|
Post by Davor on May 6, 2014 14:09:18 GMT
The 'Unbound' stuff gives me the impression that GW are desperately grabbing what they can before the imminent jump from a sinking ship. Nothing against you my friend but this comment has been said for over 10 years now, that I know of. Could even be longer. Thing is even 10 years ago, people were saying the same thing, they wouldn't make it past 2007 and look they are still around. I just find these comments as foolish. Yes I made these comments about 10 years ago, and look, I look like the idiot now, that GW is still making Millions of dollars, still sticking around, and here I am eating crow. Yes we can make all these silly comments, but in the end, GW is still making a profit (no matter how small or large) they are still around and we are still looking like idiots no matter how smart we think we are. If we are so smart how come we are not making all these millions of dollars then? Easy to bash, but we are hardly ever proven right.
|
|
|
Post by Morollan on May 6, 2014 14:17:58 GMT
The 'Unbound' stuff gives me the impression that GW are desperately grabbing what they can before the imminent jump from a sinking ship. Nothing against you my friend but this comment has been said for over 10 years now, that I know of. Could even be longer. Thing is even 10 years ago, people were saying the same thing, they wouldn't make it past 2007 and look they are still around. I just find these comments as foolish. Yes I made these comments about 10 years ago, and look, I look like the idiot now, that GW is still making Millions of dollars, still sticking around, and here I am eating crow. Yes we can make all these silly comments, but in the end, GW is still making a profit (no matter how small or large) they are still around and we are still looking like idiots no matter how smart we think we are. If we are so smart how come we are not making all these millions of dollars then? Easy to bash, but we are hardly ever proven right. The fact that they are releasing a new edition of their biggest selling game only 2 years after the previous edition and roughly 6 months after their financials fell through the floor does at least give some credence to the idea that this is a desperate attempt to shore up their financial position. It's the one product that they can pretty much guarantee selling, as every player needs a copy of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on May 6, 2014 14:25:01 GMT
Davor,
I half agree with you. But only half. American car manufacturers could have said the same thing in the 1970s, some haven't survived (AMC, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac to name a few), most went bankrupt, and all have seen a big hit. Meanwhile Japanese (Honda, Toyota, Nissan) and Korean (Hyundai, Kia) manufactures have taken the top spots. GW didn't use to have any real competition. The same can't be said anymore.
|
|
|
Post by j0rdan on May 6, 2014 14:42:13 GMT
"Enemy psychers can draw on warp charge pool to Deny the Witch and nulify powers."
Nope. No sir. This is the premiere reason (among many) that I don't play fantasy. I will not play a tabletop game where you can sit back on your psykers just to keep me from using mine. Deny the witch and psychic hoods are bad enough. I think the 4+ hood the wolves (I think?) have is ludicrous already. Rules that tell you, without interacting with you (via dice rolls or whatnot), that you cannot play with the models you paid money and points for are the WORST rules in the game. Jaws o TWW and D weapons are similar, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on May 6, 2014 15:21:22 GMT
"Enemy psychers can draw on warp charge pool to Deny the Witch and nulify powers." Nope. No sir. This is the premiere reason (among many) that I don't play fantasy. I will not play a tabletop game where you can sit back on your psykers just to keep me from using mine. Deny the witch and psychic hoods are bad enough. I think the 4+ hood the wolves (I think?) have is ludicrous already. Rules that tell you, without interacting with you (via dice rolls or whatnot), that you cannot play with the models you paid money and points for are the WORST rules in the game. Jaws o TWW and D weapons are similar, in my opinion. Agreed. I come from Fantasy and very much prefer the hands-on approach of 40K psychic defense. There is a satisfying physical precence needed to stop enemy psychic powers. That's why I hate Space Wolves and the old Runes of Warding.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on May 6, 2014 15:22:17 GMT
Here's something I think most people don't realize. Rules aren't there to limit us or ruin our fun, they are there to provide a context that actually frees us to play the game and have fun. This rumor seems more of a return to the wild west days. When I started miniature gaming (1970s), most rules were homebrews. This actually was very limiting as you never knew what you might encounter and all it took was one poor sport to ruin it for everyone. Looser rule sets do not make for more freeing play, they make for more arguments. I agree. We've seen a shift back to the old rogue trader and 2nd edition rules lately (at lease when GW isn't releasing new units). This would seem to be the next logical progression. I don't know if I like it, but it would sure shake up the game.
|
|
|
Post by biomassbob on May 6, 2014 15:32:35 GMT
Nothing against you my friend but this comment has been said for over 10 years now, that I know of. Could even be longer. Thing is even 10 years ago, people were saying the same thing, they wouldn't make it past 2007 and look they are still around. I just find these comments as foolish. Yes I made these comments about 10 years ago, and look, I look like the idiot now, that GW is still making Millions of dollars, still sticking around, and here I am eating crow. Yes we can make all these silly comments, but in the end, GW is still making a profit (no matter how small or large) they are still around and we are still looking like idiots no matter how smart we think we are. If we are so smart how come we are not making all these millions of dollars then? Easy to bash, but we are hardly ever proven right. The fact that they are releasing a new edition of their biggest selling game only 2 years after the previous edition and roughly 6 months after their financials fell through the floor does at least give some credence to the idea that this is a desperate attempt to shore up their financial position. It's the one product that they can pretty much guarantee selling, as every player needs a copy of the rules. Davor, no offense but it is you who are making the silly comments and labeling other people's views as silly. NIB said what GW is doing gives him the "impression" it is a desperate attempt to shore up financials of a sinking ship - he didn't say that GW was definitely collapsing. I agree with NIB and Morollan that the feeling you get is short term cash grab - not things done for the long term health of the game or quality of the product, and that it could be a sign of a "sinking ship" but that we don't know for sure obviously. I don't understand why you are rushing to defend GW because they currently are still making lots of money - doesn't change the comments the others have said.
|
|
|
Post by werewalrus on May 6, 2014 15:49:07 GMT
To the answer the OP: not much really. I don't ever intend to play against unbound lists, in that I'm not interested in entering that kind of arms race. Then again, I don't know how the final product is going to turn out.
However, I was trying to compare 40k with Warmahordes, and for the most part, PP has a game that is essentially unbound. The difference is going to be due to unit balance...or balance period. However, it does make you think about possible bonuses that one can get for playing a battleforged/tiered list. In warmahordes, playing to tier gets you first turn bonuses, free units, unit cost discounts, extra terrain placement, etc. Could we be seeing something along these lines? If so, playing themed armies can be cool for fluffy and competitive players alike...assuming that there's balance.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on May 6, 2014 16:03:44 GMT
To the answer the OP: not much really. I don't ever intend to play against unbound lists, in that I'm not interested in entering that kind of arms race. Then again, I don't know how the final product is going to turn out. However, I was trying to compare 40k with Warmahordes, and for the most part, PP has a game that is essentially unbound. The difference is going to be due to unit balance...or balance period. However, it does make you think about possible bonuses that one can get for playing a battleforged/tiered list. In warmahordes, playing to tier gets you first turn bonuses, free units, unit cost discounts, extra terrain placement, etc. Could we be seeing something along these lines? If so, playing themed armies can be cool for fluffy and competitive players alike...assuming that there's balance. The main difference is PP understands game balance and there are plenty of units that have limitations. Good units/models are often restricted to 1 per army unless you unlock more by using said tiers. Even then, I don't have any bad units in my Circle Orboros army. There are models I prefer and that fit my playstyle better, but I've even won spamming an Argus army at 50 points that we played just for funsies. My opponent wasn't ready to deal with all that high DEF. The point is, the tight rules, built in limitations, and unit balance keep things in control. GW is already out of control balance wise, does anyone think unbound is going to solve this problem?
|
|
|
Post by eskimo on May 6, 2014 17:17:01 GMT
I don't believe any of it, but any kind of rule shake up i welcome, what would be the point in a new rule book purchase tbh. Besides i like learning any new rules. I'm over the "Nid Codex is bad" so any change is something new.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 17:46:09 GMT
going to need to buy a bunch more flyrants. ALL FLYRANT LIST FTW
|
|
|
Post by coredump on May 6, 2014 18:34:49 GMT
Here's something I think most people don't realize. Rules aren't there to limit us or ruin our fun, they are there to provide a context that actually frees us to play the game and have fun. This rumor seems more of a return to the wild west days. When I started miniature gaming (1970s), most rules were homebrews. This actually was very limiting as you never knew what you might encounter and all it took was one poor sport to ruin it for everyone. Looser rule sets do not make for more freeing play, they make for more arguments. I agree. We've seen a shift back to the old rogue trader and 2nd edition rules lately (at lease when GW isn't releasing new units). This would seem to be the next logical progression. I don't know if I like it, but it would sure shake up the game. The 'loose framework' scenario was fine in the infancy of the game... but we have moved beyond that. Gamers in general want a more finished and polished product. The gaming industry has moved beyond this 'figure it out yourself' mentality. We put up with incomplete and contradictory rules, because that was all we had, and all we knew. That is no longer the case.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on May 6, 2014 18:36:17 GMT
Sure we are welcome to use or not use the idea of "unbound" army lists and that for competitive purposes most TOs will likely exclude unbound lists. My concern comes from GWs recent track record of throwing out the baby with the bathwater (and by baby I mean balance between armies and within armies as well as balanced rules; a la Escalation, Battle Brothers shenanigans) in order to allow players to use (buy and use) whatever the F&*K they want when playing with their mates in a friendly battle over brews in the garage. So what now what rests in the balance is what this "unbound" options means for the REST of the codex. Option one is that they are realizing that there are two camps of players and are trying to play to both by giving the option of playing with whatever you want with no regard for balance and relying on social pressure to prevent douchery. They clean up the rules for balance overall and by creating a bright line standard like "unbound" give something for the competitive community to clearly exclude without dealing with cries of favoritism or argument of what is OP and what is not while letting the FTN player still go crazy. The rules are cleaned up and everything works for everyone. Option two is that "unbound" is a snapshot of the rest of the book and it means they are completely doing away with any semblance of balance within the game and the REST OF THE RULES set will reflect that as well (wildly crazy psyker phases where the game is won or lost on a single roll on turn 1 or turn 5, or where you go big or go home, rules that contribute to big rock paper scissors match ups, etc). For me, at least, this is not fun. Its the reason I stopped playing Fantasy. Its not a sky is falling view to be concerned with the new rules set and what this leak means. The sky has clearly BEEN falling for the past 6+ months with goofy releases and lack of balance issues creating a horribly stale and unfun competitive meta. GWs recent history is adding to trepidation, espcially when we think that this leak is clearly a departure from the FoC which has helped keep a lid on balance for decades. What does it mean for the REST of the rules is what the issue is. All we can do is wait and see.... ^^I just wish I had written that.... There is a reason I don't play Fantasy, there is a reason I don't play Apocalypse.... I don't want to be forced into it.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on May 6, 2014 18:44:52 GMT
About GW and Balance.
I will gladly harp on GW for lousy balance issues within the game. Vehicles vs footslogging, assault vs shooting, codex vs codex, allies, etc etc.
BUT.....
Lets give them some credit for complexity. I keep hearing about how company X or company Y does so much better with game balance. But lets not fool ourselves, a lot of that is at the expense of options and variety.
I started playing Dropzone COmmander, and I really like the game,and it is really well balanced. But... there are only 4 armies, Each army has *much* fewer units to choose from, you are much more restricted in what units you can take and how many, there is very close to zero upgrades you can choose, etc etc.
From what I have seen from other games... it is much the same. Yes they are balanced, but that is maintained through a much tighter control of what you can take, and how you can take them.
Lets not forget, chess is *really* balanced.... at the cost of no variety between armies, and no upgrades for the units.
While GW does seem to fail spectacularly, what they are trying is *much* more difficult than what the other games are trying to balance.
|
|
|
Post by ziyousansz on May 6, 2014 19:28:31 GMT
I will say that Coredump has the right of it here. I play Warmahordes and as smooth and streamlined as the rules are, they come at the cost of customization. I can field a bunch of gator posses (Blindwater ftw, mates) but those posses will always have the same attacks and abilities. My only choice is how many of them I can take in a squad, and even that's a limited option. On the other hand, I have a lot of control over how many gaunts I take in a brood, as well as what weapons, upgrades, etc., I want to pay for.
I will reserve judgment until I see more. This could be broken in a different way, or it might work smoothly. This is a machine with a lot of moving parts after all, and the problems with 6th were that some parts worked while others didn't. I'm willing to accept a short life cycle on a rules set that had some problem if it means that the development team is taking a more active approach to the community's gaming needs.
As it stands, all we know is that you can ignore the FOC but get bonuses if you don't (not penalties if you do, which a lot of people seem to be running with), and that psykers are getting a huge revamp. That's not enough details for me to make an informed decision yet. Let's give it a month or two and try out a couple of games, then see where we stand.
|
|