6.5/7th Edition and What GW Should have done

[Arkhan Land]

I think the changes this edition are bringing are good, but I think there could have been a few adjustments to the pros/cons of the unbound/BH style armies. Not sure what, but in general I think what were going to see in games where the two armies meet: Unbound armies will try and wipeout their opponent, their opponent will try and score as many points as possible, while attempting to survive to the end of the game.

I think the slight perk to armour was good but I was personally hoping for something more robust, but I admit that might be too big a game-mechanics-changer. in deference to the rekindling of the old edition's style I wouldnt mind some sort of more complex vehicle damage chart. Heaven forbid GW were to implement something more complex than a d6 or d6+d6 system.
just as an excersize in thought. vehicle damage table on a d10:

1-2: Shaken
3 Stunned
4: Engine Damaged (1/2 Movment/looses jink)
5-6: Weapon Destroyed
7: Immobilised
8: Loses three Hull Points
9-10: Explodes

I want to reinforce how I think this will NEVER HAPPEN

[Mr Mystery]

Yet the points I raised are valid. And also caveated. If they get the Mission Objectives right. That's the key phrase.

Those muttering doom and gloom are basing it off the ropiest of rumours, and predicting doom where there is no information available.

[Lord Asterion]

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

No, we're looking at what we know and getting excited about the possibilities now that we have seen quite a lot

[Patrick Boyle]

No, we're looking at what we know and getting excited about the possibilities now that we have seen quite a lot

I'm not sure that a few pages of preview in WD counts as "a lot" of a 200 page rulebook, nevermind the massive FAQs every codex is going to be getting We have an idea of broad strokes and a couple details.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm not sure that a few pages of preview in WD counts as "a lot" of a 200 page rulebook, nevermind the massive FAQs every codex is going to be getting We have an idea of broad strokes and a couple details.

Well put and keenly spotted. Like the others, I am hopeful about the objectives. Unlike them I exercise a healthy degree of pragmatism. It doesn't matter if the objectives "look good" or the increased potency of shooting "looks bad" because we still don't know jack. A proper play test and evaluation of this rules set will require:

1. All the rules to see how they work in tandem with each other. For example, if you still lose if you have no units on the table, objectives aren't going to mean a hill of beans.
2. This rules set is going to require a MASSIVE Faq effort to align the various books just with the tidbits we have seen so far, let alone the rest of the book.
3. There is still the rule of unintended consequences that we won't see till the rubber hits the road.

I am hopeful that they have addressed some of the real problems of 6th Edition, but so far I've seen no clear proof of this. The only confirmed rumors we have address different issues and potentially create different problems (depending on the rest of the rules). In short, while I understand it is the job of some here to promote excitement for the coming release, please take it down a notch. We have been through this enough times that it is getting a bit insulting. To those who cry the sky is falling, I say give it rest. Read the rules when they come out and then give your opinion. I'm sick of both sides of the coin at this point. It seems impossible to have a conversation about the actual merits or failings of the game. All we have is the psycho-pep squad attacking anyone who doesn't fart rosewater and the screaming blue meanies who not only think the game will fail but somehow sound like they want it to fail to be proven right. I think you are both equally vapid and annoying.

[Sainhann]

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

Thing is that is what players are trying to do today, save some Fast unit just so that they can contest an objective.

I don't play to contest objectives, nope I play to take the objective or keep it.

So if I figure that an objective can't be taken then I will work at something else until it can.

Orks have for been a bottom tier army for over a decade and the major reason for this was the FOC.

But with that no longer in the picture start to think of just what they could put on the table with 2000 points to spend.

[Sainhann]

I think the changes this edition are bringing are good, but I think there could have been a few adjustments to the pros/cons of the unbound/BH style armies. Not sure what, but in general I think what were going to see in games where the two armies meet: Unbound armies will try and wipeout their opponent, their opponent will try and score as many points as possible, while attempting to survive to the end of the game.

Or they might be damaging their opponent so much of cause them to make more decisions than they have units for.

So if a Ork player who is fielding an unbounded army and puts 200+ Orks plus lots of small support vehicles onto the table their opponent will need to think each and every turn on what his priorities are, oh with a more than likely smaller army to make them with each turn.

Like do they keep that unit on an objective to score points or be forced to move them off of the objective so that they have to deal with what their opponent is doing?

Hard Decisions to make and if they make the wrong one they will lose.

[daboarder]

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

your only allowed to speculate if your praising GW and offering up your first born.

If you dont, even if you are being passive, then clearly its just whinning about incomplete information

[John Bower]

While I am of the opinion a distinct lack of FoC can be a bad thing, it is a double edged sword in many ways. Firstly as has been said, you won't be able to 'contest' objectives with it, and tabling your opponent won't work either, as they could still have enough points to win.
You already get the WAAC players who will take silly lists to try and win, this will let them take the silliest lists of all, but in the end will balance them a bit for the reason stated above.
On the good side of it, I'm sure a good few of us have models that we think; 'nah, that will do the job and I have to choose so I'll use X instead of Y model', but now.. You won't have to, and that to me is the beauty of it, you'll build the list how you want to if you go unbound, hell even allies don't matter in an unbound list, you can use anything in your collection; basically they're making the normal game a 'mini apocalypse' now; admittedly not too sure I like that but I'll live I'm sure.
With the new objectives too, I think a lot will come down to how you build a list. some 'unbound' lists just aren't going to cut it in the fluid environment of 7th ed. There's going to be certain things they just won't be able to do. So I'm on the whole looking forward to it; I've ordered my books taking the chance I'm right about the rumours of a 'pdf update' (in that I don't think it will happen), and if it does I'll still have the rules nicely laid out in one place, so it's kind of win/win there really.

[deinol]

While I am of the opinion a distinct lack of FoC can be a bad thing, it is a double edged sword in many ways. Firstly as has been said, you won't be able to 'contest' objectives with it, and tabling your opponent won't work either, as they could still have enough points to win.

Has the no 'tabling' rule been verified yet? I certainly hope that is the case, to encourage actually fighting over objectives during games. But it has the 'no models = immediate loss' rule, then wiping the table could still be a tactic. Certainly you'd have to be all in.

On the other hand, if you don't need to have models on the table to stay in the game, then an all drop list or all airbourne scion or all legion of the damned army now become interesting possibilities.