6.5/7th Edition and What GW Should have done

[Darren Richardson]

the main problem here, is not everyone understands or can work out percentages, they tried it back in second edition and it was a disaster, and if they forced players into again it would just be history repeating itself.

Now it does work for fantasy, because fantasy only has 4 options in the lists plus the 5th allies option, unlike the gazillion and one options available to 40k players.

[Mr Mystery]

Is it just me, or are the rumours kind of pointing to the new rules being '2nd Ed - The Revenge'?

Dedicated psychic phase, less restriction on what you can and can't take (there was army selection back then, but a lot looserer than present.) And I'm willing to bet Unbound armies will look more 2nd Ed than horrificbeardcheese....

[Wolfshade]

Don't forget the missions!

[Sainhann]

Is it just me, or are the rumours kind of pointing to the new rules being '2nd Ed - The Revenge'?

Dedicated psychic phase, less restriction on what you can and can't take (there was army selection back then, but a lot looserer than present.) And I'm willing to bet Unbound armies will look more 2nd Ed than horrificbeardcheese....

Correct so beware of Orks since not being forced to limit their selections to just three Elites they can field 4 x units of Lootas plus 2-3 Units of Burnas, or fielded 4-5 Fast Attack choices.

I could even put my 130 Gretchen that I have onto the table if I wanted to and still field most of my Orks.

Before I would never even consider using them because they would cut into my limit of six troop choices now they wouldn't.

[phreakachu]

from what ive read thus far, it seems that GW is making some attempt to eradicate 'tableing' as a viable tactic. I'm all for this: as it sits, most tourney games and even some friendly games come down to the MtG equation

Money to buy the big toys + generalized lack of sportsmanship = WINNING!

while we can count on GW to keep with the money aspect of this, the rules thus far are geared toward balanced play, forcing this strange thing called actual tactics being applied to a game. I LIKE THIS... even in a friendly game, a Death Star is simply un-fun to play against. so, gogo GW

[Lord Asterion]

Correct so beware of Orks since not being forced to limit their selections to just three Elites they can field 4 x units of Lootas plus 2-3 Units of Burnas, or fielded 4-5 Fast Attack choices.

I could even put my 130 Gretchen that I have onto the table if I wanted to and still field most of my Orks.

Before I would never even consider using them because they would cut into my limit of six troop choices now they wouldn't.

From what we've seen though, Unbound, with their inability to contest objectives held by Battle-Forged units, are going to struggle to win against a FOC army, which their being Objectives all over and points to grab every turn for them

[Mr Mystery]

from what ive read thus far, it seems that GW is making some attempt to eradicate 'tableing' as a viable tactic. I'm all for this: as it sits, most tourney games and even some friendly games come down to the MtG equation

Money to buy the big toys + generalized lack of sportsmanship = WINNING!

while we can count on GW to keep with the money aspect of this, the rules thus far are geared toward balanced play, forcing this strange thing called actual tactics being applied to a game. I LIKE THIS... even in a friendly game, a Death Star is simply un-fun to play against. so, gogo GW

Indeedy.

Whilst Unbound allows us to field whatever we dashed well please, I do question how many people will field those horrorbeardcheese lists.

After all, if you reduce your only option to tabling your opponent (I hate that phrase, tabling. So very childish to my ears) then you're missing out on a huge part of the game, as you will likely struggle to complete mission objectives.

And that I feel is where the balance is struck. The Missions. Something 6th Ed did very well with (in my opinion at least) was the Missions, and the First Blood stuff. It largely did away with VP and KPs, making the objective, well, the objective of the game. Will 7th Edition get this right? I dunno, I don't really know enough about the proposed missions (haven't even watched Jervis' video).

But if it does get it right, the game itself, rather than some arbitrary rules, will encourage more tactical and strategic play than just 'HURRRR I HAVE NETLIST'.

[Lord Asterion]

Tactical objectives will mean you have to adjust your Stratergy on the fly to gain more points, and should encourage tactical play over having enough strong units to wipe out the enemy, if your deathstar wipes out a unit in CC but your Tactical Objective was to get a VP for shooting a unit off the table, you might not have accomplished as much as your opponent in that turn if he was sitting on an objective.

[Patrick Boyle]

So we're starting the post-mortem before we even have the book in hand?

[Caitsidhe]

So we're starting the post-mortem before we even have the book in hand?

Yes, apparently so. For my own part, I'm withholding judgement until I see the rules. I'm willing to wishlist and comment on my concerns and hopes, but those saying the game is awful or those saying how GREAT the game is and how they can clearly see objectives will do this and that... or how Unbound won't be able to dominate... fail to see the irony in the fact that they are engaging in behavior no different from those prejudging the game in a negative way.