First Warhammer 40,000 7th Edition Rules Changes Emerge!
May 5, 2014 by brennon
Warhammer 40,000 7th Edition is just around the corner and Games Workshop have already been teasing the new version of the tabletop game with their teaser trailer which you can see above. However the latest White Dwarf has already been pillaged for spoilers and here are some of the details below...
The biggest change they first go into is the way that the Force Organisation Chart has changed. You can have a Battle Forged Army which is the simple chart we've all come to know and love and adhering to this of course comes with certain benefits.
However, the alternative to this is using an Unbound Army. An Unbound Army has no limitations in terms of what you can take and as the examples in the leak state you could have armies of Riptides, Leman Russ, Wraithknights and everything else you could possibly think of.
Of course this has an interesting impact on the way armies are made since you can practically do what you like now and make the army YOU want to make. Of course this does also bring in a few raised eyebrows as to the insane power plays people could get up to. I'm sure people have a lot to say about that.
Next up we have the change in the way games and victory points are scored. Gone is the standard set of objectives as they have been added to with the Maelstrom of War scenarios that will have dynamically changing objectives per turn that can be scored or indeed ignored as you see fit. It could potentially change the game into a much more exciting prospect and not just a King of the Hill style affair. I like the sound of this.
Last but not least is the change to the Psychic powers and that they're getting their own phase! From what I can gather from the leaks this means that Warhammer 40,000 is getting the equivalent of a magic phase. It sounds pretty neat that you could also see a lot more random things appearing on the battlefield with the Daemonology powers. Summoning daemons as Eldar and then having them do something nasty in return for their helpful actions? Sounds like fun.
What do you think then guys? Does this sound like a step in the right direction?
Comment below!
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Unbound Army Lists sound great to me!
Anything that promotes flexibility and narrative get a big thumbs up from me, although I think the psychic powers bit sounds a little cumbersome and a throwback to WHFB.
Throwback to WHFB, don’t you mean back to 40K 2nd ed?
Perhaps, but I’m trying to reference where it has been used most recently, still doesnt change the impression I have (currently) of it being cumbersome.
Just amusing seeing how 40k has almost gone full circle from 2nd ed to this edition (I started with 2nd ed, and played up until 5th until I left my part time job with GW). Honestly, I still think percentage based lists gave the sort of balance between “balance” and “weird” lists.
But them I am happy with having some sort of balance in wargames since I can enjoy gm fiat and narrative running rpgs.
There are already tons of rules and supplements that allow you to take unusual armies. For instance you can take a full termie army using dark angels, but also using forge world rules, or horus heresy rules. The new rules change allows players to get round having to use special scenarios or bend the background of certain armies.
I agree the psychic power thing sounds cumbersome, particularly given the amount of hooting you have in 40k.
Unbound Armies sound great the gaming club I run has a number of youngsters who cant always afford to stick to the organization chart. Dynamic missions and points (like Infinity) sound awesome. I just hope GW are sensible with the price of the rule set.
I would agree here. My daughter has started and the few games she has played we always ask to ignore the FoC as she cannot cover it. So like the idea.
I guess this also lends credence to the longstanding rumour that 9th ed WFB would have an open approach to army lists. It’ll be interesting to see how tournaments are organised now.
I bet most tournaments will follow a more rigid approach to army lists, and you won’t be able to just have a free for all. But perhaps some tournaments will allow anything goes.
Well, for me the fluff was always one of the great things in 40K.
Unbound seems to me Pay to Win.
There, here are my 4 Knights, my 3 Riptides, 2 Baneblades and 3 Assorted Chaos Big Kits.
Bye bye fluff, bye bye fun.
On the other hand, wait and see seems like the way to go for now.
There is nothing fluffy about balanced armies. Balance is not always the most realistic factor in an army. For instance in a balanced game you would not see any tank armies, but tank armies are a realistic part of the background. If you are playing those type of scenarios you do have to play against fair minded players and not against power gamers.
I have to agree that some power gamers will take advantage of this, but then again, you can take more or less of units as you see fit, which I think will be awesome for themed campaigns and missions.
Did… did GW’s game design team just threw in the towel?
So the only solution they could find in making a balanced game system is add in more randomness and make army lists almost non existent?
It does smack of that, since with wargames and rpgs, the golden rule is always that you are allowed to ignore the rulebook. How is this new approach anything new? I mean hell, you want some fun with Warmachine, then make up a reason for the army roster you want to use. Sam with any game.
No i think they just created two flavors, bound army lists for those who want to stay structured and unbound for those (including me) who want to try some funky stuff.
I have yet to hear anyone complain about the ‘balance’ of bolt action or hail ceasar.
TBH i think this balance nonsense is in peoples heads.
The game is only as balanced as the opponent you play.
If you want balance… play chess – even then make sure you pick white 😉
I have to agree , hail ceasar has a a points system but nobody I think really uses it, apart from FOW and BA I can think of a WW2 game that uses a point system
*cant think ….sorry
But Warzan, in Bolt Action I can’t take SS-troops and mix them with US Marines and Malaysian Pineapple Launchers in order to create a ‘funky’ game.
Yes you can
Warzan could you use dinosaurs in bolt action? It would be a great way to incorporate dinosaurs into the game and also educational for kids.
I agree… the way codices are currently working the point “balance” is in name only and does nothing for the game. It provides some players with a sense that on any given day I have a 50% chance of winning whereas we all know and have experience the fact that some army builds are almost auto wins. I say almost as there is always the day when random chance makes one a liar. With unbound at least in casual games you know that your probably going to face something outrageous and you have an opportunity to equal that.
“Oh, you’re bringing 6 Wraithknights well here are 6 full squads of grav-cannon toting Termi-tubbies (Centurions). You roll kill half my army… I roll kill all of yours”
That sounds both hilarious and cinematic at the same time. If you are going to have these hugely pointed units that rarely make it into a “regular” game there should be something that let’s you have fun with them.
I will have to respectfully disagree.
From a designers perspective, the more balanced and clear the game system is, the more opportunities you give to everybody to enjoy the thing they want from your system.
“Forging the narrative”, fluff, competition, tournaments everything is build on the game system, the more balanced and clear it is, the better for everybody using it as a foundation.
In the end @warzan you do not need an official permission from anybody to game at the gaps, in any system, but the better your foundations, the better your experience will be.
“the more balanced and clear the game system is”
^^^ But this simply cannot exist in any gaming system that contains enough options and gear to make it a ‘hobby’
Would you like to name a game that has achieved this and has a similar level of ‘hobby’?
Total balance? None.
A better level of balance with fewer models/units/factions too far away from a median power curve to essentially be useless in a regular game or obviously the best choice to the detriment of all others? Nearly all of them.
Even in quotes I do not subscribe to the idea of having GW and hobby synonymous.
If you really think about it, the plethora of customization options in 40k is left vastly unused, because most are pointless to have, so the vast majority of players simply distill to the few options that really matter, what difference really that is to other wargames that have a more “restricted” choice? except I guess, less useless unused options taking space and a more balanced approach to the list design, both internally and externally.
So what is the minimum level of options and gear that is requited for a wargame to be a “hobby”? because the wargames hobby is a hobby containing 3 different hobbies (miniature building and painting, history (fictional or real) research and actual playing the game) in it and GW games are definitely not the definition of the hobby.
Want examples, Bolt Action and FOW, by definition fill all these criteria, Warmahordes and Infinity fill them quite easily since they have their own fictional history to draw from and are quite good on models and rules, same can be said with most wargames out there, so I really cannot see your point of “Similar level of “hobby” “.
In the end there is no excuse for GW to not make a coherent game system and balanced forces , if nothing else they are the biggest out there and they have all their resources in their disposals to do so, they just chose to not do so and use a plethora of excuses to deliver a product that needs the players moderation to be playable, for me that’s an unacceptable product to be delivered from a game designer.
@psychoticstorm the games designers have always said that the rules are only a guideline, and actually they exist to be broken and manipulated. Every single games designer agreed on that issue, and have done since the 1980s – that includes Jervis, Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers and Jake Thornton.
How do you think the citadel journal magazine came about? It was a house rules, player made army lists, weird skaven contraptions etc.
What has changed?
@captainbastardo2
About 3 decades time have changed since the early wargaming attempts of the 80’s and with them the expectations of the consumers.
A game system is the framework in which the players playing a game will interact with, its the groundwork and not something to be used as guidelines, especially in our modern society were time is scarce.
People buying a rule set and codexes from GW they buy the convenience to have a set of rules to interact with other players and a set of army lists, already agreed with, been professionally made saving them the time to make the rules and lists themselves and then convince others that this is good enough to play with.
At the present, I view the “as a set of guidelines” line as an excuse GW uses to not do their work proper and the design philosophy of the 80’s, where people played mostly ancient and Napoleonic in battles that had already happened, with forces already determined by history and the only thing to agree upon was the rule set to play, as antiquated as an ox carriage in the modern courier world.
As Hail Cesar has shown (made by some of the above mentioned people, with the above mentioned mentality) in modern day this philosophy is not accepted and people demand a system to be as complete as it is possible.
Now I would be willing to tone down a bit if GW was a small company, didn’t have a dedicated game developer team, or at least didn’t demand a big amount of money for their rules and army lists but give them out for free, but they do all the above and it is only reasonable to expect from them to deliver a good workable product that is balanced and not the rulebooks and codexes they have brought in the past with obvious errors, inconsistencies, omissions that are spotted in the first day of release and non existent balance either internal and external.
Customers demand the only logical thing, a complete product and they pay for it, why GW must get the free pass where other companies do not, is beyond me.
Balance is an odd thing in the hobby, GW has never truly had it in as much as there have always been unbalanced elements, next to no systems have perfect balance. GW is also the ones that are responsible for a lot of the concepts of competitive play and army lists and the idea of the balanced environment – something now they deny like a guilty man in the dock.
Also views on balance will differ with who you speak to, if you can play with regular groups of players who are of a like mind set – what you look for, for balance is one thing. If you are in a situation or area where tournament style pick up games are prevalent then you look to the game balance to restrict the worse of your opponents excesses. This is why you get a millions nerds crying out in rage with such things.
I moved away from my regular games groups a few years back, and despite being in Nottinghamshire long working days couple with reliance on public transport means I have yet to find or develop a gaming group of a like mind here.
I did at points manage to make it to Maelstrom when they where open and while a lot of the guys playing there are great chaps I found it to be a very free for all tourney style environment – well for GW/PP anyway – and there is nothing wrong with that, except for that’s not how I enjoy my gaming.
So I tend to play on those times when I visit or are visited by my old groups – and we have played fixed point games but always with our own internal and unspoken comp to match what we enjoy. Now however, we tend to agree lists or missions before hand – planning a week soon of pre-listed games with lists designed to play and balance against each other – each with its own mini narrative.
But back to the point, I game for about 2 weeks a year – admittedly that’s full on 2 plus games a day but not in between. I could re-arrange my weekends and hit the clubs and play pick ups, but that would be all comers, play what turns up gaming – or at best I am playing ‘bob’ and his ‘eldar’ as a pre-arranged match up. For me, that is not the gaming I enjoy and that is not ‘bob’s’ fault, so I choose quality over quantity. Game balance directly effects that decision as it absence is why that pick up game cannot be as fun, because people want a list that gives them a chance – so tend to come loaded to bear. Then your opponent can be the nicest, most fair player you will meet, but you brought a knife to a gunfight and neither of you gets a quality game.
Now with BA and other stuff the historical tends to be a more self moderating environment inmy experience, that is not to say you cannot find on podcasts and websites the bemoaning of balance.
what warren said
wfb was more balanced to play in 4th ed even though the armies were potentially more beardy. The tourney scene did not exist and players tended not to min max armies to such an extreme extent.
The formalised army list does not make 40k more fluffy. For example why can’t you have a tank army in 40k?
I get Warren’s point I am a retired special forces soldier and during our reality based war-games I had good record of wins but I came up against a squad with a leader that took us out pretty quickly, my point is I view he outsmarted me, my squad viewed he cheated. In real combat I would cheat or change the rules every time to win, he simply brought a different balance to me on that day. Anyone that says winning isn’t everything has never been in a gun fight. But I war-game for entertainment if my opponent comes to the table win at end cost there I already have an unbalanced game before a dice gets thrown. When someone games with the same attitude we have a hilarious and massively fun time. Sometime I win sometime I take a flogging.When I play “unbalanced” power trippers I want to take them back to a training combat field and say I am here to survive not win so get ready for the game of the century dead man. So IMHO your opponent always help set the balance it is called war gaming not war killing.
Nope that happened a few years ago, and the towel was more grabbed by marketing and thrown away – after all if you look at what they want from a games designer its to promote the toys. This is just more blatant.
However if you are able to set up games and have a discussion with your opponent its a fairly nice framework.. If you have to play pick up games its just a bit poo
By Marketting you should more accurately read management and accounts
The difficulty as i see it, is that a huge part of the player base of 40k are afraid to deviate from the rules, it’s almost as if the ‘hobby’ of it all cannot exist outside of the framework of the rules.
Rules are a guide to have fun with folks.
I think what GW are trying to do here is tell people its ok to have fun. And yes they will sell more big kits in the process, but I don’t begrudge them that one iowta!
I’m reserving passing comment on what the game will be like until we have more information. If it truly does into a wild west of play-whatever-you-want with no restrictions at all then I’m very interested in seeing how it turns out. Structured army lists were the initial bump that caused Citadel sales to take off, and they’ve been a big driver of sales since. Rick Priestly wrote Black Powder and Hail Caesar with the intention that they would have no army lists or points but even in the historical part of the scene, the player base still demanded them and army books followed. It’d be a big culture shift if the player base embraces free-for-all 40K.
I think you’re guilty of what I suspect the Studio is also here Warren, in that you play in a regular social group with opponents you know well most of the time. Rules are needed to provide a structure so you can still have an enjoyable time playing even if your opponent is a dick.
I’ve said frequently, the issue with 40K, fundamentally, is that the rules are so soft that WAAC is a playstyle, not an attitude. It shouldn’t impact on the game that my opponent is desperately keen to win, how much we both attach to victory should be entirely personal. But, with 40K as it currently is, someone who is keen to win will bring Screamerstars, Waveserpent spam, Riptides in the multiples etc.. and if you approach the game with the philosophy of having some fun and bring a list composed of units and models you like, you’re gonna get flattened.
Say what you like, while people may not care about losing a game, standing there for an hour essentially picking up models and putting them back in their case is no fun, and can be mightily disheartening.
This isn’t an issue if you play in a regular group of friends, as measures can be taken to address these problems, but if you play in a large club, as I do, or play pick up games in hobby shops which is how the Americans seem to do a lot more of their gaming than the Brits, the rules need to be in place to prevent this sort of divergence in attitude translating into what happens in the game, and for that, 40K is currently unfit for purpose.
This isn’t even touching on the fact that the current game has been essentially unsupported via FAQs for over a year, but at least we know now why they were too busy!
This pretty much matches my thoughts, but far more eloquently.
Before I mostly gave up on 40k, some examples of the various games I was playing and at my club were:
1500 points with 5 greater/demon/princes, infinite demon troops
3 Tau-dar armies at my club
Grey Knights with 2-3 Dreadknights depending on points sizes
Unbound armies won’t be improving things for the games I’d be playing at all.
Remember unbound is an option, no one is forcing it to be played, and FOC armies get a bonus (whatever that will be)
I like the idea of unbound as it opens up so much narrative, elite armies dropping from the sky all on foot etc
Lets not forget we could have done this at any time anyway, but GW now are building in the framework to encourage it, so you don’t land down at your local store and the teenager who knows waaay too much for his own good, starts picking your stuff apart.
OK perhaps ‘that little guy’ isn’t going away, but I think it has the potential to be a nice softener for those entering the hobby via the GW recruitment path, which can only be a good thing for the hobby as a whole 🙂
“no one is forcing it to be played”
We don’t know that yet. Even if the rules present players with two options, if one takes root over the other then it’ll to all intents and purpose become the default way of playing the game. Which means for many players they’re faced with playing that way or not at all. Again, this is all purely hypothetical at this point.
If the book has options, it has options. If the player base ‘forces’ something, how is that any fault of GW?
And if there are ‘many’ players who will face this issue, surely they can seek each other out in this day of social networking etc.
I sometimes, think that this community (the wider community not just BoW) see things a little too black and white.
OR…
I need to get out more and do a tour of gaming stores and clubs to get my eyes opened! lol
Again, I cannot stress enough how hypothetical this all is at this stage given the dearth of information we have. If both options are presented but only one is competitive then it’ll inevitably take root as the normative way to play the game. Not everyone plays WAAC, but even fewer people play to lose, and consequently very few people will build armies that lose the game before it’s played.
The other way one can become normative over the other is if one proves to be more profitable for GW. Keying into other parts of this conversation, GW will absolutely make business-driven decisions for their games, and they should. If the Unbound way of building an army proves itself to be clearly more profitable, GW will normalise it as the way of playing the game.
Once again, all of this hypothetical based on zero observable data at this point.
“but even fewer people play to lose, and consequently very few people will build armies that lose the game before it’s played”
^^^ This
Agreed, and you’re right, we will have to wait and see, but once again I will place my money on … the player wins games, not the army … 🙂
Absolutely, I’d take a good player over a good army every time. That said, we’re talking about two different ways of playing a game rather than relative balance between armies within the same format. GW could very well be providing their players with a beautifully balanced set of options that open up all sorts of new and interesting ways to play the game. They could also be providing two ways of playing the game, one of which has an enormous inherent advantage, and that would be very tough for the format to overcome and take root as a way of playing the game.
“Wait and see” should be the motto of the day 🙂
I think we can still expect to be bound by the mission objectives though. They might add unbound lists to the rules, but if we had that now you’d be struggling to win missions without taking a good number of troop choices anyway. So did/will we ever have crazy choices once we’ve created a force that actually has the capacity to win games which are based on troop objectives? Objectives which have force organisation rules partially built in already.
So maybe to have these open lists be usable GW has to modify the objectives rules which make up such a large part of the game. Will we see a shift away from the necessity of having so many troop choices?
Bearing in mind GWs desire to sell more of the big kits (and I’m not complaining, they’d be crazy not to do that as a company and ultimately we love to use them) I do wonder if traditional troop choices will be seeing a big change.
A lot of this is going to depend on the bonuses that are giving for playing a “battle-forged” army.
Like I say, we really don’t know at this stage how it’s going to play out. It could be that between the BF bonuses and objective based missions that BF armies are actually better than Unbound ones. It could equally vary from army to army, with some having incredibly broken Unbound builds, and others have incredibly powerful BF abilities.
The potential issue with Unbound, which personally I’ve yet to see enough evidence of to be too concerned about, while acknowledging the misgivings of those who are, is that it is a choice at list building stage.
Not an issue in a pre-arranged game, but if I build a battle forged list, pack up my minis and head out to my FLGS to find a game, only to arrive and discover the only available opponent is rocking Unbound, I have the “choice” of no game at all, or to play a game that has the potential to be so horribly lopsided as to be no fun at all.
I keep having al sorts of fun ideas for lists that would only be possible in Unbound, none of which would come close to being accused of being cheesy, and get quite excited about it, then I remember some of the players in even my relatively small player pool and how they simply couldn’t be trusted to build a list that would be fun to play against with the sort of freedom Unbound would offer them, and I get sad again.
Unbound, as a concept, would be fine if every unit in the game was even close to having a utility commensurate with it’s points cost, and I would embrace it as a brilliant idea for allowing creative players to design and collect fluffy armies and interesting tactics, while 40K remains home to the likes of Waveserpents and Riptides (or things like DE Mandrakes at the other end of the scale) it will either be discarded by the community at large, or it will seriously damage the game.
“I need to get out more and do a tour of gaming stores and clubs to get my eyes opened! lol”
Sounds like a summer project for the BoW crew 🙂
“with some having incredibly broken Unbound builds, and others have incredibly powerful BF abilities”
I see that as being the most likely scenario. The balance of power will shift once again to other forces. There will be a lot of moaning and whining at my club from certain members, before they head to the internet and turn up the next week with a new WAAC net-list 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwSKkKrUzUk
Unbound Army Lists… I can definitely see this being questioned by many 40k’ers. To me, it sounds like 40k will be getting rid of the tactical elements of the game. At least we still have the good old Force Org Chart should we need it.
I do like the idea of the changing objectives in game. This should be quite interesting. 🙂
As I mentioned above in the article I think this could all be for the benefit of Warhammer 40,000 – as someone who has just got back into 40k and found it pretty bland to be honest I like that they’re spicing things up.
The objective cards sound like an awesome thing and dare I say it, maybe they listened to what Mantic were going to do with Warpath and took a leaf from their design book there.
I’m looking forward to the new edition.
The objective do some more interesting, and hark back to the Fog of War rules in Epic 40,000. What I would give to have that boxed game once more.
Oh my god!
James Hewitt has just gone over to GW and he is flexing his Mantic Muscles?
Go James!
That was my thinking too 😉
Unlikely he had any input on this. He’s only been in GW what, maybe 2/3 months. These things have lead times of 3-6 months minimum.
Don’t worry – only joking 🙂
I’m feeling the competetive players starting to whine up already… nothing rages like nerd rage…
I dont play 40K but I wonder who is going to buy this edition, friends have laid out about 100 on the last edition with escalation add ons etc. I dont think they will be doing it again
but one rumor (do not know if true or not) will put the updates out as an FAQ / Errata for players with 6th Edition already. If true then only new or people who really want the updated book will get it.
If this does not happen then its is a bit of a money grab
competitive play will prob stick to bound list. the unbound is just a version of Apocalypse for people who don’t have such a large collection. play with what you have, and have fun seems to be the message. I welcome this, its like the old GW is poking out, a bit more about the game and not the models
That was my immediate thought. The potential issue is that it could lock a lot of players out of tournament play, or at least force people who want to play tournaments to not build unbound lists.
I’m looking forward to seeing how it all pans out. Getting a bonus for following the FOC will be interesting but it will make campaigns work a little better. Often they manipulate the FOC anyway. Should make it pretty fun, especially with cards with objectives on as I imagine they will have specific things on that if your just loaded up on a specific thing makes it harder to complete some of those.
From a competitive point of view time will tell.
I hope the objectives are secret that would be fun. That would add a whole new Level.
Oh well… Wow
Seriously not impressed, looks like I’m out of GW for sure now then.
On one hand it does prompt a wtf. On the other hand, it sounds similar to Infinity’s sectorial lists, where you limit your selection of units to open up link teams.
Until we know what the bonuses for a battle-bound army are, speculation is nothing but that.
What’s the betting 75% of the book is full of pictures of marines and gw paint tips!
Highly Unlikely, GW in recent years have scaled back alot of the ‘hobby’ content in the book.
I would expect a sizable chunk of background though.
not sure if I like the sound of this or not. On one hand you could build a beautifully fluff army and make it playable on the other its gunna get abused to the point of rage by some people
Sounds good, so long as the standard troops/units are still required and not overawed and the psychic powers rules are not too cumbersome.
Look forward to seeing the full rules and if they make the game more flexible and fun. Possible changes to 30k?
In my book, unit diversity and interaction is key factor for a fun tactical/strategy game. Spam list can be fun to try but boring most of the time. A full list of leemanruss tank would look awsome on the table, but its damned boring to play unless you enjoy mindless dice rolling session.
Imagine a list full of crimson fist, sternguard vets armed with combi melta\plasma +heavy flamer in drop pods all scoring units. Drop-delete
40K is already unbound once you get to 2,000 points – in practice.
This probably isn’t much of a change, surely?
Exciting times, anyway.
it just opens it up for smaller armies, as you say Poosh exciting times ahead.
I haven’t played 40 k for quite a while but tonight it has got my interest. I like the sound of secret missions they add another level to any game, trying to guess what your opponent is up to.
Unbound armies has got to be a winner, sure some people will take advantage and write the cheesiest lists that produce the most pointless games but whatever the rules are the same people will do this and I don’t play against those kind of players it’s not my idea of fun.
For the rest of us we will have the opportunity to field an army we have always wanted to whether it be for fun or just the spectacle or both.
multipule warbosses with nobs in trucks, sounds like a winner to me!
How can 6th edition be cycling out already? I started back in 5th in 2008, with a 50 euro rule book and a 15 dollar tyranid codex. 2010 rolled around and I picked up a 22 euro tyranid codex. 2012 came and went and I picked up a 60 euro rulebook, then the begin of this year tyranids were released again. Surely that means, Gamesworkshop are cutting 6th edition’s life cycle short 2 years by releasing 7th this year. But why? Why speed up the life cycle of the game? I thought 6th was really good, except for its blatant crulity towards tyranids(allies, gun mounts). Flying Monsters and planes were awesome. And really opened the game up. So why push a new edition?
Please @warzan @brennon enlighten me with some of the stradegy behind this.
A bad set of results last year may well have brought forward the time table to shore up this years results.
Probably as simple as that.
Money grab?
Every business wants to grab your money… Thats kind of the point of a business.
+10 For a dollop of common sense 😉
Not that I’m necessarily agreeing with the sentiment, but unpacking “money grab” it implies short-term profiteering rather than simply attempting to make money. The further implication being that it risks long-term profit. Again, I’m not personally convinced this is the case.
Two options as I see it.
1) It has been slated to come out around this time for a long time and is just part of their plan. I see no evidence of any ‘short term-ism or profiteering here’ they are entitled to release products and try and get more customers, and encourage more spend from their existing customer base. Not everyone will like it, some will love it, either way its perfectly valid.
2) They have pulled it forward to try and inject some growth into this year to start to address the issues in the last set of results. Again, any business if it sees an issue is going to look for ways to address it, this is an obvious answer. Again, no evidence of short term-ism or profiteering, if this is their strategy, it’s just a business rebooting their platform, to spur growth.
I really don’t see the issue. Now will this work for them… that’s a whole other point!
Like I say, I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment myself, but it does deserve addressing on its own terms, which you have done 🙂
No shit sherlock? There are different ways of doing it though im sure youll agree. Im pretty sure we still have companies out there who are also passionate about their products and sincerely care about their customers while making money.
Are you seriously suggesting GW arn’t…
“passionate about their products”
And don’t…
“sincerely care about their customers while making money”
Utter tosh! 😉
Its a bit harsh on them isnt it? 😉
I’ve always purchased models that I like the look of , never been one to purchase mini’s for a army list/tactical reason , why should I buy something I think looks like a turd ?
After god knows how many years of trying to shoehorn my fave mini’s into lists (which always ends up in defeat!) I can finally say **** ’em , and bring ALL of my dreadnaughts !! (which will please my wife because I’m no longer wasting money!)
……………. and no-one is forcing you to play the new edition , I bought Dark Vengeance and still play 5th (until next month!)
I’m still playing third…
I love the idea of random missions, especially if you can keep your cards hidden from the enemy, dare I say it, its a bit deadzoneesque. It will add a lot of excitement and uncertainty to the out come of the game.
The psyker phase sound like it could bring psykers into the game again. Hopefully GW have looked at the rule for them as a whole and not just given psykers their own phase. I play as space wolves or a Tzeentchian chaos marine force, both of which can field some powerful psykers but currently they feel a bit over priced (points wise) and under effective.
Lastly I think the unbound armies sound like a mixed blessing. On one hand you are being told to play how you want (which in all fairness you are constantly told in the current edition but some people don’t get it) and on the other it is giving free reign to come up with the most ridiculous army lists imaginable.
As warzan said there are some players who are afraid to deviate from the rule book and hopefully this will show that you can make it your own and have a lot of fun coming up with fluff based army lists, scenarios and house rules. I love coming up with scenarios but they often get over looked (to my mind, it could be that they are rubbish!haha) because they aren’t in the rule book.
As a casual player I think unbound sounds like tons of fun!
The stories for campaign could get really interesting. You could start out with well structured armies, with the bonuses to match. Then as the war rages on and troops are lost, your force can become a rag tag bunch of survivors scrapping it out to the bitter end, without breaking any rules.
GG, GW for bringing narrative back into the game. Fingers crossed I’m not wrong in that.
any one heard any rumours of what the new box set will entail im hoping for some new ork minis as the black reach starter set was a amazing starting point for most ork players
Latest rumours say IG Vs Eldar, but Blood Angels vs Orks has been mentioned before.
And if the Dark Vengance boxset is anything to go by this kit is going to be kickass.
At local GW store today I asked about new box set. Manager knows I collect orks. Blood Angels and Orks he suggests, hastily adding that is what the ‘rumors’ say. Sounds like Eldar/IG won’t be in it to me.
This all sounds good. Now we just need to get rules that let us use other companies models in the stores and tournaments. I know that will never happen. But a man can dream 🙂
I’m nervous. As a very new 40K player I’m scared that ‘unbound’ armies will be a bit broken and really discourage new players who are just beginning to build there collections.
The idea is forget balance and buy what you like – so should be ideal for new players. The force orgs don’t prevent some one from struggling with first purchases if they are buying what they like – they can still end up with an ‘underpowered’ list. The business idea is definitely you can you whatever you buy.
If that ends up being the reality or not is a whole other matter – particularly if the community self comps and kills unbound lists – then entry into the hobby potentially becomes a minefield if you don’t know you local scene and are rely on pick up games.
I would paint what you have and see what your local players do and who it goes down.
I think the unbound list for my son, who has too many elites and no way to play them, is awesome. He has plenty of points with his models he buys for “cool points” as opposed to FOC tactics, etc. but gets jacked by the FOC. At least now he can get in on some bigger games without costing me another arm and leg like my FOC styled army did.
IMHO – I say good on GW for allowing people/kids who can play the models they bought because they were cool not just making you buy specific units to fit the FOC.
I see it your way as well. Not to forget that some people, me being one of them would love to have something like a entire army with jump packs swooping down. As long as the points add up its good with me. Even if I loose often because of it.
Regarding a new boxed set, I read in a few places that this’ll be purely a rules launch. I would love to be wrong, however.
It will be at first, it always is. The boxset follows a few months later so GW can double dip sales: players buy the BRB so they can keep playing, and then 3 months later buy the boxset for the much handier min rulebook and/or the minis in the box
Balance aside, wait and see is the best approach. I am not playing 40K atm, working on some minis but not playing so no rush to buy. Could be great, could be terrible.
What is terrible is a rules revamp after 2 years – either they believe 6th really did a complete number on the game and its necessary, or this is desperate money grabbing.
What??? I haven’t managed a single game of 6th and now the 60e rulebook is going out with the trash?
This pretty much happened to me with 4th ed too (skipped 5th).
Even though I already have a collection, it’s insanely hard to get into 40K as it’s such a fast moving target. You can’t dabble at it, you have to go all in or not at all. Which I guess is the way they want it…
Agree to play 6th with your mates while you see if this is terrible or not, that’s if your not running pick ups.
Continual rules changes are why I haven’t picked up Horus Heresy – as they are going to be effected by core rules and they are to costly (Although to my mind reasonably priced for quality etc) to be buying re-prints.
I don’t have any friends (who play 40K). Everyone I know plays “latest-everything”.
And I’m not really sold on 6th either, never having actually played it, that’s not the real point. The last edition I really played was 4th.
The real point is this constant update model that necessitates constant purchases, especially if you have multiple armies as I do. And it’s not just the books, you need to keep buying models as well as older ones are either nerfed to the point of being unusable or even completely outlawed…
“as older ones are either nerfed to the point of being unusable or even completely outlawed”
Nerfed yes, happened to my Carnifex a bit coded before last.
Outlawed, I don’t remember the last time this happened – perhaps stopping Space Wolves taking Leman Russ Battle Tanks, but even then you can still use them today with an allied guard unit.
I don’t believe in these last 5 years they have ever outlawed a model that you could buy from them.
Mycetic spores were written out (much to my annoyance) but to be fair to GW, they never made a model for it.
5 years? I started this in 1980’s.
Example: I have terminators from the old Space Hulk box. They’re not great, but they ARE official GW models.
The thing is, they all have powerfists. Later, sergeants started to come with power swords.
Around 4th I could still legally field a termie sgt. with a fist. It was horribly expensive pointwise and really stupid, but it could be done.
Then the free gear upgrade option was dropped and fist wasn’t in the allowed upgrades list. I HAD to buy to new sergeant to build a legal termie squad. Except by that point they weren’t selling single figures anymore…
In WFB e.g. the legality of sword and shield armed basic dark elf warriors comes and goes with army books…
@vagrantwhisper, if I build say a Roman or Napoleonic army it remains playable to the end of times. I might want to expand it but I don’t have to because some corporate bean counter decides more sales are needed. That’s the big difference.
For me the hobby is expanding into new things, not constantly honing the same thing over and over again. When I’ve done an army I want to start a new project and still have the first army remain playable if I want to pull it out a couple of years later.
@maxxon
What you want is perfectly reasonable. All I’m saying is that, in my experience, you can only expect backwards compatibility to last for so long.
If you’re a PC or a console gamer then you know the feeling of something eventually becoming unplayable. CCGs aren’t any different, RPGs inevitably move into second, thirds and fourth editions, etc.
I’m not aware of any version of a “mainstream” wargame that doesn’t require one to re-evaluate one’s collection and composition at some level with every revision.
“The real point is this constant update model that necessitates constant purchases, especially if you have multiple armies as I do.”
I’ve always been confused by this position. I’ve yet to meet a “gamer” hobby that doesn’t require more and more investment as you increase your presence in it, and tons of “normal” hobbies are the same.
Is there any wargame, outside of the indie and homemade market, that isn’t on a constant update and collection model?
In fairness recent cycle the new stuff has not always been the good stuff, in fact some of it has been terrible rules wise. The issue is people that will field for rules rather than field for cool factor.
Also if you are able to set up games – then do so, limiting what you perceive as destroying your game enjoyment. Again the whole crux is when your in your situation @maxxon where you relying on pick up games. Then its down to how much you want to get into 40k – I agree its not one to pick and dabble with.
I would like to see a warhammer 40k light. Something that maintains the flavour of the game, but allows people to dabble as @maxxon mentions.
I have converted several members of my RPG group to wargaming, but I have not even bothered with warhammer 40k – despite it being the game for which I have the most models. Deadzone, Dust, X-Wing, Kings of War – I have run games of all of these, and newcomers are fine with them. But getting into 40k is currently too much of a hurdle compared with other entry points into the hobby.
Is it really too much to ask for a skirmish game from GW? How many times have we all read about how much people loved Mordheim, Necromunda or Warhammer Quest back in the day?
Big sigh.
It seems like such a missed opportunity.
New book sounds loads of fun, unbounds gunna get abused though, scoring units anyone??, I’d like to know what the bonous are for sticking to lists.
As for a new box set, its on the cards their out to make money guys, hope its got Eldar/guard in it as someone mentioned plus that little rule book always comes in handy, lugging the hard back to game meets is a pain!!
Of course these unbound armies are gonna get abused, that’s exactly what GW want. You thought Tau and Eldar were overpowered already 2000 pt games with 8 riptides. But i doubt tournaments will allow unbound lists.
This is just going to cause newbies to leave as they turn up get tabled in 2 turns and rage quit. Yes these new missions sound good but what good is scoring if the opponent has no models left.
It is just another reason for me to drift away from 40k but I would love to be wrong about all this
Isn’t all this… worrying a bit premature?
No doubt if you’re into tournaments and stuff the organizers will probably stick with army lists won’t they? To keep some sort of order?
If you’re playing with your mates it’s just a good way to say “this is happening, let’s go!” and have a massive fight!
I was playing BA the other day. My army list included a medic. I forgot to put the medic on the table. My friend would’ve let me put it on halfway through the game but I felt it was cheating so I left it out.
That’s 30 pts I lost and it didn’t seem to make a bit of difference. At the end of the day these are just games and unless you are super serious about winning them these rule changes are just a different way to play 🙂
I personally don’t care about winning, I just like influencing the game and creating an epic story by the end of it!
This is how I and most my mates like to play 🙂
I think what happened is that GW woke up to find that their major competition was not another large gaming company, but a lot of small companies, run out of peoples’ basements, producing a limited line of figures. The main problem with GW has been the fact that they saw themselves as all powerful. They were once the only serious miniature wargaming company in the world. They could just declare want would happen next, and we just had to go along with it. Now they have consider marketing, and customer opinion to maintain their share of the market.
Unbound list wound be insane but might work well for creating scenieo ideas,elite fighters sent in etc.Psychic phase was in one of the earler sets of rules and was similar to magic phase.But i am really liking the random objective cards idea similar to the dead zone objectives so you dont know what your oppent is after. Wanted to do something similar for a charity event so teams didnt know what eash was after.
I’m curious how you actually think the unbound rules would help you create a scenario. You could create ANY scenario you wanted at any time in the history of 40k, there’s nothing at all there to stop you. Now however you are forced, it seems, to legally meet unbound armies in pick up games. Playing with “unbound” armies has always been possible for people in gaming groups where everyone is familiar and you can work out the frame of the scenario/event. The force org, however, was there to help players have a ROUGHLY equal footing in games where you don’t really know you opponent (pick up games, new venues etc.) and it was there to help tournaments in the same way. Now there is no framework at all any more. And again, this has never been a problem in groups of players where everyone knows each other, but MANY gamers get their games in pick up games at stores or other venues where there is no familiarity between players.
I believe it was little time between 6th and 7th edition. The new addition of strategic cards and objects is good (but it should be added to the game with a white dwarf article) and the psychic phase is not something that I really like, I really liked the 5th edition and how the game flows.
Maybe if they released 40K versions of things like Terror of the Lichemaster, Bloodbath at Orcs’ Drift and Tragedy of McDeath. tht came out for WHFB many years ago. Little one off campaign driven scenario packs that people could play, it might engage people again
The first Chapter Approved book (waaayyyy back when) contained a nice mini-campaign.
Called “The Wolf Time” IIRC.
Too bad they didn’t stick with it…
I’m in two minds about the unbound lists:
On one hand its mini-apoc and play with what you have, which when I was younger was pretty much only the cool models.
On the other its going to be a nightmare against power players, but then I suppose you could look at his list and simply say, I’m not playing against that!
What really gets my goat, is this new edition coming out after the old one is only two years old; I only bought Escalation recently to find that it might be useless after less than 6 months. Now that really winds me up, GW have a very delicate balancing act here!
I’m an offshore worker with a good wage, even with a decent hobby budget I’m not going to keep throwing money away like that. It could be that my entire GW collection could become display pieces, I’m still p*ssed that White Dwarf is no longer coming through my door after collecting since issue 129.
I bought Deadzone recently and loved it and thanks to BoW can see many other games that could take my hobby cash a lot easier.
Hi folks.
Just a few thoughts…
Rule sets for games are supposed to place restrictions on players, to force them to make decisions.And it is this decision making that makes up the game play.
The players HAVE ALWAYS had the ability to ignore rules, or change them in a mutually agreed way.
So for all those players who think removing restrictions is fun,just do it in a mutually agreed way, no-one has ever stopped you!
Why on earth do GW feel it is necessary to point out you can just put what you like on the table and roll dice and see what happens if you want to?
Why not do the hard work in making the rules, allow people who want ,or only have access to pick up games,deliver interesting fun games?
You know the same goals all the other games companies strive for….
If GW want to promote narrative play, why not develop scenario/campaign books?
This would make much more sense IMO.
FoC and PV for more conventional pick up games.
And the scenario/campaigns books to inspire the narrative games where you ‘bring cool stuff and stories and see what happens’ type game.
GWs current idea of trying to cover all game play types and game sizes for 40k in one book, could lead to lots of confusion and argument on what is the ‘right’ way to play 40k.
Where as more focused series of books might be more helpful to the very wide range of 40k players?
Just my 2p worth.
I agree with your thoughts on narrative books, to be fair they have been doing a couple. I picked up the Damolces book and it has some good missions and fluff based unit formations. Plus the e-ones they did for fantasy are very cool with tactics matrix creating mission types.
I just recently sold my Tau Army (which was my only army in 40k) but had a nagging feeling I would regret it, that the pull of 40k would make me buy a new army soon again. I’m glad to say that’s not the case. The direction 40k has taken during the last several years (spamming of huge kits, overcrowded tables, spamming of flyers etc.) and the seeming direction of the new rulebook just make me glad I quit. To those of you who will stick with 40k, have fun! (The last bit is actually NOT sarcasm, which is surely what you thought it was).
Personally I never liked the restricted nature of the more recent rules sets – not being able to field a 1st Company Army for instance or why my Elite troops weren’t able to claim objectives really grated with me. My attitude is I’ve paid for these models, now let me use them. Please? So I’m glad they are now, if only a little too late for me personally.
It is funny how they’ve come round to ‘the spirit’ 2nd Edition again, as that had far greater freedom (too much for some people) that “ruined” the game for many – when really it was the WAAC attitude that ruined it for them and the same thing will happen to many people here.
For me it’s a hobby to be enjoyed, however you wish to enjoy it, and it’s good to see an official choice of play to that effect. I don’t get people’s desires to have their hands held by a design team or for every choice they make to be ‘official’ in order to be allowed. GW’s rules have never been perfect, with the exception of Blood Bowl maybe, and should always be viewed as guidelines. I understand people who think it’s lazy design, but I also feel the design team are in a somewhat impossible position due to GW’s company policy of running without stopping to think why they are doing so. It’s unfortunate but I feel 40k will never get a balanced set of rules, or even a complete set from one edition to the other due to GW’s insane business model.
I think what hurts people more than the rules themselves is that fact they have to constantly pay for changing rules which may render their previous finely tuned army, favourite unit or WAAC collection or ‘Deathstar’ unit/s obsolete or ‘nerfed’. They feel like they’re being exploited when they are only really exploiting themselves by taking the game too seriously IMHO. Maybe I’m wrong?
I’ve also complained about the rules, constant updates etc before but perhaps it’s best that 40k is being handed to the player’s with a “Do what you like, have fun” approach, rather than strive for in-game balance to a system where it has never existed – ever. At the end of the day it’ll be your choice to play as you wish, which I think is a good thing. If player’s want balance and restrictions they can make it up themselves, since it seems the design team never gets it right anyway.
I understand the rage from a financial perspective though, and this release smacks of ‘we had a really bad year, we need a cash injection now – unleash another 40k Edition!’ but no one is forcing people to play a new edition and it’s easy enough to convert rules across to older editions if people wish. I’ll probably get the new set (which I’m sure will be great) at discount and sell the rulebook and carry playing the odd game of 2nd Ed thanks 🙂
Balance is a dream – since when has war been fair anyway?
I know this is kinda pointless until the rulebook is actually released but…
‘ang on a minute. If missions are random, then having an Unbound list is naturally unwise to have, no ? So it kinda does balance out, no ?
…***
the moment you realise they’ve probably added one of the worse aspects of Warhammer Fantasy, an aspect that has turned away many a player, into the new 7th Edition 40k.
Exploding Psykers who wipe out their squad on a miscast, HERE WE COME !! wooo. *sigh*
I am looking forward to this ‘unbound’ rules for a different reason, my local club is getting back into 40k and I am interested, but I currently don’t own any gw models, so will be having a proxy army of chaos, im using my deadzone rebs and plague as cultists, infinity troops as marines, TAGS as either a dread or something, khador manowar as terminators, battle engine as hellbrute, and deadzone 2nd gen as spawn. is it balanced? probably not, will it be fun, sure why not
OK. I’m just getting back into 40K after a long hiatus but have a good group of mates to play with. As such i’m trying to see both sides of the argument. “It’s only been 2 years” what about those who get Call of Duty with all the map packs each year only for the last to be obsolete, at least we don’t have to buy new armies every edition. “Unbound armies will be overpowered” perhaps, but they’ll still need things to hold objectives and the like and hopefully the bonuses for FOC armies will be considerable. GW is a global company and make decisions on that basis. I wonder how Corvus Belli, Mantic and Hawk Wargames will have changed 25-30 years from now should they acquire shareholders and the like. They ‘aint charities folks!
I have two issues that are kind of the same really. Firstly, I really don’t want to see a paper-scissors-stone mentality to this game. Currently I have to worry about flyers and will soon need to think about super-heavies. If I don’t take something specifically to deal with said problem, i’m on the back foot. This means any kind of themed army is at a disadvantage. I really dislike “having” to taking things I don’t want/doesn’t suit my army to make it stand a change of winning (note I didn’t say “competitive”).
Secondly, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to @warzan whilst it is up to us as individuals how we play (I’ve been playing RPGs since I can remember and we’d always play the edition we preferred with any changes we wanted) it’s also a game where you could feasibly walk into any GW shop in the world for a friendly game should have some kind of balance mechanism. I don’t mean every point out of 1500 should be worth the same, that’d be impossible but I don’t want to rock up with my army only to take them off the table once I’ve seen my opponents army. “Oh, I see you only took Heldrakes and vendettas. I’ll get my coat.” This is fun for no-one.
Well, that went on longer than expected. Sorry folks!
Here’s a thought. I’ve played butt hole players with filthy lists (min maxed), that cheat, flaky movement, poor dice handling and bad sports. If they had a perfectly balanced list, would I still wanna play them. No. So I always play with fun people, if they bring tough or fluff lists, it’s going to be a fun game.
Personnel I like the idea of Unbound Armies. Done well it will give the players some freedom to create armies they want. I do accept there will be players who will abuse the system and come with 5 riptides how long will it take before someone does that the other player will bring an army that is designed solely to kill riptides.
At the end it appears that GW is giving the players to option to do it. It will still leave it open for the Clubs / Tournaments to decide if the armies people can use are bound or unbound.
The missions sound like a good idea. I started in 1st / 2nd and we never played missions just kill the other player. Its taken myself some time to change tactics when playing for this but I enjoy it more now. Dynamic missions will make more interesting.
Think the quota of the day remains “Wait and see”
The unbound thing has always been there. The rules are not designed for competitive play and never have been, they always stressed in the rulebooks that you should feel free to change the game however you want. People are too hard up on doing things ‘by the book’/obsessively so they had to spell it out by making it official. Having said all that I’m not defending GW or 40k I’m not too big a fan of either nowadays but when a game is as broken as it is you should feel that you have the freedom to just go mad with it and field the stuff you like. As long as your opponent is cool with it :p
Something is stirring in my Eldar craftworld. The Avatar has started to glow and after a long break from the game I’m starting to get mildly enthused.
Looks like the rules will now make legit what a lot of us do anyway. I’ve never had any qualms about soneone taking over the points cost or not strictly adhering to the force organisations chart. If it looks like it will be good game then just get on with it you can always redress the balance with scenery or the scenario if needed.
Can anyone give any thoughts on how Mephiston’s powers might work with such a psychic phase? I take it that I just roll for all of his powers at the start of every magic phase?
Just want my Lord of Death to continue rocking it. I always do really well with him in most games. Also a little bit frightened that GW will try and nerf his base stats in the next BA codex…
Oh and in regards to a potential magic phase, wouldn’t that just slow the game right down? Each round takes long enough as it is.
These random objective cards i think could be the most unbalancing aspect so far. for instance if you get “cast a psychic power” and have no psyker you are done earning objectives for the turn. Or i think we all know with GWs previous iterations that included in that deck will be kill a unit of HQ, troops, elite, fast, heavy, also enemy character, flyer, and “much much more” are already included in the article so you can add tank/monstrous creature for sure. So if you are fighting an all Forgefiend army, you auto fail and lose a turn of objectives 7 out of 36 times
Actually jetmorph, I think this is part of the counter to the unbalanced list syndrome. Allowing totally open unit lists sounds great until you realise your 187 horrors can’t fulfil 58 of the 60 (or whatever) possible objectives. I think the intent here is for self regulation of lists within the scope of the objectives, it’s a nice idea if it works. It won’t though 😉
However, I abandoned GW a few years back for other manufacturers and won’t be back short of a seismic shift in cost of entry, play time and rules stability.
there is 36 objective. and my gripe is the ones that depend on your opponent to have something. For instance in the current game the big guns never tire mission awards victory points for each heavy support you destroy so if your opponent didn’t bring any heavies and you brought one you are already down in possible points you could earn, This new system just makes the issue more random and more likely to occur in each mission.
Fair point. Adopt a wait and see approach, maybe some simple caveat to this would be if the enemy has no heavy support, then you get a VP for your opponent being a gun-shy numpty. The intent is good in my view, probably the execution won’t be though. Plus GW can sell packs of objective cards for £10 for 4, and new dataslates will fit in easier so they can release mega jumbo lord of doom miniatures for £crazy. Then 2 months later release a hyper mega jumbo lord of doom, totally invalidating the mega jumbo lord of doom. Then he’ll be followed by the hyper mega jumbo lord of ultradoom. Then the hyper mega jumbo lord of ultradoom with firey sprinkles of dazzling craftiness (HQ option).
Then the objects become the balance – if the missions are so unpredictable that means you go to 2 ideas – play to table the opponent or bring a versatile and balanced list. If that works or not is the big factor that won’t be know til a while after the 24th
It’s like listening to the radio or watching TV. You have a choice. If you don’t like the FoC channel. Change it to the unbound channel. One very cool thing about the unbound channel is that you can build some really cool themed army’s. It’s like apocalypse without 10,000 pts of models to move. Or you can play a challenging balanced game game. And yes. There will always be duechbag power gamers out there. lol… I friggen hate those guys!!!!
Hoping not too much changes rules-wise, its pretty disheartening if you play something like Dark Eldar, you have an our of date codex for about 5 years, they update it again, and then its 2 editions out of date within 3 years.
Been a 40k man for over 20yrs now, but reading the “unbound” idea fills me with dread…..
I know we’ve only see a fraction of what is to come so will wait for the rulebook and see what happens, but if it does turn into unit-spam armies I can see my £ heading to other systems / companies. Only time will tell
I don’t see the point of this unbound rule. I thought apocalypse was for that? Fluff based armies wont be as unique because everyone can do the same thing e.g. ‘Ah blood angel jump pack army oh wait all the chapters can do it’. ‘All eldar craftworlds can have wraith armies not just iyanden’, ‘ tau army can have just battlesuits, not just farsight’. the unique flavoured armies and styles have gone with this rule. Now its just the colour.
I hate spam armies its boring. I understand what they are trying to do, but it will just get abused. You say your not forced to play it but you don’t get much of choice when your opponent brings that as its in the rulebook.
Just seems core games aren’t core games anymore. All i see is apocalypse games
It’s good to see they are trying something new hopefully they will have clearer rules.
Hope they will have some amazing new to go with the book.
On a good note, I do like the idea of the new psychic powers / phase, and I did wonder how a Purgation squad army would look.
Loving the idea behind the “unbound” army selection. While I’ve never been one for adhering to FOC’s and much preferred the old 2nd edition percentages, now I can run all the hellbrutes I like and nobody can tell me otherwise. I’m imagining an entire army of CSM walkers… hellbrutes, forge/maulerfiends, defilers, decimators, brass scorpion and the obligatory warpsmiths to lead them all. May not do well but would look awesome.
Also, really hope that a psychic phase makes psykers a bit more potent and a bit more random, much like WHFB magic phase. Random is good.
This latest update has completely got me back into thinking about restarting 40k. Personally I don’t see why everybody’s kicking up a f
uss, I’m 99% sure tournaments will be Battle Forged lists only and the unbound lists are there to try and open people’s eyes a bit more. I’d have probably stuck with 40k longer if it would have been easier for me to just stroll up to a club and whack whatever I want out on the table. I know there was nothing stopping me before but now as long as my opponent is aware, they can at least feel a little more comfortable about it because there’s “official rulings” and a framework for it.
And don’t forget one of the main things with gaming, if you play somebody who’s an arse, don’t play them again!
As an aside, there is a lot of talk about, not need to follow rules and freeing up your gaming – which I agree with. I don’t agree that the list changes in the article achieve that.
Which lead my to the point, if the idea of 7th is ignore the rules and free your gaming – then why not ignore 7th and play unbound 6th? or 5th etc or one of the many net based rules sets?
How long until GW pushes unchecked rules design to the point where their rules are irrelevant to the bulk of the community?
Just a thought
There seems to be a lot of people out there who don’t like playing outside of the rules and will only do what’s written in the books. It makes it easier for someone like me to be able to find a game as I can now go to a local club and play a random stranger, who may be one of those people, without having to try and convince them to allow certain house rules or whatnot so I can play with the force I’d like to play with.
@divine authority.
Lots of players are not experienced or confident enough to ‘forge a narrative’.
They need clearly defined rules that deliver a fun game play experience.the sort of rule set that has enough ‘restrictions’ to allow enjoyable random pick up games.
The sort of fun fast play game that NATURALLY allows the narrative to flow.(I hope you know what I mean?)
These less experienced/new players are supposed to be the target audience of GW plc according to some…
More experienced players are FAR MORE comfortable with making up their own rules and scenarios/campaigns. (And manage to do this without ANY help from GW If my friends are any thing to go by…lol.)
So the idea that the game play found in a more experienced group players /friends in a club .Planning and agreeing to a develop a narrative scenario driven campaign , which is totally cool and loads of fun.
Should be ‘decoded’ and presented to new players struggling with the mass of rules , and trying to make sense of it all in a random pick up game environment.
Could be described as counter intuitive by some.
To arrive and enjoyable random pick up games.The rules need to have a level of restriction .To remove the time spend on mutually agreeing what the game is going to be, to allow games to be actually played!
So those players who are only comfortable playing ‘inside the rules’.Require the rules to deliver good game play without adjustment or negotiation.
Those players who are happy to house rule and forge a narrative , can do so with like minded players.No need for ‘permission’ in the rule book, just agreement off your opponent!
I see this as a scale with structured game play suitable for random pick up games on one side.With restrictions to enable fast set up and enjoyable game play.
And on the other pure co-operative narrative games with ALL the restrictions left up to the players to negotiate.
The closer you move to pure co-operative narrative games , the less you need a rule book.
and the more you need like minded people to play.
Reducing the ability of the 40k rules to deliver the ‘ enjoyable random pick up games’ that some prefer.Does NOT force them to play more narrative focused games.
It just means they play other games that deliver the level of ‘support’ they need.
So I would be wary of saying losing game play generating restrictions, you can already chose ignore, is good for the game.
I play Sisters, so the question I have is this. Is this a good thing for a Sisters army, or is this a way to phase them out? I’ve felt GW has pushed them into becoming an allied army, instead of a main force.
Okay, I am just going to say it.
Did “Unbound” or “Daemonology” really require a whole new edition of the rules?
Yes, they are options (based on what we know) but options should be relegated to a supplement. Core rules, in my opinion, should be tight and cover almost all styles of play (tournament, pick up, casual, etc.) with supplements expanding the options for various groups.
I’m sorry, folks, but none of these changes sound good so far for the core game. Sure, they will be okay for casual environments, which by the sounds of things is predominantly the UK, but here in the US, GW is going to kill a lot more of their market – mark my words. The changes sound marvelous for selling big model kits, but it WILL come at the expense of the game overall.
I think you might be right about causing issues with tournament play, GW have been more vocal of late, saying they are all about the narrative and about casual gaming. As business the market will always be bigger for casual vs competition gaming. This might just be a bolder statement of that idea.
The one thing I hope they don’t through out with the bath water, is the background. It’s the one thing that builds narrative, it’s so rich with legend and character and stops it being just space men with a stat line…
We’ll know more soon.
Could GW plc apparent increase in focus on ‘narrative’ play simply be a way of validating removing restrictions needed for enjoyable random pick up games?
Simply to sell more of the larger expensive kits /units?
Lots of games with well defined intuitive rules allow the narrative of the game to flow naturally.They also have enough restrictions to drive interesting and engaging decision making,which leads to enjoyable game play for random pick up games.
Only GW plc seem to claim that narrative play can not be achieved if they write a rule book that is focused on delivering enough restrictions for enjoyable random pick up games.
Everyone else seem quite confident their players are able to develop the game to follow the players own play style or narrative driven ideas if they want to.
Most games companies are aware that groups will change the rules to suit them.
(That is what most FLGS /Clubs do to keep the game play fresh and fun AFAIK. )
Why does GW plc think its customers are incapable of using their own imagination and intelligence, to create narrative based games and scenarios if they want to?
maybe i’m reading too much into this, but the “unbound FOC” sounds like a game breaking concept to me…i mean, what the hell was GW thinking with this? did they think: well, since our game is hardly balanced to begin with, why not just do away with balance all together? some of us have spent alot of time and effort to come up with lists that we like, that are reasonably competitive, and now…any moron with some cash to burn can field an army of, let’s say, leman russ tanks, and make all that carefull planning and strategy completely irrelevant. your corporate greed has gone too far this time GW…mark my words, you just screwed yourselves!
Does this mean a new Starter Set??? It only feels like yesterday when the new revised edition came out :-S – but it could be interesting to see what they do
I don’t have time, nor do I know anyone (that I’d care to hang out/play 40K with) that is willing to play 6th style, apocalypse 40K. Needing a 4×6 table, needing 100+ models, 3+ hours, etc. to play a game means that a busy adult with kids, a life, etc. is just not going to be able to play this monster of a game. I’ve been in that place for about five years now. There are all sorts of options for playing 40K on a skirmish level, but those rulesets are “fan” rulesets that aren’t very well balanced, not well playtested and of course not very well supported. Necromunda is super dated and getting new people into that is impossible, same with Mordheim. I still have a glimmer of a hope that I might be able to do some of the LoTR/Hobbit stuff sort of board game style with my gaming group … but even that is a long shot.
For years I’ve hoped that GW would see the handwriting on the wall, that people are now spending 10+ hours a week messing around on the internet, which means fewer people painting, playing, etc. due to the really stupid levels of cash and time someone would need to devote to 6th ed. style 40K. I have hoped they’d realize this and create an official “option” for people to play the game at smaller point levels.
Alas this is not going to happen with 7th ed. from everything I’ve read it is simply more of the same old GW. Their expectation is that 40K is your ONLY hobby, that you are going to spend 10+ hours a week on the game and spend thousands annually supporting your addiction. For me, this is the final nail in the coffin for 40K. It just isn’t viable for me personally and I will now continue to slowly eBay off my massive collection. I do have to say though that the silver lining of GWs endless price hikes is that I can sell all my old stuff off and get most of my money back. So there is that, and I can’t complain about that at all. I’ve been able to buy lots of board games and Privateer Press stuff (a game I enjoy at the boxed set level, on 4×4 tables, with game that can easily be played in under an hour … including BSing). I am sad to see the old friend that 40K is fade from my life … but it just isn’t viable anymore for me … best of luck to those of you who still have room in your life for it, I envy you …
@lordofexcess
To be fair, any hobby producer wants you to be their only hobby. Hell, MMOs are even written with the intent of pushing people’s psychological button for “more, more, more.” They are a manufactured addiction.
2005 – Ken Kutaragi is quoted, in regards to the price of the PS3, that they expect:
“for consumers to think to themselves ‘I will work more hours to buy one’. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else.”
In other words, work hard to spend all of your time on one, and forget about everything else.
Sorry to see you go.