This will determine once and for all if GW even understand how people play their own game outside their ivory tower. A friend of mine was telling me today how he thinks the bonus for being battle-forged is going to be trivial. At least I don't see a lot of public gaming places allowing unbound armies without opponent consent. I know what GW is trying to do but they need to flat out say "this game is not meant to be played in pick up games, only play with people who you know want the same thing out of the game as you" but they don't have the integrity to say it.

 

Just watch the spam lists now...Unbound Tournaments will become such a joke.

 

I would hazard a guess that unless the bonuses are pretty substantial for using the FOC, most tournaments will require you use them to avoid spamming too badly.

Also, if you spam your heavy/elites or whatever, you likely won't have much for troops. So at the very least the FOC player will have that going for them. If you know your playing where spam will be present, just spam as many scoring units as you can, some are bound to survive... Maybe...



That said, until we get the whole picture I'm not a fan. Percentages I was somewhat ok with, or giving army's tier own FOC could have been ok, but just doing away with FOC entirely? I will need to see some good solid rules in order to accept that.

 

I think a lot of the game will be determined by the 36 card Objective deck, and how that plays out. Really, a large fault of the FOC lies in the current 6 main missions, and how it values different FOC sections. Namely, how much it undervalues Troops units, except for on turns 5-7 where Troops go from being completely worthless to being extremely valuable, and how Heavy Support tends to be very valuable on all turns (because those options tend to be very killy).

Changing the missions, and tying a value to a unit beyond just what it can kill, can really impact a units effectiveness and, therefore, point value.

 

Personally i love fielding lots of infantry especially with Orks or Nids. Having the option to not use the FOC just means my Necron infantry wave is now a feasable option...who needs anti tank when you have Gauss?

 

So I can take 5 wraithknights plus a fire prism in a regular list? Hmmm. Serpent and venom spams are going to become ridiculous, and helldrake spam will wreck the game. I really, really hope this doesn't happen,or is at least balanced, for the sake of everyone involved.

 

I don't think it will be a big deal. Those that want to play mini Apoc games will seeks out other like minded people. If I show up to my LGS with a battle forged list I'll find an opponent that has one too, and no play the guy with all crones.

 

It's just going to be a choice you agree on among players, like Escalation and Stronghold are. Plenty of people don't play with those rules, you can choose not to play with Unbound too.

The tricky part is now it's going to be a part of the official rule set. I can see tournaments not allowing it but it would be hard to argue against it with some random pick up game. It's in the rulebook.

 

I don't think it will be a big deal. Those that want to play mini Apoc games will seeks out other like minded people.

I agree this is the case but I do think it's a big deal because it will do nothing to repair the rift that Stronghold and Escalation already created in the community, it will only make it worse. A game like 40k needs a healthy community and locally my community is anything but healthy. The scene at the local FLGS is not healthy either. There are legitimately 2 people I know who will throw down with anything to have fun any more. Everyone else has a vetting process they put their opponent's lists through before they are willing to agree to a game and by then both are tailoring for each other's lists so it's very stagnant. I can go down their and watch about 8 40k games getting play on the weekend and it's always the exact same crap.

 

I actually find the unbound lists an interesting idea. For a while now I've designed my perfect ad mech list using various units from different codex's expecting them to only ever be used for Apocalypse. Now I have the chance of doing that themed army that I always wanted to.

 

I disagree. It's a game and people like to win games or have fun trying. If the rules are bad then the game is bad. GW is heading down a path of anything goes. Player will have to (and have already started) to just make up their own rules just so they can actually play the gam (picking and choosing rules, banning d-weapons etc)

....soon no one will even bother buying the massive ridiculously expensive rule book. Especially when they change it more and more often. They will just buy the models.

 

....soon no one will even bother buying the massive ridiculously expensive rule book. Especially when they change it more and more often. They will just buy the models.

You are correct...they will probably wait for the starter set pocket version

Seriously though all GW needs is for people to keep buying the models as i doubt they make a prophit on their rulebooks anyway. Also having more options for 40k IS a good thing, people just see it as a bad thing because the world today has become a place of "No fun allowed!" with all its power gamers. Thankfully i have yet to meet an opponent with that mindset.

 

The vast majority want to win. Just not everyone tries as hard. It's definitely less fun if you try to lose. Even if your one of those people always saying "I just play for fun" you are still trying to win

 

If one doesn't care about wins and losses and just wants to play "for fun" then why do they care if they play against a power gamer and lose?

 

Because it is not fun to lose all the time, no matter what people tell themselves about it. People who say they have no problem taking a lose as often as they win are not the ones in question, it's the people who lose 70% or more of their games that get fed up, escpecially when it has nothing to do with their actions while playing. When they lose because their opponent just brought a more suitable list it is frustrating, especially when it happens all the time. I don't even mean power gamed lists either. The #1 thing I've seen increase over the course of 6th edition was incomparable match ups resulting in steam rolls, not because tailoring but because if you don't know your opponent is bringing a 4 flyer list or 8 transport list and you wont have enough of either thing you need in an all comers list it just happens. Do you play Space Marines and don't know if your AM or Tau opponent is going to be bringing Fortifications or Multiple Flyers? Then you are SOL. Don't know if your Space Marine opponent is bringing Grav Bikers or Centuristar and you aren't playing Tau? This is why my local meta has totally descended into Stagnent Vetted Matches, at least this way people don't show up to the store or someone's house with the wrong model but it also means there is very little changing and no surprises ever.

 

And now apparently there is "daemonology", where almost any psyker can summon greater daemons.

I'm going to make a prediction for GW's next few moves. all armies can get drop pods, and they can also get a parachute for super heavies, but the super heavies can fire as they are floating down from the sky. Also, everyone will have access to a transdimentional portal and they can summon a unit of chaos knights or warriors or marauders, which can shoot laser beams from their eyes.

 

Then they do care about winning.

 

I never said they didn't. If anything I said that people who say they don't care about winning are liars

Edit: Monopoly is a game. Can you imagine someone playing and just buying old kent road and nothing else, proceeding to get their ass kicked, and they saying "that was so fun! i got to have old kent road for a while, before i lost all my money". These people do not exist outside mental bins.

 

I genuinely dont care about winning. Sure, i will try to win but i dont care if i lose. I always go into a battle expecting to lose and i have actually never won a game yet! this is probably because i like to use models i like the look of rather than what might perform better, however through trial and error i am learning which units are best for some of my armies.

I have had plenty of draws though.

I do have one idea of (what i believe would be) a competative DE list that involves the entire army moving a minimum of 12" in the movement phase, its just a matter of getting the models painted ready for use because i have a HUUUUUGE painting backlog.

 

Liar! if you didnt care about winning you wouldnt try to win, and the reason you enjoy it is because you count improvements as wins or small victories within a battle as wins. Don't deny your human nature

edit: please don't take that tone as agressive, its meant to be light hearted

 

I like potatoes. Does anyone else like potatoes. Potatoes are good. Ham sandwich.


Ok, now that they topic is changed... Has anything else come up even hinting at any of the other changes (specifics, not general rumor) like what the bonuses to a FOC army will be?

 

As of now, I don't believe they have listed any of the specific bonus received for using the standard FOC. I hope that they are significant though.

 

Agreed. If it turns out the 'bonuses' are as simple as 'Unbound don't get Warlord Traits' or something, then I'd be a little ticked off.

 

I can appreciate the idea to give the player more freedom in their choices, but i think that this FOC thing will just open up a door that will let people run wild with cheesy lists. So i can get the idea they are trying promote, i just feel the way they are executing it is very very poor!

 

Don't say that yet, for all we know there are going to be massive bonuses to the FOC army's. Sure, there is an equal chance it will be as stupid as "non FOC doesn't get warlord traits" but we don't know yet. I'm gonna keep an open mind about it until we have solid evidence that shows a further imbalance to the FOC army.


Not to say that the LoW book (forgetting the tittle) gave the best balancing for the armys, but it could have been far worse than it was. And I was assuming the worse (still won't play it, but ill give a small increment of credit where it is due) but it's balanced better than I would have anticipated.

 

That's completely different, parents let their kids win to boost their kids' self esteem. They do it to make their children happy ( I know I have two boys). Playing hacky and not competing is fun but it's not a game, it's only a game when you score. The comparison would be mucking round with a group of chaos warriors fighting staged fights against random stuff just to stuff around and practice seeing how they go against different things.

As for battle forged and unbound I maintain that its just another thing on a long list that is turning 40k from a game into a jumbled mess of whatever the hell you want it to be, but at the expense of the competitive players

I'm going to stop derailing and direct the side topic here:
http://www.librarium-online.com/for...e.com/forums/general-hobby-discussion/280954-philosophy-gaming.html#post2559098

 

Honestly I will not be surprised if it IS the case that Unbound lists cant have Warlord Traits. I suppose they could flesh it out a bit more than that like say, Unbound lists with allies cant buff eachother or Battleforged lists get bonus objective cards etc...They could do this...but its doubtfull.

 

Honestly I will not be surprised if it IS the case that Unbound lists cant have Warlord Traits. I suppose they could flesh it out a bit more than that like say, Unbound lists with allies cant buff eachother or Battleforged lists get bonus objective cards etc...They could do this...but its doubtfull.

As piss poor as GW can be with balancing, I feel that it won't be something so small as no warlord traits. They can say they don't try to balance all they like, they can say they only care about the profits from models and models only as much as they want. But I'm sure they HAVE to be aware that people do play the game and if they did that poor of a balancing act that they would surely loose some sales.

Also, if it is that bad, then tournaments WONT let it fly. They will continue with their own balancing attempts and move on, where as people playing at home or pick up games can (just as always) flat out refuse to play against someone.

I won't assume that GW will balance it perfectly, they never have before, but I can't see them being that blatantly uncaring.

I would hazard a guess no warlord traits would be just one of the rules, but not the only one.

 

I dony suppose there's any word on if you can take Unbound allies with Battle-forged main detachment? Because if so, my Deathwatch will be much easier to bring without needing a Troop choice.

 

I wish, but almost certainly not...

I'd do something very similar myself, taking a 'counts as' Deathwatch unit using either a Havoc or Chosen squad alongside my Tzeentch Daemons.

 

Unbound seems kind of silly. If you want to play that type of game and know others who do as well then you don't need the rule book to allow you to ignore the rules. Rules and game balance allow random strangers to play the same game without a great deal of time spent establishing what is ok and what isn't.

I will say in general I've liked 6th edition. The allies have let me play more of my armies in more configurations. It has been a huge improvement over Mech Spam 5th edition for me but I can understand how much it has upset the tournament scene. I'm going to wait and see before I get too doom and gloom about this new edition.

 

Unbound seems kind of silly. If you want to play that type of game and know others who do as well then you don't need the rule book to allow you to ignore the rules. Rules and game balance allow random strangers to play the same game without a great deal of time spent establishing what is ok and what isn't.

I don't need the rulebook, but it's nice that someone else did the groundwork for me. You wouldn't know from the time I spend posting here, but I'm pretty hard up for free time. So if GW wants to create more options and loose rulesets that I might like, I'm glad they do, because I wouldn't be able to enjoy the game as much otherwise.

 

There's also the fact that a lot of people would simply never consider things like playing an Unbound army unless the rulebook explicitly tells them it's both "okay" and "how to do it."

By actually putting the option into the BRB, you avoid all those frustrating cries of "BUT IT'S NOT IN TEH RULEZZZZ!!!11!!1!"

 

There was a list or rumoured 7th edition changes posted up a short while ago, and while some of them sound fake, here are the ones that i can remember.

-Difficult terrain is now -2" movement.
-Vehicles are tougher to destroy through changes to the damage chart.
-ALL units are now scoring!
-Unbound lists CANNOT contest objectives.
-3 books being released, one for rules, one for fluff and one for models gallery. Rules book is SM codex thickness.
-If you fail to use a psychic power you cannot use it again for the rest of the game. (leads me to beleive its fake or misread)
-Changes to wound allocation (not specified)
-Lords of war are in the BRB.
-Escelation and Stronghold assault are unchanged.


Thats all i can remember but i think i covered the main points. Personally i think that making all units Scoring and Unbound lists being unable to contest is a good balance as it means if your playing unbound then you literally have to table your opponent to win.

 

This all came from an anonymous source from Faeit so it's unreliable.

 

I dunno about the unbound list not scoring. Surely their troops should still score? Or do they mean that they score but they just don't contest? In which case yeah I see that. And now this post has become superfluous.