts, and require an assumption that the new edition is designed only for making money and that nothing was done to address balance. Thus, they're a bit flawed.

Actually I never claimed anything of the sort. I was just pointing out that it is not an entirely unreasonable position to take.

Again, I would be delighted for GW to prove us doubters incorrect. Nothing would make me happier than for 7th Edition to be just awesome and herald in a New Golden Age of 40K.