|
Post by yvain on May 1, 2014 21:57:03 GMT -5
Yea I think its just fun to talk about an speculate. Except when they delete units, that is lame!
|
|
|
Post by dangerrod on May 1, 2014 22:51:54 GMT -5
this is an example of a game mechanic I would like to see adopted in 40k. (it means a canon shell won't bounce round the corner or behind some large terrain piece, instead it will explode on the first piece of scenery that it hits as it travels toward the location determined by the scatter). suddenly standing in front of walls is not such a good idea. ( for example see 2:07 to 2:11... www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewWtjYzIKyM ) Maybe this edition will bring it... Great idea but i can see many arguments that will happen with that. What constitutes a wall, or what level, what about area terrain etc. If anything, this upcoming edition will include a major change to the FoC chart and army composition. All you have to do is look at the new Guard codex and see that their is NO FoC chart in there at all! It's going to change I also think they'll look at the allies matrix and how battle brothers play together Also, I can see a significant change to the psychic powers and phases, specifically Divination/prescience
|
|
|
Post by treadiculous on May 3, 2014 6:44:54 GMT -5
Danerrod : you are entirley correct, there a re a bunch of questions which need clarifying but then this is only a diagram without any supporting explanation.
given that 40k allows things like the hellhound to fire its flamethrower at targets which are entirely out of LOS I think players would accept some kind of logical ruling fairly easily.
|
|
|
Post by gamma016 on May 3, 2014 8:18:49 GMT -5
I actually don't think you are alowed to fire at a unit if you have no line of sight to is, even with torrent weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Julian Sharps on May 3, 2014 11:23:30 GMT -5
You can place the flamer template on Torrent weapons onto models out of LOS as long as your original target unit has at least one model within LOS. As a result, there are circumstances where the Hellhound can shoot around corners.
Must be an artifact from the Dark Age of Technology...
|
|
|
Post by gamma016 on May 3, 2014 12:44:02 GMT -5
Ah ok I see what you are saying, I thought you meant just straight up shooting at models where there no no LOS period.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on May 3, 2014 13:03:53 GMT -5
WOW that was quick. Won't be long before there's a new ed every month-
1987 Rogue Trader (6 year run) 1993 Second Edition (5 year run) 1998 Third Edition (6 year run) 2004 Fourth Edition (4 year run) 2008 Fifth Edition (4 year run) 2012 Sixth Edition (2 year run)
Yikes I've just realised that I haven't played 40k since 2008. I played a couple of games when 5th first came out.
|
|
|
Post by yvain on May 3, 2014 19:33:14 GMT -5
"You dont stop playing because you get old, you get old because you stop playing .... dont ever stop playing" . So what happened
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 4, 2014 4:47:29 GMT -5
WOW that was quick. Won't be long before there's a new ed every month- 1987 Rogue Trader (6 year run) 1993 Second Edition (5 year run) 1998 Third Edition (6 year run) 2004 Fourth Edition (4 year run) 2008 Fifth Edition (4 year run) 2012 Sixth Edition (2 year run) Yikes I've just realised that I haven't played 40k since 2008. I played a couple of games when 5th first came out. That is assuming that the new release IS 7th ed, which is a fairly silly assumption seeing as how most of the credible rumours are saying its just a new book for 6th ed with the faqs/erratass & stronghold assault incorporated into the core book, not a new edition.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on May 4, 2014 9:53:20 GMT -5
"You dont stop playing because you get old, you get old because you stop playing .... dont ever stop playing" . So what happened I still build 40k stuff, I just don't play the game anymore. Instead I play with RC tanks.
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on May 4, 2014 10:13:35 GMT -5
That is assuming that the new release IS 7th ed, which is a fairly silly assumption seeing as how most of the credible rumours are saying its just a new book for 6th ed with the faqs/erratass & stronghold assault incorporated into the core book, not a new edition. It'll depend on how extensive those FAQs are, I guess. Part of me thinks that if GW really was just updating 6th, they'd release a revised copy of the rulebook without all the extra stuff that most people don't care about crammed in for the same cost as the current book, and then call the version with Stronghold and stuff the "Special edition". Then I remember this is GW, and they would happily charge you extra for a book that fixes their own screwups if they thought they could get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on May 4, 2014 10:30:10 GMT -5
WOW that was quick. Won't be long before there's a new ed every month- 1987 Rogue Trader (6 year run) 1993 Second Edition (5 year run) 1998 Third Edition (6 year run) 2004 Fourth Edition (4 year run) 2008 Fifth Edition (4 year run) 2012 Sixth Edition (2 year run) Yikes I've just realised that I haven't played 40k since 2008. I played a couple of games when 5th first came out. That is assuming that the new release IS 7th ed, which is a fairly silly assumption seeing as how most of the credible rumours are saying its just a new book for 6th ed with the faqs/erratass & stronghold assault incorporated into the core book, not a new edition. If they call it a revision and charge full price then to me it a new edition. The fact that GW have to release a revised rulebook shows that GW are more interested in keeping to there update time table (to keep shareholders happy) then they are in releasing a game that works and has proper rules.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 5, 2014 7:24:32 GMT -5
A new edition generally involves a large change to how the game is played- incorporating the FAQs/Erratas/Expansions into the core book doesn't really change how the game is played, as all of the changes in such things are already present and used in gameplay, they are just less accessible at the moment because you have to look them up or buy separate books.
|
|
|
Post by yvain on May 5, 2014 13:33:48 GMT -5
There are some more bizarre rules change rumors now. You can take a regular FOC list or a non FOC list that is just what ever you want. If you take a FOC you get a bonus of some kind. Sound too silly to be true, but maybe this where the percent rumor has come from. It is only a few weeks away so there the real deal is probably buried somewhere inside all these crazy claimed changes. (in addition, you could take like all riptides or something which would sell a lot of their stuff a true GW tactic, of course that could ruin the game ) Supposed to be 6 more missions. There are also objective cards that are drawn during the game so objectives can change or be added over the course of the game. Apparently 36 in total. That sounds interesting, I hope it is true. Psychic phase a pool of warp charge dice are generated per turn. You can use as many as you want, but the more you use the more chance of perils of the warp going off on you. You can also use the pool to deny the witch and nullify other powers in your are a psyker. This sounds neat as you could stop blessings from going off ending some troll combos.
|
|
|
Post by yvain on May 5, 2014 14:07:28 GMT -5
And someone posted White Dwarf pages that prove it reffering to it as a new edition. imgur.com/a/Kbyu1#1 - hopefully its okay to post this. The guy in the WD article literally states, I can now make an army composed entirely of Forgefiends, Defilers, and Helldrakes. Then he goes on to say an army of all riptides and broadsides. WTF
|
|
|
Post by Trooper One-Nine-Seven-Four on May 5, 2014 18:18:51 GMT -5
So it sounds like Unbound army lists can be fun, if everyone agrees in advance to play a game that way in an "Everyone bring maximum cheese lists," style. As I'm putting the finishing touches on the final two tanks for my Leman Russ company, the idea of an all Leman Russ list does have an appeal... Having a dedicated Psychic phase sounds like we're getting back to 2nd edition mechanics, which I always loved so I'm actually pretty happy about it.
|
|
|
Post by ogguardsman on May 6, 2014 9:49:06 GMT -5
I don't have any problem with GW introducing "unbound" army lists. To me, it's just the company telling players that it's officially ok to play however they want and not feel like their personal customization of the game is invalidated by the rules. That's been a pretty consistent theme from the designers going all the way back to when they were making land speeders out of deodorant sticks in Rogue Trader. What I think is the big problem with "unbound" armies isn't the concept but the execution. GW isn't very good at making sure every codex is balanced against the rest. I think they do a decent job at making a codex internally balanced but not in terms of the game meta. What I'm trying to say is that if every codex was balanced then it would be great to just bring 2000 points of IG and play against 2000 points from any other codex and have a fun game but I don't think that's really possible without some discussion beforehand between the players.
I think the intent behind "unbound" is to create an officially recognized story mode or campaign mode where you can toss out the FOC and create more narrative games which to me is a great way to play. I don't think the intent was to encourage people to show up at stores or events with armies made up entirely of only the cool powerful models and try to table everyone which seems to be the scenario that is causing so much nerdrage on the interwebz.
|
|
|
Post by cheminhaler on May 6, 2014 14:51:09 GMT -5
*Facepalm*
So... The problem of the game being unbalanced will be fixed by allowing us to take.... anything.
Cool. I choose Land Speeder Typhoons. So, I guess, instead of having an army, I'll just have a collection of typhoons. What are we playing today? 1500? Excellent.. Even better, with no force org charts all my speeders will be their own squad, rather than squadrons so that'll be twenty-ish speeders zipping around the board willy nilly.
*double facepalm*
|
|
|
Post by gamma016 on May 6, 2014 22:02:45 GMT -5
Obviously it's so we can take an army of nothing but techpriests in stormlords. At 2000 points that's 38 tech priests, the stormlord will never be killed!!!
|
|
|
Post by jenburdoo on May 6, 2014 23:46:08 GMT -5
I like the idea of an "unbound" list, since it might offer the opportunity to field all sorts of themed armies that simply don't fit into the FOC (and I'm not building them just on the off chance I might be able to waste an entire day on an Apocalypse game):
- Rough Rider army (Borderers, based on Brettonian squires) - WWII Veteran Guard army (Aussie or Scots) - Scout or Reserve Marine company (including the options to mount them all on bikes or land speeders) - Airborne Marines (Flying Tigers chapter) - WWII-style recon regiment with Centaurs for Bren carriers and Taurox for armored cars - Ork fighta-skwadron (half-a-dozen fighta-bommas and some support vehicles to carry along) - Genestealer cult regiment (Guard backed up by Stealers and maybe a few Lictors) - Tank regiment WITH support elements such as transport, repair units, medical and everything else that GW usually forgets to include on the ToE
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 7, 2014 3:37:16 GMT -5
Well, I guess I need to eat one of my guardsmen or something now, that pictures proving me wrong are out there. So it really is a new edition. It just feels so..... soon.
|
|
|
Post by Woz on May 7, 2014 8:49:48 GMT -5
"Unbound" just means that people will go out and buy more models so its a smart move by GW.
8th ed will see Unbound removed for game balance.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 7, 2014 8:54:46 GMT -5
While most tournaments will probable use "battleforged" lists, I am actually curious to see what skilled, competitive players would do if you ran a special "Unbound" tournament. Would see some REALLY interesting lists, and a lot more variation than usual (as there would be a lot more possible combinations, and without standard force org it would be difficult to predict what you are going to be up against)
|
|
|
Post by gamma016 on May 7, 2014 13:13:58 GMT -5
While most tournaments will probable use "battleforged" lists, I am actually curious to see what skilled, competitive players would do if you ran a special "Unbound" tournament. Would see some REALLY interesting lists, and a lot more variation than usual (as there would be a lot more possible combinations, and without standard force org it would be difficult to predict what you are going to be up against) People will end up just bringing lists like ten flyrants, or ten riptides. It would be just a spamfest of the most powerful units
|
|
|
Post by treadiculous on May 7, 2014 13:36:39 GMT -5
"People will end up just bringing lists like ten flyrants, or ten riptides. It would be just a spamfest of the most powerful units"
given that the white dwarf pretty much outlines exactly this I don't think you are too far wrong.
however, I feel it puts more emphasis on the players organising a game to define what they want between them.
I'm fairly sure that there will be a games mechanic which attempts to bring balance to this which has not been seen in the white dwarf.
There seems to be a lot of pressure in GW to simply 'produce' new ways of playing the same thing and then charging a hefty wad of cash to get the rule set, yet each time they do so they illustrate how easy it is to tweak the basic rule set and gain a whole new way to play.
essentially they keep re-selling the apocalypse book which basically states "make it up between you and you're mates"
|
|