It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.
Exactly. Want a visual example of how pinning should feel? Here (content warning, bad language, violence, gore. It's Band of Brothers):
Spoiler:
Easy company moves up the road, comes under fire from an MG-42. The men get into ditches and are completely pinned down until their officers get the men back up and moving forwards and organise their own machine gun fire to try and suppress the enemy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills
That basically already exists though. There's various flavours of suppression already in use on different datasheets:
Battleshock test after being hit
Movement/charge penalty after being hit
Subtract 1 from hit rolls after being hit
Cannot benefit from cover after being hit
1) Battleshock is not pinning, it does nothing to prevent movement.
2) A modifier to movement or charge range is also not pinning, as it can be largely ignored on fast units. Oh no, my 10" move unit now only moves 8", a loss of 1/5 of my movement. Meanwhile the poor Ork went from 6" to 4", losing 1/3 of their movement. Pinning locks you in place regardless. That's the whole point.
3) A modifier rather than a flat change more heavily penalises units with lower BS while allowing those with better to, again, largely ignore it.
4) This is better applied to weapons such as grenades or flamethrowers to represent a weapon designed to flush people out of cover. When bullets start flying and you hunker down behind a wall, you don't suddenly become more vulnerable to the bullets making you do that.
Some factions have several of these options available and can pick combinations that best suit their list, which I'd argue is a better way to implement suppression than a single overly-harsh rule that's effective against almost all opposing units. Variation also encourages a wider range of units to be taken rather than just spamming 3 of every [suppression] datasheet.
And how many factions have none? The point of a single rule is that everyone can have access to it, and it is meant to be harsh and capable of affecting the majority of the units in the game because if it isn't then it is pointless. Units being immune to morale, including the entirety of the most played codex, Space Marines, was literally what made morale and the effects which were designed around it largely pointless in previous editions.
Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.
[spoiler]
Tell me you read the word suppression, and didn't parse what the effects of suppression should be and how it should affect the game. My suggested rule also incorporated leadership, which meant that better trained units require more suppression to reliably pin them, as well as the ability to use your own abilities by your officer equivalents to get a suppressed unit back into the fight. That rule does neither. An Eldar Phoenix Lord is just as likely to suffer those effects as a unit of Gretchin.
Gee, it sure is a shame my Incubi are suppressed! So suppressed they moved up the board and charged the enemy! Sure, they swing a bit less effectively but I sure am glad that suppression allowed them to move as normal!
At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game. Now, I am not against other people liking longer games, but I reserve longer games for Star Trek Ascendancy and not Warhammer. If a game of Warhammer would take 6 hours I'd probably quit playing it and my guess is a swathes of other people. I imagine the reason for making 40k more arcade-y over the past editions is because people do not have unlimited time to play. It's why MCP and SW:SP have a growing appeal: they take less time to play.
I get it that people want indepth granularity in the system, with all kinds of simulations happening all around to simulate the horrors of trench warfare, but this is a mass appeal game. It wants people to be able to play in an hour or two without too much disruption to people's routine. It is the reason for the mass appeal as longer games will only appeal to a small minority compared to the current state.
It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.
HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.
It's the old supression mechanic, but strengthened to disalow reactions for a surpressed unit. Also in HH2 there's basically no unit that is immune to moral, at most modifiers. Further surpression has another companion rule, called shell shock (x) for which the x stands as a mali to your LD value. Hence why f.e. field ordnance of militia (especially the rocket piece) with shell shock 1 is devastating as it can shut down elite infantry, regardless of ranged or not. And just to ilustrate what i mean: average marine morale is 7 (8) when the squad still has a sarge. And no field artillery or arty in general isn't particulary deadly since most arty pieces have AP 4 so PA units still get saves against it. So a battery of let's say 2 pieces for 85 pts can surpress a tac squad about 45% and kills about 1-2 marines at most (that already is an above average result) if the sargent is still alive, hence why you want some snipers or more surpressing weapons to force more checks. Or if the sargent is down that escalates upwards. And the same applies to veterans.
It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.
Exactly. Want a visual example of how pinning should work? Here (content warning, bad language, violence, gore. It's Band of Brothers):
Spoiler:
Easy company moves up the road, comes under fire from an MG-42. The men get into ditches and are completely pinned down until their officers get the men back up and moving forwards.
Incidentally also a great scene on why grenades and launchers should be better at anti cover duty. But baby steps i guess.
It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.
HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.
It's the old supression mechanic, but strengthened to disalow reactions for a surpressed unit. Also in HH2 there's basically no unit that is immune to moral, at most modifiers.
Further surpression has another companion rule, called shell shock (x) for which the x stands as a mali to your LD value. Hence why f.e. field ordnance of militia (especially the rocket piece) with shell shock 1 is devastating as it can shut down elite infantry, regardless of ranged or not. And just to ilustrate what i mean: average marine morale is 7 (8) when the squad still has a sarge. And no field artillery or arty in general isn't particulary deadly since most arty pieces have AP 4 so PA units still get saves against it.
Then throw in forced Night Fighting. Which, one particular Legion known for using terror tactics, is especially good at. (Best. Night Lords. Rules. Everrrrr.)
I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.
So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).
I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.
But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.
Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past
At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game. Now, I am not against other people liking longer games, but I reserve longer games for Star Trek Ascendancy and not Warhammer. If a game of Warhammer would take 6 hours I'd probably quit playing it and my guess is a swathes of other people. I imagine the reason for making 40k more arcade-y over the past editions is because people do not have unlimited time to play. It's why MCP and SW:SP have a growing appeal: they take less time to play.
I get it that people want indepth granularity in the system, with all kinds of simulations happening all around to simulate the horrors of trench warfare, but this is a mass appeal game. It wants people to be able to play in an hour or two without too much disruption to people's routine. It is the reason for the mass appeal as longer games will only appeal to a small minority compared to the current state.
HH plays rather well in the 1-2 hour bracket aswell, especially if you run the "2000" pts 40k standard, if you are familiar with the rules and at 3k which is HH standard your looking at an 3 hour investment.
and Familiarisation is also not that big of a deal either since despite being "more complex" on the simulation front, it's not all that much diffrent.
Tactical choices are not in conflict with a game being fun.
In fact they usually add to the fun as the players feel more invested in the game as it is rewarding being an active participant and thinking about it.
Do smart thing, good thing happens as a direct result of your choices, happy little rush of hormones that you did a thing and it worked.
It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.
HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.
It's the old supression mechanic, but strengthened to disalow reactions for a surpressed unit. Also in HH2 there's basically no unit that is immune to moral, at most modifiers.
Further surpression has another companion rule, called shell shock (x) for which the x stands as a mali to your LD value. Hence why f.e. field ordnance of militia (especially the rocket piece) with shell shock 1 is devastating as it can shut down elite infantry, regardless of ranged or not. And just to ilustrate what i mean: average marine morale is 7 (8) when the squad still has a sarge. And no field artillery or arty in general isn't particulary deadly since most arty pieces have AP 4 so PA units still get saves against it. So a battery of let's say 2 pieces for 85 pts can surpress a tac squad about 45% and kills about 1-2 marines at most (that already is an above average result) if the sargent is still alive, hence why you want some snipers or more surpressing weapons to force more checks. Or if the sargent is down that escalates upwards. And the same applies to veterans.
Ah very cool, glad to see HH is still innovating. I guess it's a lot easier when every army has a very similar pool of units to balance and you can focus more on gameplay and tactics.
Overread wrote: I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.
So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).
I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.
But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.
Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past
Again, it works just fine in 30k. Average game length? 5-6 turns.
Overread wrote: I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.
So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).
I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.
But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.
Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past
Yeah IF your force is built in a way that it can't deal with pinning. And this is were another hang up is in 40k, the Force org chart is basically gone, you can spam whatevs and the core mechanics of the game barely punish you for it.
In 30k , sure pinning is painfull for infantry. Tanks don't care, neither do dreadnoughts. Tanks very much care about the Heavy support marine squad with lascannons though, so maybee just maybee people being forced to think in actual combined arms terms is a good thing. Just saying.
I think the core problem (if its a problem) is that 40k is a game where you only make 5 moves. Its why all this fiddly stuff doesn't really work.
"I do X so my opponent counters X so I do Y which he counters again so I do Z etc" makes sense on paper - but in practice it doesn't, because now its now turn 4 and you've just sat moving around in your deployment zone. Either you can stick stuff in their flank on say turns 2 or 3 - or you can't. Its not skill if you can.
In the same way, given units only get to shoot a few times, if you can suppress/pin/shock them so they can't do anything for a turn, that's often functionally very close to them just being killed. Your opponent has another "move" to deal with them.
I don't think alternate activations is some massive cure all, but if you want 40k to have all these interactions then something like that - or perhaps better still whatever you'd all Infinity's system - is probably necessary. But now you are looking at a completely different game.
Overread wrote: I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.
So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).
I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.
But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.
Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past
That's why you add in limited counterplay (officers being able to negate pinning via spending one of their own actions, for example).
You have 2 units pinned down, your officer can get one of them back into the fight this round. Which one do you pick? Do you even need either of those units at their full strength this turn? If no, then perhaps your officer can do something else instead, such as lead the charge to take out the enemy machine gun you managed to pin down last turn. After all, once the MG is no longer there, your opponents ability to pin you drastically reduces, which means that you could sacrifice two units acting effectively now for whole turns where all of your units are able to act effectively as the enemy has lost their key suppression unit.
Ah very cool, glad to see HH is still innovating. I guess it's a lot easier when every army has a very similar pool of units to balance and you can focus more on gameplay and tactics.
Actually, profile differentiation is pretty high surprisingly since the WS table has also been uncramped and unit types are a thing, meaning that 1 pip in ws translates to quite a bit better performance in melee. Further Admech and militia both have very big spreads in their profiles (and further modifications due to specialisation and customisation) and NVM custodes and sisters of silence. So despite being often portrayed as a marine fest (and don't get me wrong HH is one) it isn't as one dimensonal as some point out.
Tyel wrote: I think the core problem (if its a problem) is that 40k is a game where you only make 5 moves. Its why all this fiddly stuff doesn't really work.
"I do X so my opponent counters X so I do Y which he counters again so I do Z etc" makes sense on paper - but in practice it doesn't, because now its now turn 4 and you've just sat moving around in your deployment zone. Either you can stick stuff in their flank on say turns 2 or 3 - or you can't. Its not skill if you can.
In the same way, given units only get to shoot a few times, if you can suppress/pin/shock them so they can't do anything for a turn, that's often functionally very close to them just being killed. Your opponent has another "move" to deal with them.
I don't think alternate activations is some massive cure all, but if you want 40k to have all these interactions then something like that - or perhaps better still whatever you'd all Infinity's system - is probably necessary. But now you are looking at a completely different game.
Again: 30k, average game length: 5-6 turns. Pinning works just fine. And if you have a problem with Pinning, then you'll probably have a problem with Battleshock. Especially when dealing with armies/units that can take advantage of it. There's a reason why I picked out Raptors and Warp Talons as my "high points" in the CSM Index.
That's why you add in limited counterplay (officers being able to negate pinning via spending one of their own actions, for example).
You have 2 untis pinned down, your officer can get one of them back into the fight this round. Which one do you pick? Do you need either of those units at their full strength this turn? If no, then perhaps your officer can do something else instead, such as lead the charge to take out the enemy machine gun you managed to pin down last turn. After all, once the MG is no longer there, your opponents ability to pin you drastically reduces, which means that you could sacrifice two units acting effectively now for turns where all of your units are able to act effectively as the enemy has lost their key suppression unit.
Or actually let General Zufall decide with an LD check. Afterall this is a wargame and General Zufall is a big part of war and wargames as a certain german once put it....
At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game. Now, I am not against other people liking longer games, but I reserve longer games for Star Trek Ascendancy and not Warhammer. If a game of Warhammer would take 6 hours I'd probably quit playing it and my guess is a swathes of other people. I imagine the reason for making 40k more arcade-y over the past editions is because people do not have unlimited time to play. It's why MCP and SW:SP have a growing appeal: they take less time to play.
Of course they could cut down rerolls and silly pointless dice rolls.
As is as editions go by the game has been getting slower and slower so by removing those "slow" things they have made game go SLOWER...
Eldarsif wrote:
At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game.
yet other games have all those and play faster than 40k (as did 40k in the past with such elements) so is not necessarily that which will cause it to slow down
stonehorse wrote: While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.
I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.
40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.
It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.
If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.
Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.
They did, yes. As I have said on here previously, I think 3rd edition is the best edition of 40k, so far from ignoring the previous editions.
That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.
It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.
A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.
Also, cut the snark lad, it just comes across as petulant.
Overread wrote: I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.
So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).
I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.
But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.
Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past
That's why you add in limited counterplay (officers being able to negate pinning via spending one of their own actions, for example).
You have 2 units pinned down, your officer can get one of them back into the fight this round. Which one do you pick? Do you even need either of those units at their full strength this turn? If no, then perhaps your officer can do something else instead, such as lead the charge to take out the enemy machine gun you managed to pin down last turn. After all, once the MG is no longer there, your opponents ability to pin you drastically reduces, which means that you could sacrifice two units acting effectively now for whole turns where all of your units are able to act effectively as the enemy has lost their key suppression unit.
I recently fell in love with Steffi Graf Chain of Command, which does stuff like that with great effect and little rules ballast; it might be generally suited for a port of something between 40k and Epic. Their innovative Patrol Phase/Jumping off point mechanic has a lot of what i was missing in regular 40k for editions, and it still plays rather briskly.
Sadly, GW seems to be on a continued trend to take away things each edition to focus more on 'boarfamey' conflict where you win if you get a good combo going and throw the most dice. We lost detailled vehicles, then vehicle damage tables (good riddance!), detailled grenades, detailled psychology, pinning/suppression, the psychic phase, and now we lost customizable equipment and wargear. It's understandable in view of their goal of cramming more miniatures on the table to make you buy things, but the actual game gets shallower and shallower. Someone on here recently said it feels more and more like a TCG with miniatures instead of cards, and the more i think about that the more it seems to hit the problem on the head.
stonehorse wrote: While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.
I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.
40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.
It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.
If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.
Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.
They did, yes. As I have said on here previously, I think 3rd edition is the best edition of 40k, so far from ignoring the previous editions.
That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.
It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.
A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.
Also, cut the snark lad, it just comes across as petulant.
Whether it's "fun" or "easy to play" remains to be seen, and is subject to personal preferences. And it doesn't look to be as much of either as 3rd edition was.
As for the "Snark", I'm long past "lad", and see no reason to cut "slack" to another "old timer".
They did, yes. As I have said on here previously, I think 3rd edition is the best edition of 40k, so far from ignoring the previous editions.
That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.
It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.
A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.
Also, cut the snark lad, it just comes across as petulant.
But is that really the case? Remember DoW? the series? Dow1 was a clasic RTS, right. DoW 2 was a CoH 2 clone which simplified basebuilding but expanded combat complexity was already a bit less popular comparativly to the vast increase of gamers. And then , in the search of the illusive "broader player population" they turned DoW3 into a wannabe moba... and that failed. Hard, despite arguably tapping into the single largest playerbase known to this world i believe (not counting mobile games here), and despite viedogames being probably far more accessible as a hobby as TTWG.
40k had a really successfull niche, one that nowadays get's more and more filled by 30k and other derivatives since arguably 8th onwards.
Accessability is also an issue. At this stage certain armies cost as much as a fully fledged gaming PC where i live, further the rules complexity has arguably merely been pushed to the datasheets instead of the core rules... so is it really MORE accesible?
stonehorse wrote: That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.
It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.
A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.
I don't really see how any of this applies to 10th edition. It is still 40k and if you only ever played 3rd edition until now and would jump into a game of 10th, everything would feel familiar even though details are different. Talking about core rules. You didn't plan more or less in any edition MAYBE bar 8th or 9th when you would think about when to set up a stratagem combo. It was definitely not less fun or less accessable for having to calculate a few numbers together prior to any battle.
If anything, you could make the counter-argument that now it is less intuitive which loadout is more powerful. While points might not be accurate, it was clear from reading the associated costs that a +5pts flamer would be a smaller upgrade than a +20pts lascannon.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.
We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"
Suppression mechanics are cool in games like Bolt Action and Legion but there's so much disparity between the different troops in the 40k universe it would be difficult to implement. The vast majority of characters would need to be functionally immune to suppression, you don't suppress a space marine squad with a heavy stubber or mortars but the same weapon would very easily suppress baseline human troops or the flimsier xenos. It's a great design space for tabletops but not one I credit GW with the ability to do.
Billicus wrote: Suppression mechanics are cool in games like Bolt Action and Legion but there's so much disparity between the different troops in the 40k universe it would be difficult to implement. The vast majority of characters would need to be functionally immune to suppression, you don't suppress a space marine squad with a heavy stubber or mortars but the same weapon would very easily suppress baseline human troops or the flimsier xenos. It's a great design space for tabletops but not one I credit GW with the ability to do.
correction, not one 40kGW rulesteam can do. But i do share the sentiment.
Billicus wrote: Suppression mechanics are cool in games like Bolt Action and Legion but there's so much disparity between the different troops in the 40k universe it would be difficult to implement. The vast majority of characters would need to be functionally immune to suppression, you don't suppress a space marine squad with a heavy stubber or mortars but the same weapon would very easily suppress baseline human troops or the flimsier xenos. It's a great design space for tabletops but not one I credit GW with the ability to do.
That was a major problem in Rogue Trader and Second Edition: a lot of things like many aspects of psychology, wacky grenades, setting people on fire, fear/terror and so on existed in theory, but did not apply to Space Marines practically because their armour and their psychological conditioning rendered them immune to large swathes of it. These rules effectively penalized non-marine forces to varying degrees (mostly dependent on how marine-like they were), and with Marines being (or increasingly becoming) the de-facto baseline that led to all sorts of problems.
stonehorse wrote: While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.
I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.
40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.
It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.
If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.
Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.
And those mechanics were bad and should feel bad.
Firing arcs had no impact on the game except making vehicles worse and creating arguments about where the 'front' of units like Fire Prisms technically ended. Pinning was functionally the same as just killing the unit, just much lower investment.
Maybe they figured it for Heresy, but the 40k version of those mechanics were terrible.
Seems to be, there is no evidence in loss of sales and plenty of increases.
40k had a really successfull niche, one that nowadays get's more and more filled by 30k and other derivatives since arguably 8th onwards.
7th edition almost killed the game, which taught GW they couldn't rely on that niche.
Moreover I believe it was a stroke of brilliance to create 30k. That way 40k could go to seek a larger player base while 30k "covered the rear" and filled the niche left behind.
Tyel wrote: I think the core problem (if its a problem) is that 40k is a game where you only make 5 moves. Its why all this fiddly stuff doesn't really work.
"I do X so my opponent counters X so I do Y which he counters again so I do Z etc" makes sense on paper - but in practice it doesn't, because now its now turn 4 and you've just sat moving around in your deployment zone. Either you can stick stuff in their flank on say turns 2 or 3 - or you can't. Its not skill if you can.
In the same way, given units only get to shoot a few times, if you can suppress/pin/shock them so they can't do anything for a turn, that's often functionally very close to them just being killed. Your opponent has another "move" to deal with them.
I don't think alternate activations is some massive cure all, but if you want 40k to have all these interactions then something like that - or perhaps better still whatever you'd all Infinity's system - is probably necessary. But now you are looking at a completely different game.
Again: 30k, average game length: 5-6 turns. Pinning works just fine. And if you have a problem with Pinning, then you'll probably have a problem with Battleshock. Especially when dealing with armies/units that can take advantage of it. There's a reason why I picked out Raptors and Warp Talons as my "high points" in the CSM Index.
Does it still reduce your unit to snapshots and make it so they can't move? Because in 40k proper, that's just killing the unit with extra steps.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.
We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"
I'm guessing you're a fan of Mortal Wounds?
Again, he's just describing killing the unit with extra steps. You could change that whole screed to 'inflict mortal wounds equal to the total wound of the unit' and it wouldn't change anything.
A unit that can't move or shoot is dead. If suppression is easier than killing the unit, it becomes the defacto way to play. Building the mechanic like this is how you end up with the 'fearless' arms race that existed all of 5th-7th.
Let me clarify that I'm not against a morale based mechanic that's stronger than current battleshock, I'm against pinning as it's been implemented in 40k and Horus Heresy. You can give units penalties without fully removing them from the game.
That was a major problem in Rogue Trader and Second Edition: a lot of things like many aspects of psychology, wacky grenades, setting people on fire, fear/terror and so on existed in theory, but did not apply to Space Marines practically because their armour and their psychological conditioning rendered them immune to large swathes of it. These rules effectively penalized non-marine forces to varying degrees (mostly dependent on how marine-like they were), and with Marines being (or increasingly becoming) the de-facto baseline that led to all sorts of problems.
I'd argue that's the point where following their intended background too closely leads to the game being unfun. Half the units proclaiming they ignore/mitigate half the game mechanics is astoundingly terrible game design in my opinion.
It's a bit of a problem with WH40K in terms of trying to apply real-life combat mechanics in general. All the troopers don't fear anything, don't get tired, run at 90 km/h, dodge bullets, deflect tank shells with their swords, teleport around or reanimate themselves back from the dead. Astoundingly hard to implement any sembalance of real world tactics when so many combatants outright ignore everything that makes those work. Which is partly why modern 40K looks so weird to me in terms of its gameplay.
Seems to be, there is no evidence in loss of sales and plenty of increases.
40k had a really successfull niche, one that nowadays get's more and more filled by 30k and other derivatives since arguably 8th onwards.
7th edition almost killed the game, which taught GW they couldn't rely on that niche.
Moreover I believe it was a stroke of brilliance to create 30k. That way 40k could go to seek a larger player base while 30k "covered the rear" and filled the niche left behind.
WellGW concluded that it couldn't sustain, even though 40k even then was way on the way to get more and more mainstream, it is arguable that their licensing and gaming endeavours massivly boosted interest aswell, but from personal experience, f.e. WHTW 3 (think of it as a TW game whatever you want in regards to quality) many players were severly dispointed and had no interest in AoS, others are holding out or preparing for ToW.
Further 30k excludes a large part of the community by design and era aswell, so it will never really be an adequate marketshare replacement, unless we get a great crusade expansion and decide to just ignore Tau for a moment and get a militia + old customizable tyranid dex DIY list ontop of that ( now that i think about that,... that be a blody awesome army list ).
It is also really a point of debate as to what killed 7th, from a core rule perspective beyond certain psy and random warlord traits (looking at you invisibility) there wasn't really an issue with the game, hence why 30k happily plodded along and even gained momentum (despite being mainline FW resin at the time.) whilest 7th stagnated and lost players, and i know quite a few players that in this era switched over.
Personally i think GW killed 40k off with their specific only webstore exclusivly available over the top formations, badly written and probably never playtested codices, and interference from the sales department to atleast once verifyably for the wriathknight. Couple that with circumstances like the botched 6th edition (7th really should be renamed into 6.5 FAQ the game ) and i think many of us just got too fed up for GW to expect a return to normalcy to work, hence why 8th was a full burn down of the game. Basically, and i really hate that word, the Gamesytem became "toxic" and had to be ditched. And FWIW the knowledge that HH was a variant , kept me for quite a long time away from it aswell.
ERJAK wrote: Let me clarify that I'm not against a morale based mechanic that's stronger than current battleshock, I'm against pinning as it's been implemented in 40k and Horus Heresy. You can give units penalties without fully removing them from the game.
If 40K or Horus Heresy games consisted of just a single turn, this complaint would make sense. Suppression is a temporary setback; a single turn out of commission in a 5-7 turn game. If your star unit is spending the whole game suppressed, you screwed up.
ERJAK wrote: Let me clarify that I'm not against a morale based mechanic that's stronger than current battleshock, I'm against pinning as it's been implemented in 40k and Horus Heresy. You can give units penalties without fully removing them from the game.
If 40K or Horus Heresy games consisted of just a single turn, this complaint would make sense. Suppression is a temporary setback; a single turn out of commission in a 5-7 turn game. If your star unit is spending the whole game suppressed, you screwed up.
I’m having flashbacks to that stupid Dark Eldar gun that gave you -1 LD per model under the template.
stonehorse wrote: While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.
I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.
40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.
It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.
If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.
Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.
They did, yes. As I have said on here previously, I think 3rd edition is the best edition of 40k, so far from ignoring the previous editions.
That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.
It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.
A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.
Also, cut the snark lad, it just comes across as petulant.
Whether it's "fun" or "easy to play" remains to be seen, and is subject to personal preferences. And it doesn't look to be as much of either as 3rd edition was.
As for the "Snark", I'm long past "lad", and see no reason to cut "slack" to another "old timer".
The model range has more than doubled since 3rd edition. Which does impact what GW have to do with the game to make it accessible.
Warmachine/Hordes was a very involved game where facings meant a lot, and a model a inch forward or back could be the end of the game. It was a very tight set of rules... which meant that those who were good at it, and saw the rule combos to exploit dominated the game, and made it very unappealing to new players. This is why it is on life support, don't believe me, go read all the PP threads on here.
So, this is why GW are keeping it simple stupid (K.I.S.S), they want to make sure everyone at the table has a fun time playing. That is no bad thing, yes I would love them to go back to 3rd edition... or even better yet Betrayal at Calth (that game is so freaking good!), but with the sheer number of models and options they have to accommodate in the game. 10th is the result.
HH can do what it does as it is a much smaller game, the model range and options are nowhere near what 40K has.
bullyboy wrote: Wow, that was the fastest scrolling of 3 pages of dakka in my life. Moving on….
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to look for posts that are actually on topic in this thread. Seems to have become the generic “why I hate 10th Edition, and why you should too.” Soapbox thread.
stonehorse wrote: So, this is why GW are keeping it simple stupid (K.I.S.S), they want to make sure everyone at the table has a fun time playing.
I'm more inclined to think that they are keeping it "simple and stupid" because it is the easiest way to justify not putting much effort into game development. So if someone dares to question the quality of the rules they can just say "we want to make sure everyone at the table has a fun time playing" and call the guy a jerk.
bullyboy wrote: Wow, that was the fastest scrolling of 3 pages of dakka in my life. Moving on….
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to look for posts that are actually on topic in this thread. Seems to have become the generic “why I hate 10th Edition, and why you should too.” Soapbox thread.
Very much so. I’m just kind of skimming it at this point and skipping ahead when I see several pages of updates at once.
bullyboy wrote: Wow, that was the fastest scrolling of 3 pages of dakka in my life. Moving on….
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to look for posts that are actually on topic in this thread. Seems to have become the generic “why I hate 10th Edition, and why you should too.” Soapbox thread.
bullyboy wrote: Wow, that was the fastest scrolling of 3 pages of dakka in my life. Moving on….
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to look for posts that are actually on topic in this thread. Seems to have become the generic “why I hate 10th Edition, and why you should too.” Soapbox thread.
Very much so. I’m just kind of skimming it at this point and skipping ahead when I see several pages of updates at once.
This thread has (mostly) run its course - i'll keep it alive for some time after the 24th, at least till we have heard about the 'Special Preview' for whoever wins the Battle for Oghram, the Starter Sets and the Imperial Armour pdfs, but after that i'll ask for this one to be closed and will probably starting another, more general rumour roundup.
On flanking: I was always a fan of the Epic Armageddon method; if you can trace LoS to a friendly unit through the target unit and that friendly is in range of your guns, those guns inflict extra blast markers (suppressing effects).
Translating that to 40K might be a bit difficult but you could always be literal and have one blast marker mean one model in the unit can’t shoot/fight (you get to choose which any time it becomes relevant) or maybe base it on OC if you’re adding it to 10e.
ERJAK wrote: Let me clarify that I'm not against a morale based mechanic that's stronger than current battleshock, I'm against pinning as it's been implemented in 40k and Horus Heresy. You can give units penalties without fully removing them from the game.
If 40K or Horus Heresy games consisted of just a single turn, this complaint would make sense. Suppression is a temporary setback; a single turn out of commission in a 5-7 turn game. If your star unit is spending the whole game suppressed, you screwed up.
This.
Spoiler:
If you run in HH a star unit (legion specific specialists of some sort) something like i dunno, sons of horus reaver squad, fully kitted out with Power weapons and increased in size to 10, you are then easily looking at a very killy melee squad that costs however the coresponding amount of points: namely with 10 power weapons, vexilia , 355 pts, asume a Legion champion and you look at another 95 pts atleast, so a unit that costs 450 pts.
That squad is nasty, it has precision hits on 6s, so you get to decide how wounds are spread with some of the your hits in shooting and more importantly melee, it has baseline 3 attacks for BP and Melee weapons 4 when it attacks and anything not armored better than PA will pretty much get butchered outright, whilest beating 9 shades of gak out of any other PA unit that isn't also an elite melee unit and even if it is if it get's the drop on said unit. Afterall 41 PS attacks tend to do so.
If you face a militia player (and to make that very clear, Militia is at the bottom of the power totem pole in HH, realistically only SA is worse but militia has the easiest way to mass LOS ignoring pinning firepower) and then proceed to let him shell that squad with atleast 3 batteries and assume that he always hits the squad enough with the arty templates (not that unlikely thanks to nuncio voxes but still a lot of luck already) to force not only atleast 1 wound through everytime (not guaranteed either) 3 times in a row to guarante statistically that your squad sits down and does nothing for a turn, and then proceeds to manage this feat 5 turns in a row, is irealistic.
Even if we assume the easiest way on points to achieve that (being 3x2 calliope mortars) which cost a comparative 255 pts and 3/4 of all your available Elite slots and as stated a metric shitton of luck, meanwhile all you had to do, is getting either a singular S8 weapon in range to instant death one piece of arty since its a measly T4 and then you already got a 50 % chance that the squad decides to run (ld7) and since it's artillery it just outright dies. Or even more realistic, you got 10 tacs in range that stood still or count as stood still, 20 shots, 15 hits, 7.5 wounds, battery dead.
pinning is indeed harsh, but to get something actually pinned down you require quite a bit of effort and more importantly enough anti tank to open the glorified soupcan that is a rhino beforehand, or else your whole strategy went out the window. Or realistically in above scenario, atleast an proteus.
bullyboy wrote: Wow, that was the fastest scrolling of 3 pages of dakka in my life. Moving on….
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to look for posts that are actually on topic in this thread. Seems to have become the generic “why I hate 10th Edition, and why you should too.” Soapbox thread.
Yep, this discussion should probably move into its own separate thread.
Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.
Surely this is a joke For 800pts you could have two Wraith Knights or two Imperial Knights. It is also disingenuous to allow a buff for the Stompa and not for the other faction.
Fate Dice need to be addressed. We already know it's an issue and that it's busted. We don't balance to the problem. A Stompa can swing hard and shoot unlike a double cannon WK.
As previously guessed the Necron patrol has been replaced with no fliers. The old Marine Phobos patrol doesn't get any rules. The Death Guard remain unchanged sadly.
I can see a lot of fights against the Dark Angels ending with two turns of ineffectual blasting away at a Dreadnought as the one remaining model who can't achieve very much.
So... upgrades are free in the main game, but combat patrols must be built with specific unit load-outs down to accounting for every single weapon or upgrade to be balanced.
Voss wrote: So... upgrades are free in the main game, but combat patrols must be built with specific unit load-outs down to accounting for every single weapon or upgrade to be balanced.
That's... sane.
It’s almost like greater granularity is more important at smaller scales….
Voss wrote: So... upgrades are free in the main game, but combat patrols must be built with specific unit load-outs down to accounting for every single weapon or upgrade to be balanced.
That's... sane.
It’s almost like greater granularity is more important at smaller scales….
I many cases it's literally what you can build with the box, with few to no options.
Voss wrote: So... upgrades are free in the main game, but combat patrols must be built with specific unit load-outs down to accounting for every single weapon or upgrade to be balanced.
That's... sane.
It’s almost like greater granularity is more important at smaller scales….
I many cases it's literally what you can build with the box, with few to no options.
I believe thats the baby steps for the future of 40K as a game.
Bikes are 1/3 scatter lasters. WL is missing a heavy.
Luckily both are easy to magnetize. But if I was a new player coming into the game and just glued everything to match the CP, I’d be a little torqued moving to full sized games.
Voss wrote: So... upgrades are free in the main game, but combat patrols must be built with specific unit load-outs down to accounting for every single weapon or upgrade to be balanced.
That's... sane.
It’s almost like greater granularity is more important at smaller scales….
I many cases it's literally what you can build with the box, with few to no options.
In many cases its not. For example:
Ghallaron the Pious
(3 models)
■ 1 Ghallaron the Pious is equipped with: bolt
pistol; accursed crozius.
■ 2 Dark Disciples are equipped with: close
combat weapon.
Legionaries
(10 models)
■ 1 Aspiring Champion is equipped with: plasma
pistol; accursed weapon.
■ 4 Legionaries are equipped with: bolt pistol;
boltgun; close combat weapon.
■ 2 Legionaries are equipped with: bolt pistol;
Astartes chainsword.
■ 1 Legionary is equipped with: bolt pistol;
Astartes chainsword; Chaos icon.
■ 1 Legionary is equipped with: bolt pistol; heavy
bolter; close combat weapon.
■ 1 Legionary is equipped with: bolt pistol;
meltagun; close combat weapon.
Havocs
(5 models)
■ 1 Havoc Champion is equipped with: plasma
gun; Astartes chainsword.
■ 1 Havoc is equipped with: Havoc heavy bolter;
close combat weapon.
■ 1 Havoc is equipped with: Havoc lascannon;
close combat weapon.
■ 1 Havoc is equipped with: Havoc missile
launcher; close combat weapon.
■ 1 Havoc is equipped with: Havoc reaper
chaincannon; close combat weapon.
Helbrute
(1 model)
■ This model is equipped with: Helbrute plasma
cannon; Helbrute hammer.
Who would ever build their models this way? Why would anyone suggest that new players do that to themselves?
How is that mess even vaguely good for introducing players to the game?
This isn't even rare. The votann box demands the magna rifle for the hearthkyn and that the bikes take the anti-stealth light rather than ignore cover scanner, and that doesn't even make sense, given that stealth will likely not even turn up in most games of Combat Patrol.
Tau turn up with half carbines and half rifles, because what?
Who would ever build their models this way? Why would anyone suggest that new players do that to themselves?
How is that mess even vaguely good for introducing players to the game?
This isn't even rare. The votann box demands the magna rifle for the hearthkyn and that the bikes take the anti-stealth light rather than ignore cover scanner, and that doesn't even make sense, given that stealth will likely not even turn up in most games of Combat Patrol.
Tau turn up with half carbines and half rifles, because what?
The csm side has to do with the CSM kit not having enough bolters or Melee weapons for a full basic squad.
I don't get the Combat Patrol thing at all. When it was first announced I was pretty excited because I like skirmish games. Why completely limit a player to the box? It barely makes monetary sense either so that's no excuse. Most people will buy the starter box regardless.
it is the entry level game for new players
buy the box, download your army list, start playing 40k
than buy the codex, the rulebook and more models to play the real game
was always said 40k misses the easy entry as there are no real 500 points games for Crusade you need a fixed group
so now we have CP as entry level game
Olthannon wrote: I don't get the Combat Patrol thing at all. When it was first announced I was pretty excited because I like skirmish games. Why completely limit a player to the box? It barely makes monetary sense either so that's no excuse. Most people will buy the starter box regardless.
So you can buy exactly 1 box of models, your friend can buy exactly 1 box of models, and then you play a game.
It's not a skirmish game and was never intended to be. It's a formalized intro set.
Olthannon wrote: I don't get the Combat Patrol thing at all. When it was first announced I was pretty excited because I like skirmish games. Why completely limit a player to the box? It barely makes monetary sense either so that's no excuse. Most people will buy the starter box regardless.
So you can buy exactly 1 box of models, your friend can buy exactly 1 box of models, and then you play a game.
It's not a skirmish game and was never intended to be. It's a formalized intro set.
Yeah, its pretty much just making 40k into a boardgame, which is a good product to offer IMO, even if its not for me at all
Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.
Surely this is a joke For 800pts you could have two Wraith Knights or two Imperial Knights. It is also disingenuous to allow a buff for the Stompa and not for the other faction.
Fate Dice need to be addressed. We already know it's an issue and that it's busted. We don't balance to the problem. A Stompa can swing hard and shoot unlike a double cannon WK.
Great, now explain why a Stompa should cost twice as much as an Imperial Knight which has no Fate Dice and is remarkably better.
ERJAK wrote: Can we use the Combat patrol Strats and Enhancements in regular games?
The Sister's combat patrol is so much better than the index, it's not even funny.
I would trade all 10 stratagems and enhancements for just the 3 strats here and Saintly Mantle.
Also, WYSIWYG doesn't matter for these boxes, and even if it did, that's the only way you CAN built those models for me.
Yeah it's very surprising that Combat Patrol was not just a condensed form of the Index. Well at least there's something good for Sisters that will be in the Codex. Probably
chaos0xomega wrote: So it looks like the only combat patrols that are changing are Space Marines, Tyranids, and Necrons.
To be fair I wasn't expecting many changes at the start. Also, those three are in the first four codexes released. Wouldn't be surprised if rotation of contents happens around codex release time. Give them time to run down current stock.
kodos wrote: it is the entry level game for new players
buy the box, download your army list, start playing 40k
than buy the codex, the rulebook and more models to play the real game
was always said 40k misses the easy entry as there are no real 500 points games for Crusade you need a fixed group
so now we have CP as entry level game
Yeah looks like an easy in for a lot of people. I’ve watched a couple of the Combat Patrol videos on W+ and they look like fun quick games. Obviously they want them to look that way, but from what I could see, it looked like a fun casual version of the game.
Like I understand that the Imperial Knights are very likely better units once points are considered
....that's the whole point though? This is about the astonishing and hilarious claim that a Stompa is appropriately costed. Yes a Stompa may be stronger than a Knight in that context, but if its points are literally double, then it should be remarkably more effective than a Knight and not just clubbing a Knight over the head (provided it even waddles across the field fast enough to hit it). Two Knights will be remarkably more effective against a variety of targets compared to a Stompa.
chaos0xomega wrote: So it looks like the only combat patrols that are changing are Space Marines, Tyranids, and Necrons.
the Marine and Nid one is basically a cut down version of what's in leviathan. No idea about the Necron one. Maybe a flier was too much?
The DW one is funnily enough not half bad, despite the low quality of the actual box. Besides picking the worst options for the Lieutenant (which, fair enough, is the only options in the kit) it doesn't look as bad as the rest in terms of beginner's traps.
Like I understand that the Imperial Knights are very likely better units once points are considered
....that's the whole point though? This is about the astonishing and hilarious claim that a Stompa is appropriately costed. Yes a Stompa may be stronger than a Knight in that context, but if its points are literally double, then it should be remarkably more effective than a Knight and not just clubbing a Knight over the head (provided it even waddles across the field fast enough to hit it). Two Knights will be remarkably more effective against a variety of targets compared to a Stompa.
The Stompa does more things though. It is a transport and it is a morale buff aura. Moreover while definitely worse at shooting, it still has a respectable amount of guns.
And it will kill whatever it touches in melee.
It is likely overpriced but at minimum it still is a 700+ pts unit.
chaos0xomega wrote: So it looks like the only combat patrols that are changing are Space Marines, Tyranids, and Necrons.
To be fair I wasn't expecting many changes at the start. Also, those three are in the first four codexes released. Wouldn't be surprised if rotation of contents happens around codex release time. Give them time to run down current stock.
Thats a good point. I'm a fan of many of the current CP boxes, hoping most of them stay as-is rather than being re-done. Only ones I would say that absolutely should get revamped are TSons and DGuard.
I guess I can attach an inquisitor to a sisters of battle squad and thus put him into a sisters rhino. But is there anyway to put his acolytes retinue into a transport?
Also, if sisters rhinos are not battleline. Does it mean max 3 of them?
If this Combat Patrol stuff doesn't convince you, nothing will.
It's a great move business wise. Much easier to sell 2 boxes to newcomers now if they know they can play a full game mode with them. Seems good for beginners.
Like I understand that the Imperial Knights are very likely better units once points are considered
....that's the whole point though? This is about the astonishing and hilarious claim that a Stompa is appropriately costed. Yes a Stompa may be stronger than a Knight in that context, but if its points are literally double, then it should be remarkably more effective than a Knight and not just clubbing a Knight over the head (provided it even waddles across the field fast enough to hit it). Two Knights will be remarkably more effective against a variety of targets compared to a Stompa.
The Stompa does more things though. It is a transport and it is a morale buff aura. Moreover while definitely worse at shooting, it still has a respectable amount of guns.
And it will kill whatever it touches in melee.
It is likely overpriced but at minimum it still is a 700+ pts unit.
Agree to disagree then, I know several people who have run Stompas both in 8th and 9th and not once have they ever been remotely worth their cost in points.
chaos0xomega wrote: So it looks like the only combat patrols that are changing are Space Marines, Tyranids, and Necrons.
To be fair I wasn't expecting many changes at the start. Also, those three are in the first four codexes released. Wouldn't be surprised if rotation of contents happens around codex release time. Give them time to run down current stock.
Thats a good point. I'm a fan of many of the current CP boxes, hoping most of them stay as-is rather than being re-done. Only ones I would say that absolutely should get revamped are TSons and DGuard.
It's been insinuated that campaign books may get splash Combat Patrols, with independent rules releases.
chaos0xomega wrote: So it looks like the only combat patrols that are changing are Space Marines, Tyranids, and Necrons.
To be fair I wasn't expecting many changes at the start. Also, those three are in the first four codexes released. Wouldn't be surprised if rotation of contents happens around codex release time. Give them time to run down current stock.
Thats a good point. I'm a fan of many of the current CP boxes, hoping most of them stay as-is rather than being re-done. Only ones I would say that absolutely should get revamped are TSons and DGuard.
I'm sorta hoping some of them can be a bit more focused and a good generalist box. Which probably sounds contrary but I'll try to explain.
The BA one seems a bit all over the place, mostly shooting focused but lack appreciable firepower against anything but light Infantry. But it's an older one that I suspect came before the concept the game mode came about.
In contrast the Admech one is clearly focused on shooting, but the shooting can deal with a variety of threats. The World Eaters is going for melee but has a variety of weapon profiles to deal with most things, perhaps only lacking greater than strength 8 weapons, but there shouldn't be much with super high toughness in CP boxes anyway.
Compared to those two the BA one just seems like it doesn't have an identity, but also is kinda useless against certain threats.
The csm side has to do with the CSM kit not having enough bolters or Melee weapons for a full basic squad.
Except it does. The Combat Patrol contains the standard Legionnaire kit, which has the parts to build full bolter or full BPCCCW loadouts with 2 specials/Heavies and the Champ.
Olthannon wrote: I don't get the Combat Patrol thing at all. When it was first announced I was pretty excited because I like skirmish games. Why completely limit a player to the box? It barely makes monetary sense either so that's no excuse. Most people will buy the starter box regardless.
So you can buy exactly 1 box of models, your friend can buy exactly 1 box of models, and then you play a game.
It's not a skirmish game and was never intended to be. It's a formalized intro set.
Yeah, its pretty much just making 40k into a boardgame, which is a good product to offer IMO, even if its not for me at all
Agreed, they have Kill Team if for those interested in Skirmish.
I guess I can attach an inquisitor to a sisters of battle squad and thus put him into a sisters rhino. But is there anyway to put his acolytes retinue into a transport?
Also, if sisters rhinos are not battleline. Does it mean max 3 of them?
I'm assuming that a Knight player runs three Armigers or Wardogs as in the last edition, being as they're already powerful units and that 4 Armigers costs as much as a CP box anyway.
Would have been nice if GW could have clarified this today( or have I overlooked something in the article? ).
SamusDrake wrote: I'm assuming that a Knight player runs three Armigers or Wardogs as in the last edition, being as they're already powerful units and that 4 Armigers costs as much as a CP box anyway.
Would have been nice if GW could have clarified this today( or have I overlooked something in the article? ).
The lack of a .pdf would make me think there just isn't an option for Knights in Combat Patrol (though that could change in the future). That said I'm confused by your assumption of running three as in the last edition, noting that Combat Patrol as we know it didn't exist last edition.
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Oh wait I guess it is.
It's a good introduction to the hobby aka giving GW all your disposable income
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Voss wrote: Who would ever build their models this way? Why would anyone suggest that new players do that to themselves?
That Chaos list reminds of me old White Dwarf "tactics" articles, where they'd talk about how one of each heavy weapon in a Dev Squad made the unit more "flexible". Keep in mind, this was in an edition where units could not split fire.
I forgot that GW is going to come to your house, watch you glue mathematically inferior bits to your figures, and then break your fingers if you don't remove those parts after playing your contractually obligated game of Combat Patrol.
Prometheum5 wrote: I forgot that GW is going to come to your house, watch you glue mathematically inferior bits to your figures, and then break your fingers if you don't remove those parts after playing your contractually obligated game of Combat Patrol.
You get that part of the point of combat patrol is to get people into the game, right?
So you want to get newbies involved, and teach them the basics in a way that makes them want to expand their collections.
You also want to get old players involved to teach the newbies and encourage them to be involved.
This puts up a barrier in both directions. AND leaves people wondering why they can't use the fluffy and good strats in CP for their real army. And, inexplicably, gives them different versions of army rules to learn and get wrong.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Oh wait I guess it is.
Is this true? Which units are affected?
I'm not aware of any that are not valid unit builds in main game rules. They are often built in manners that are less than optimal, but that is not the same as being invalid.
ERJAK wrote: WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.
I would think that the vast majority of first time players, upon picking up their first box of miniatures, would build them as the instructions showed. So you get your weird combat patrol loadouts, then go on to bigger games with them.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Oh wait I guess it is.
Is this true? Which units are affected?
I probably wouldn't normally equip a CSM Helbrute with the plasma cannon and hammer.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Oh wait I guess it is.
Is this true? Which units are affected?
I'm not aware of any that are not valid unit builds in main game rules. They are often built in manners that are less than optimal, but that is not the same as being invalid.
The people in this thread cannot fathom the idea of taking a sub-perfection unit for any reason.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Combat Patrol is designed to allow players to purchase a Combat Patrol box and play a balanced game against another Combat Patrol box. Unsurprisingly, this means a Combat Patrol force is not an optimized force. It also means if you don't have a Combat Patrol box, you don't have a Combat Patrol list. This is not some evil scheme to screw the players. Nor is it GW telling players of certain force to bugger off. It is a scheme to create a closed, balanced game over a very limited set of models. If you can't appreciate that, then Combat Patrol is not for you.
I guess it means it time to break out Inquisitor Krazypantsoff, more deadly than a similarly costed MM Immolator after all. And far better looking
After messing around with the army construction of 10th I feel its doable (and a relief) that there are 6 stratagems and 4 enhancements and not that much more. Hope the codexes will stay at the same size of bells and whistles as the indexes.
Like I understand that the Imperial Knights are very likely better units once points are considered
....that's the whole point though? This is about the astonishing and hilarious claim that a Stompa is appropriately costed. Yes a Stompa may be stronger than a Knight in that context, but if its points are literally double, then it should be remarkably more effective than a Knight and not just clubbing a Knight over the head (provided it even waddles across the field fast enough to hit it). Two Knights will be remarkably more effective against a variety of targets compared to a Stompa.
So you might be right to a degree. It doesn't have ORKS and so can't benefit from the Mek ( or other stuff ). It does have a 46% chance to kill two wraithknights in melee though ( not that getting there is at all possible right now ).
The lack of a .pdf would make me think there just isn't an option for Knights in Combat Patrol (though that could change in the future). That said I'm confused by your assumption of running three as in the last edition, noting that Combat Patrol as we know it didn't exist last edition.
If you look in the Imperial Knight codex for 9th edition it details a combat patrol of three Armigers. Three Armigers pretty much made up 500 points, which was a combat patrol.
There is no Combat Patrol: Imperial Knights box, so no Imperial Knight Combat Patrol. Beside, imagine trying to balance 3 Armigers against the Combat Patrols they published.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Oh wait I guess it is.
No they do not.
WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.
It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?
Oh wait I guess it is.
No they do not.
WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.
It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?
Noobies won't look at the rules before they start putting them together.
It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?
I'm a noob trying out 10th as my first 40k foray, having only played a few AoS 2nd games. Honestly I'm relieved the units can just be built via the instructions. I was dreading having to research loadouts out of fear that I'd screw everything up without having rolled a single die. I also don't see WYSIWYG as an issue. If someone objects to my loadout not matching, I probably won't play with them much.
It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?
I'm a noob trying out 10th as my first 40k foray, having only played a few AoS 2nd games. Honestly I'm relieved the units can just be built via the instructions. I was dreading having to research loadouts out of fear that I'd screw everything up without having rolled a single die. I also don't see WYSIWYG as an issue. If someone objects to my loadout not matching, I probably won't play with them much.
Not sure if serious...
...but just in case. I would suggest reading the core rules and researching loadouts if you want to play anything beyond Combat Patrol.
Like I understand that the Imperial Knights are very likely better units once points are considered
....that's the whole point though? This is about the astonishing and hilarious claim that a Stompa is appropriately costed. Yes a Stompa may be stronger than a Knight in that context, but if its points are literally double, then it should be remarkably more effective than a Knight and not just clubbing a Knight over the head (provided it even waddles across the field fast enough to hit it). Two Knights will be remarkably more effective against a variety of targets compared to a Stompa.
I wouldn't be surprised if a chunk of the stompas costing is the chance it just deletes something while using the overwatch strat. It's the biggest model with the most guns so uses that stratagem better than most units.
It'd be a pretty bad feeling if even a knight or a big character unit just happened to walk in range then got it's face shot off by that stompa in the movement phase. I know it's not super likely but it could happen if the stars align.
Maybe if they gave the stompa a special rule where it can only overwatch with weapons below a certain strength they could make it much cheaper. Or maybe overwatch in the charge phase only. I dunno.
ERJAK wrote: WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.
I would think that the vast majority of first time players, upon picking up their first box of miniatures, would build them as the instructions showed. So you get your weird combat patrol loadouts, then go on to bigger games with them.
I got the Japanese version of Imperium number 21 last week with the Skitarii rangers, and it literally had only one "correct" way to build the unit even if all the options were there, with a box in a corner saying that you should ignore all the other bits. At least Imperium is about 30% cheaper than the box at official prices.
ERJAK wrote: Noobies won't look at the rules before they start putting them together.
that is why CP exist and tells you how to build the models so they will fit the CP rules
from a pure intro game point, GW again copied something other games do without understanding why those games do it
for example, other games have those "how to start" guides with building instructions followed by an army list and how to play section using the models you just build
this is great for people who don't know anything and works
but they don't use all models from the box, make clear that this is an introduction and you should chose further options on personal taste, the build options are the ones you would use in the full game as well
so the idea is great, the rest not so much and the most disappointing thing is that there was hope that we finally get a useful small scale game mode but I guess we are back to 2k or nothing
ERJAK wrote: Noobies won't look at the rules before they start putting them together.
that is why CP exist and tells you how to build the models so they will fit the CP rules
from a pure intro game point, GW again copied something other games do without understanding why those games do it
for example, other games have those "how to start" guides with building instructions followed by an army list and how to play section using the models you just build
this is great for people who don't know anything and works
but they don't use all models from the box, make clear that this is an introduction and you should chose further options on personal taste, the build options are the ones you would use in the full game as well
so the idea is great, the rest not so much and the most disappointing thing is that there was hope that we finally get a useful small scale game mode but I guess we are back to 2k or nothing
To be honest I am not sure many other games have a 30 year old swamp of models created for completely different editions and design paradigms.
There's a good few games that do have a long legacy, however in general most companies only ever made mono-pose mono-part models.
One way GW has and did stand out for a long time was the concept of optional parts. There's a reason there's so much kit-bashing with GW stuff, but hardly any with other designers. GW just gives you masses of spare parts with some kits - from alternate weapons to details to upgrade parts.
GW even has duel build kits that aren't just a weapon or head swap.
In some ways GW is becoming more normalised" by cutting down on optional parts. Games like Infinity have been running for years with loads of weapons and kit that is never represented on the one or two models that they actually make .
I'm not saying its a right move for GW, indeed as something that let them stand out, reigning it in might be a poor move.
kodos wrote: for example, other games have those "how to start" guides with building instructions followed by an army list and how to play section using the models you just build
this is great for people who don't know anything and works
but they don't use all models from the box, make clear that this is an introduction and you should chose further options on personal taste, the build options are the ones you would use in the full game as well
so the idea is great, the rest not so much and the most disappointing thing is that there was hope that we finally get a useful small scale game mode but I guess we are back to 2k or nothing
GW starter sets have generally how to start scenarios utilizing box contents as well including progressively larger parts. Not exactly new.
Leviathan didn't because it's not starter set but once those come will have those again.
talking about Combat Patrol and not the starter boxes
that GW thinks that doing the "starter box thing" with all armies by having dedicated army boxes instead of having different 2 player starters (like the other games) is the issue
PS: and actually not the first time, we already had the very same thing in 7th, but there the box formations were allowed to be used in the full game as well, and were also better than the standard ones available
so I guess also the special CP Detachments will find their way into regular games
So how many they should then make those? 1 is obviously not enough as there's already one. 2? 3? 4? 5? # of factions/2? Every possible faction vs faction combo?
Had a quick look at the Combat Patrol stuff. Seems like it will be a fun little game. Need to go through my stuff and see which of the boxes I can cobble together from various bits, so far thinking,
Dark Angels,
Drukhari,
And of course Tyranids and Space Marines when I get my copy of Leviathan.
Really like the new Necron one. I think Death Guard should have been given a new one. Having an Epic Hero seems a bit much for what is meant to be a small game.
stonehorse wrote: Had a quick look at the Combat Patrol stuff. Seems like it will be a fun little game. Need to go through my stuff and see which of the boxes I can cobble together from various bits, so far thinking,
Dark Angels,
Drukhari,
And of course Tyranids and Space Marines when I get my copy of Leviathan.
Really like the new Necron one. I think Death Guard should have been given a new one. Having an Epic Hero seems a bit much for what is meant to be a small game.
I’d have to dig into the pile of shame to verify, but the Necron CP looks like it came out of the Indominus box. The giant walker looks a bit different though (but close enough to work). I don’t know the army, but at a glance it looks good.
For those who never got around to off loading the other half of that box.
Looks like the rules reference section is free, while the army builder side is open for a limited time and will eventually be tied to a WH+ subscription again.
It might be even worse than the last one. This is what they were hoping people would use instead of Battlescribe?
The Combat Patrol versions of the rosters are just mixed in the list of datacards instead of in their own section, but if you go into the roster builder you can't make armies with points values other than 1000, 2000 and 3000 points. So no Combat Patrol to note down your enhancements etc in advance. Or small games. Or boarding patrols it seems.
It's a buggy mess with a completely incompetent layout. I'm told it's "temporarily free" even after logging in as a W+ subscriber.
This strikes me as almost certainly built by the same chumps as the last app. It has similar issues.
Why do I have to click *seven* expand buttons to see a typical datacard properly on an iPad each time I go into one? All the weapons etc aren't visible by default. Every time.
What you won’t find in this download are units from the Adeptus Custodes and Knight Households. You can find their rules in the associated Imperial Armour compendiums, which will be released in the near future. Also coming soon are the datasheets for those non-Heresy-era units entering Legends.
We’re almost done with our free rules downloads for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, but there are still a few big ones left. Tomorrow, the docking hatch opens on new Boarding Actions rules, and you can continue to wage deadly close-range duels in the cramped confines of a space hulk.
It might be even worse than the last one. This is what they were hoping people would use instead of Battlescribe?
The Combat Patrol versions of the rosters are just mixed in the list of datacards instead of in their own section, but if you go into the roster builder you can't make armies with points values other than 1000, 2000 and 3000 points. So no Combat Patrol to note down your enhancements etc in advance. Or small games. Or boarding patrols it seems.
It's a buggy mess with a completely incompetent layout. I'm told it's "temporarily free" even after logging in as a W+ subscriber.
This strikes me as almost certainly built by the same chumps as the last app. It has similar issues.
I explored building an app and I feel really bad for the folks who jumped in late in 9th to try. The logic was really difficult to code out in a clean manner and still keep it extensible for future changes. I imagine GW had the same problems.
10th should make it way easier to accomplish. Whether it works or not...*shrug*
In addition, 9th edition's app was build by a supplier with no domain knowledge communicating with people at GW who had little to no experience in managing the development of an app.
GW has been hiring devs ever since then, most likely in order to build a new app in-house with people that know the topic they are coding an app for. Usually for niche topics, this is a much more fruitful approach.
Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?
Not Online!!!: 2023/06/07 12:49:06 Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
I don't wanna say i told people that this was gonna happen, but it did happen...
Building an army with the app is similar to the previous app (which took me some time getting used to).
Unlike the last app, I was able to build a legal list with options. Even at the end of 9th edition, I could I not assign Warlock powers to my Walocks without an error being noted.
It took me under 10 minutes to build a 2000 point Aeldari army with their new app,
You can add too much wargear to units - five Acolytes can all have autopistols, and hand flamers, and mining weapons. Heck, you can give six models in the unit mining weapons when there's only five models in the unit and only two are supposed to be able to take them!
The Phazer wrote: You can add too much wargear to units - five Acolytes can all have autopistols, and hand flamers, and mining weapons. Heck, you can give six models in the unit mining weapons when there's only five models in the unit and only two are supposed to be able to take them!
The Phazer wrote: You can add too much wargear to units - five Acolytes can all have autopistols, and hand flamers, and mining weapons. Heck, you can give six models in the unit mining weapons when there's only five models in the unit and only two are supposed to be able to take them!
Is the box at the bottom of the screen yellow? If you touch the box it will advise of any issues (however it won't advise how to correct them).
What you won’t find in this download are units from the Adeptus Custodes and Knight Households. You can find their rules in the associated Imperial Armour compendiums, which will be released in the near future. Also coming soon are the datasheets for those non-Heresy-era units entering Legends.
We’re almost done with our free rules downloads for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, but there are still a few big ones left. Tomorrow, the docking hatch opens on new Boarding Actions rules, and you can continue to wage deadly close-range duels in the cramped confines of a space hulk.
The Phazer wrote: You can add too much wargear to units - five Acolytes can all have autopistols, and hand flamers, and mining weapons. Heck, you can give six models in the unit mining weapons when there's only five models in the unit and only two are supposed to be able to take them!
Is the box at the bottom of the screen yellow? If you touch the box it will advise of any issues (however it won't advise how to correct them).
Probably, but why does it let you do it in the first place? Marines can't in the same app.
The Phazer wrote: You can add too much wargear to units - five Acolytes can all have autopistols, and hand flamers, and mining weapons. Heck, you can give six models in the unit mining weapons when there's only five models in the unit and only two are supposed to be able to take them!
Is the box at the bottom of the screen yellow? If you touch the box it will advise of any issues (however it won't advise how to correct them).
Probably, but why does it let you do it in the first place? Marines can't in the same app.
It did that in the Aeldari list I built. Not sure why it is designed that way.
It might be even worse than the last one. This is what they were hoping people would use instead of Battlescribe?
Battlescribe on phone is an abhorration. I have never liked it. Your whole rage post could just be about Battlescribe as far as I'm concerned. I tested the new app and it worked without issues for me. Bit cumbersome, but much less so than Battlescribe. Pretty nice that unit entries have links to their rules. As long as it is free to use I will definitely use this app over Battlescribe.
Works okay for me. I agree, its a bit non-intuitive that you can just hit the + for wargear unlimited times. It does give you an error message but it would be nice to just cap it at the max. Also, I got error messages on a lot of GSC characters for invalid wargear, although they just have the default loadout (and no other options)
Instead of getting the option for 10 or 20 Necron Warriors, it’s the 10-20, so I have to hit the + for every additional one. Then when you add them it doesn’t add their wargear, so now you have to manually add ten guns and ten close combat weapons, unless you want to give them reapers then you have to manually remove ten guns and add twenty. I really wish for stuff that didn’t have weapons options it was just a checkbox for which one they all had. But this issue was in the old app as well so I’m used to it.
Can’t reorder units, they show up in alphabetical order irregardless. Units with the same name can be reordered by duplicating and deleting them to get the ones you want listed last.
Otherwise it seems quite functional at first pass.
What you won’t find in this download are units from the Adeptus Custodes and Knight Households. You can find their rules in the associated Imperial Armour compendiums, which will be released in the near future. Also coming soon are the datasheets for those non-Heresy-era units entering Legends.
We’re almost done with our free rules downloads for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, but there are still a few big ones left. Tomorrow, the docking hatch opens on new Boarding Actions rules, and you can continue to wage deadly close-range duels in the cramped confines of a space hulk.
Where are the points costs going to be?
Came here to ask the same thing. You’d have thought since they aren’t gonna be revised they could have put them on the datasheets.
Another tiny victory dance - Tarantulas and Deathstorm Drop Pods are still game in 10th edition! To me, both units are as iconic to Astartes and the Imperium as Indomi termies, Whirlwind/Land Speeder combos and the classic power armour marks
Where are the points though? I thought GW said the points values for legends units wont be updated as the edition progresses, so they coulda just included em on these pdfs IMO..
What you won’t find in this download are units from the Adeptus Custodes and Knight Households. You can find their rules in the associated Imperial Armour compendiums, which will be released in the near future. Also coming soon are the datasheets for those non-Heresy-era units entering Legends.
We’re almost done with our free rules downloads for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, but there are still a few big ones left. Tomorrow, the docking hatch opens on new Boarding Actions rules, and you can continue to wage deadly close-range duels in the cramped confines of a space hulk.
Where are the points costs going to be?
Came here to ask the same thing. You’d have thought since they aren’t gonna be revised they could have put them on the datasheets.
Your best chance at actually getting an answer is to ask the Social Media Team on twitter, they're usually being vague, but sometimes you can get lucky:
Assuming (I know, never assume with GW) that points on these Legends-units will be about what they should be:
- Kratos: Looks fine.
Kratos Battle Cannon still trash, Volkite Cardanelle still great (esp with OoM) and... Melta blast-gun actually looks decent now? A melta-weapon with more than 9 Str? Is that even legal?
Line-breaker as a rule is pretty boring though, not gonna lie, especially since it barely has any blast-weapons. Not getting -1 to hit is nice I suppose.
- Leviathan Dreads: Ehh, not sure.
Lost some wounds and what with dreads of all flavours getting a 2+ this literally is simply a Redemptor with a 5++ now: Exact same statline, same special rule and even the same melee-weapon with different name.
The only difference other than the 5++ is the weapons, but neither the Melta Lance (typo that it's not [blast]?), the Stormcannon or the Grav-flux Bombard really impresses me.
The fact that it doesn't gain anything from having two melee-weapons seems like an oversight (or just lazy ruleswriting).
Awaiting final judgement untill I've seen the actual points.
tauist wrote: I certainly wouldn't mind future updtes to these units.. but why even bother to call em Legends in that case?
to keep em out of the tournament scene, which had the unfortunate issue that certain factions had their whole shooting there... cough decimators and CSM + derivatives.
tauist wrote: I certainly wouldn't mind future updtes to these units.. but why even bother to call em Legends in that case?
to keep em out of the tournament scene, which had the unfortunate issue that certain factions had their whole shooting there... cough decimators and CSM + derivatives.
We haven't seen the points yet, but I don't know if any of these will be as busted as some of the most offending datasheets on the indexes out so far..
AduroT wrote: App works fine for me. Minor quibbles;
Instead of getting the option for 10 or 20 Necron Warriors, it’s the 10-20, so I have to hit the + for every additional one. Then when you add them it doesn’t add their wargear, so now you have to manually add ten guns and ten close combat weapons, unless you want to give them reapers then you have to manually remove ten guns and add twenty. I really wish for stuff that didn’t have weapons options it was just a checkbox for which one they all had. But this issue was in the old app as well so I’m used to it.
Can’t reorder units, they show up in alphabetical order irregardless. Units with the same name can be reordered by duplicating and deleting them to get the ones you want listed last.
Otherwise it seems quite functional at first pass.
Unfortumately necron warriors can have mixed weapons so short of changing datasheet you need to be able to alter weapon count if app is to support sheet.
Albeit weapon a/b/mixed(which unlocks buttons to select each weapon amount) would be possible
tauist wrote: I certainly wouldn't mind future updtes to these units.. but why even bother to call em Legends in that case?
to keep em out of the tournament scene, which had the unfortunate issue that certain factions had their whole shooting there... cough decimators and CSM + derivatives.
We haven't seen the points yet, but I don't know if any of these will be as busted as some of the most offending datasheets on the indexes out so far..
GW stated that if it is in the Legends of the HH that it isn't torunament legal (e.g. all in those PDF's). So it doesn't matter, all that is in these 3 pdfs are "fine for matched play", which considering that matched play tends to follow the torunaments and becomes / tends to become default rules for pick up games is basically wishfull thinking from GW.
tauist wrote: I certainly wouldn't mind future updtes to these units.. but why even bother to call em Legends in that case?
to keep em out of the tournament scene, which had the unfortunate issue that certain factions had their whole shooting there... cough decimators and CSM + derivatives.
We haven't seen the points yet, but I don't know if any of these will be as busted as some of the most offending datasheets on the indexes out so far..
GW stated that if it is in the Legends of the HH that it isn't torunament legal (e.g. all in those PDF's). So it doesn't matter, all that is in these 3 pdfs are "fine for matched play", which considering that matched play tends to follow the torunaments and becomes / tends to become default rules for pick up games is basically wishfull thinking from GW.
Thankfully I only play with friends, but my point was, why'd these few sheets not be halal for tourney use, but several, more busted sheets are? Suppose I already know the answer... Chaosistency?
Thunderhawk isn't in there.... So it will be supported throughout the edition, or it will be legends, but isn't being rolled into the legends of the horus heresy pdf - rather than just a legends PDF for each faction - bloat has started guys!
The new article describing the Legends of the Horus Heresy rules for free download had me actually thinking they ported all the Mechanicum units to 40k, I must have read a lot into it because I was thinking to myself “this is a total game changer” only to see literally three data sheets
Unexpected treat bonus for me in the Tarantula sheet - unit of 1 model!
I always thought it was tactically daft you needed to clump all three turrets in conga lines.. they are much more useful now that you can deploy em one by one. My favourite datasheet change in 10th so far!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Thunderhawk isn't in there.... So it will be supported throughout the edition, or it will be legends, but isn't being rolled into the legends of the horus heresy pdf - rather than just a legends PDF for each faction - bloat has started guys!
I bet it will be in index Imperial Armour.. little timmy wants 3 for his ultramarines after seeing how cool they looked in the Space Marine 2 video game
endlesswaltz123 wrote:Thunderhawk isn't in there.... So it will be supported throughout the edition, or it will be legends, but isn't being rolled into the legends of the horus heresy pdf - rather than just a legends PDF for each faction - bloat has started guys!
Plastic Thunderhawk confirmed! /s
It's probably an oversight, the Chaos Thunderhawk is right there... i'd not be surprised if whoever was composing that .pdf just did the Stormbird and thought 'good enough' - the SM Thunderhakw may or may not appear in the 'regular' IA pdfs later on.
ph34r wrote:The new article describing the Legends of the Horus Heresy rules for free download had me actually thinking they ported all the Mechanicum units to 40k, I must have read a lot into it because I was thinking to myself “this is a total game changer” only to see literally three data sheets
We may yet cling to hope for the 'regular' IA pdfs, so far everything is just erratic.
Several Genestealer Cult characters cannot be selected without errors in the new app. Nexos and Magus models do not have any wargear options as per their datacards, but you can remove their default wargear in the app. It doesn't matter though, as no matter what combination of wargear you give them, legal or legal, you'll still get a wargear error.
Other characters such as the Biophagus do have multiple legal options, but you can still remove wargear that it is not legal to do so, and result in errors no matter what when added to an army.
It might be even worse than the last one. This is what they were hoping people would use instead of Battlescribe?
The Combat Patrol versions of the rosters are just mixed in the list of datacards instead of in their own section, but if you go into the roster builder you can't make armies with points values other than 1000, 2000 and 3000 points. So no Combat Patrol to note down your enhancements etc in advance. Or small games. Or boarding patrols it seems.
It's a buggy mess with a completely incompetent layout. I'm told it's "temporarily free" even after logging in as a W+ subscriber.
This strikes me as almost certainly built by the same chumps as the last app. It has similar issues.
Why do I have to click *seven* expand buttons to see a typical datacard properly on an iPad each time I go into one? All the weapons etc aren't visible by default. Every time.
This is hilariously bad.
Holy hyperbole. The app is a huge huge huge improvement from the last one, its actually not that bad overall. Biggest issue (the fact that it isn't *free* notwithstanding) is that the "reference" section is a mess that should be categorized and sorted for ease of navigation, etc. rather than being left as a long messy list that you have to scroll through. That aside, overall navigation (within the core rules section or any given index) is an absolute breeze and listbuilding is straightforward. Its not as good as the warmachine app, but its not too far off from where the warmachine app was on launch. If GW continues to work on developing it and adds in some additional functionality and a few UX tweaks and enhancements, it'll be solid.
Free rules is always appreciated, but these are quite laughably bad.
Other than the Kratos (only ever a plastic kit so I suppose that's the answer), every datasheet is locked to old OOP resin kits from FW, and have none of the newer options from current plastic kits.
"You get rules for what's in the box, except for when we forget which boxes we are talking about and just copy/paste the 2 editions old IA book."
It might be even worse than the last one. This is what they were hoping people would use instead of Battlescribe?
The Combat Patrol versions of the rosters are just mixed in the list of datacards instead of in their own section, but if you go into the roster builder you can't make armies with points values other than 1000, 2000 and 3000 points. So no Combat Patrol to note down your enhancements etc in advance. Or small games. Or boarding patrols it seems.
It's a buggy mess with a completely incompetent layout. I'm told it's "temporarily free" even after logging in as a W+ subscriber.
This strikes me as almost certainly built by the same chumps as the last app. It has similar issues.
Why do I have to click *seven* expand buttons to see a typical datacard properly on an iPad each time I go into one? All the weapons etc aren't visible by default. Every time.
This is hilariously bad.
Holy hyperbole. The app is a huge huge huge improvement from the last one, its actually not that bad overall. Biggest issue (the fact that it isn't *free* notwithstanding) is that the "reference" section is a mess that should be categorized and sorted for ease of navigation, etc. rather than being left as a long messy list that you have to scroll through. That aside, overall navigation (within the core rules section or any given index) is an absolute breeze and listbuilding is straightforward. Its not as good as the warmachine app, but its not too far off from where the warmachine app was on launch. If GW continues to work on developing it and adds in some additional functionality and a few UX tweaks and enhancements, it'll be solid.
Yup, was thinking exactly the same. I’ve already made three lists with three different factions and had no issues. It’s a huge improvement.
EldarExarch wrote: LOL what they moved the Invul save icon on the datacards to under the save now?
I mean it's a better spot for it than what they had on the Index cards but consistency is appreciated.
If you go back through all the indexes you'll notice that some of them had the invul saves icon in the same spot under the save in the unit profile while others had them in the lower right area where they put unit abilities, etc. In at least one case, I noticed both formats within the same index, why they didn't standardize it to begin with I have no idea.
Holy hyperbole. The app is a huge huge huge improvement from the last one, its actually not that bad overall. Biggest issue (the fact that it isn't *free* notwithstanding) is that the "reference" section is a mess that should be categorized and sorted for ease of navigation, etc. rather than being left as a long messy list that you have to scroll through. That aside, overall navigation (within the core rules section or any given index) is an absolute breeze and listbuilding is straightforward. Its not as good as the warmachine app, but its not too far off from where the warmachine app was on launch. If GW continues to work on developing it and adds in some additional functionality and a few UX tweaks and enhancements, it'll be solid.
Listbuilding is literally broken for some factions, how is that straightforward?
tauist wrote: I certainly wouldn't mind future updtes to these units.. but why even bother to call em Legends in that case?
to keep em out of the tournament scene, which had the unfortunate issue that certain factions had their whole shooting there... cough decimators and CSM + derivatives.
We haven't seen the points yet, but I don't know if any of these will be as busted as some of the most offending datasheets on the indexes out so far..
GW stated that if it is in the Legends of the HH that it isn't torunament legal (e.g. all in those PDF's). So it doesn't matter, all that is in these 3 pdfs are "fine for matched play", which considering that matched play tends to follow the torunaments and becomes / tends to become default rules for pick up games is basically wishfull thinking from GW.
Thankfully I only play with friends, but my point was, why'd these few sheets not be halal for tourney use, but several, more busted sheets are? Suppose I already know the answer... Chaosistency?
No, 40k ruleswriter team still feuding with the FW team probably. Also they heard people wanted reduction and consolidation, especially of marines, which meant that CSM had clearly to many options.
Would you care for another primaris marine datasheet though?
of course the sheets themselves are positively ... tame... so why they aren't kosher is a whole other debate atleast form a rulespoint, but then again the tourney scene already wants to ban Eldar in some places.
Contrary to all the naysayers here, I think the app is smooth and I just built a Ravenguard, Eldar and sisters army in 10mins. Maybe because I’m old, but the app works exactly how I want it to (unlike battlescribe which I hated with a passion).
Is it perfect? No, but far better than previous version. Just keep an eye on bottom left box to make sure you’re legal as you progress.
No, 40k ruleswriter team still feuding with the FW team probably.
There is no FW40K team. All 40k rules have been written by the same studio since at least the start of 9th, probably due to what happened with the 8th edition Imperial Armour books.
No, 40k ruleswriter team still feuding with the FW team probably.
There is no FW40K team. All 40k rules have been written by the same studio since at least the start of 9th, probably due to what happened with the 8th edition Imperial Armour books.
You can still feud with them, by tarnishing their works. Spite is a hell of a motivator.
tauist wrote: I certainly wouldn't mind future updtes to these units.. but why even bother to call em Legends in that case?
to keep em out of the tournament scene, which had the unfortunate issue that certain factions had their whole shooting there... cough decimators and CSM + derivatives.
We haven't seen the points yet, but I don't know if any of these will be as busted as some of the most offending datasheets on the indexes out so far..
GW stated that if it is in the Legends of the HH that it isn't torunament legal (e.g. all in those PDF's). So it doesn't matter, all that is in these 3 pdfs are "fine for matched play", which considering that matched play tends to follow the torunaments and becomes / tends to become default rules for pick up games is basically wishfull thinking from GW.
Thankfully I only play with friends, but my point was, why'd these few sheets not be halal for tourney use, but several, more busted sheets are? Suppose I already know the answer... Chaosistency?
No, 40k ruleswriter team still feuding with the FW team probably.
Also they heard people wanted reduction and consolidation, especially of marines, which meant that CSM had clearly to many options.
Would you care for another primaris marine datasheet though?
of course the sheets themselves are positively ... tame... so why they aren't kosher is a whole other debate atleast form a rulespoint, but then again the tourney scene already wants to ban Eldar in some places.
i wonder if the indexes are more up to date or the app?
i noticed one difference on the krieg infantry entry.
the index lists the medipak with no actual way to equip it but the app doesnt even mention it.
I've been knocking out some 1000pt lists trying to figure out what I want to build towards and I have to say, the new list builder app seems pretty decent so far! I'm a diehard Battlescribe user previously, but I'm not really sure what that app could do over this, other than not require a W+ sub to use...
GW also said with 9th that the App is always more up to date and take priority over other sources
people just ignored it (for reasons) so depending on the TOs if they give priority to the app or pdf+Errata
Voss wrote: Not sure why predator variant weapons aren't here, nor why the Kratos has access to some of the additional sponson weapons, but Sicarans don't.
I'm not sure the people writing this had any idea what the miniatures can actually have.
I love how the default weaponry of the Relic Comtemptor - Heavy Plasma Cannons - aren't even on the Contemptor's datasheet.
[EDIT]: In fact, the Heavy Plasma Cannons are no where in the entire Index.
Not Online!!! wrote: You can still feud with them, by tarnishing their works. Spite is a hell of a motivator.
those are Legends anyway, there for people who once bought those and have them on the shelf to know that they still have "value" and are not wasted money
not intended to be used in real games
kodos wrote: not intended to be used in real games
I do hope you're being facetious.
REAL men ONLY play tournament games with no holds barred. If i'm not punching your throat as hard as possible, it isnt REAL 40k and you're hobbying wrong. Crusade and narrative are for ABSOLUTE CHUMPS. Time to get good and buy the FOTM undercosted unit, hope you already have 3 wraithknight, baby.
Dunno if anyone else has clocked it previous, but at least Darksphere (10% discount) and Element (RRP) have copies of Leviathan available for pre-order.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno if anyone else has clocked it previous, but at least Darksphere (10% discount) and Element (RRP) have copies of Leviathan available for pre-order.
Makes sense that they have been pumping out quantities in the quiet week and a half odd since the preorder.
So the app either seems to be awful, or great. So to parse from this it is OK with the removal of bugs and introduction of some quality of life features it should be relatively decent in the long term?. Whether it is worth paying for in the future is a case of YMMV.
kodos wrote: GW also said with 9th that the App is always more up to date and take priority over other sources
people just ignored it (for reasons) so depending on the TOs if they give priority to the app or pdf+Errata
In theory - it wasn't up to date in practice. With things streamlined as they are now it should hopefully be easier for them to manage.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno if anyone else has clocked it previous, but at least Darksphere (10% discount) and Element (RRP) have copies of Leviathan available for pre-order.
The Outpost did have some up as well for £120 iirc,
What you won’t find in this download are units from the Adeptus Custodes and Knight Households. You can find their rules in the associated Imperial Armour compendiums, which will be released in the near future. Also coming soon are the datasheets for those non-Heresy-era units entering Legends.
Ah yes, my Heresy era Blood Slaughterers and Brass Scorpion, I bid you adieu
Boaring Action rules will be released tomorrow. Hopefully it's more than a 1 pager like the Crusade post which just says "buy the new crusade book"
kodos wrote: GW also said with 9th that the App is always more up to date and take priority over other sources
people just ignored it (for reasons) so depending on the TOs if they give priority to the app or pdf+Errata
In theory - it wasn't up to date in practice. With things streamlined as they are now it should hopefully be easier for them to manage.
if I recall correctly it was the same as it was now, pre-launch there were difference between app and other sources and it was decided to ignore the app because this must be the ones with the mistakes
and than it was basically abandoned with the negative reviews at launch
It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?
I'm a noob trying out 10th as my first 40k foray, having only played a few AoS 2nd games. Honestly I'm relieved the units can just be built via the instructions. I was dreading having to research loadouts out of fear that I'd screw everything up without having rolled a single die. I also don't see WYSIWYG as an issue. If someone objects to my loadout not matching, I probably won't play with them much.
Not sure if serious...
...but just in case. I would suggest reading the core rules and researching loadouts if you want to play anything beyond Combat Patrol.
Totally serious. I can't wait to get some plastic dudes on the table! I'll be reading up on rules and such, just want to avoid the feelbad of messing everything up without even knowing it. But I can understand the change is a big step down in customization.
It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?
I'm a noob trying out 10th as my first 40k foray, having only played a few AoS 2nd games. Honestly I'm relieved the units can just be built via the instructions. I was dreading having to research loadouts out of fear that I'd screw everything up without having rolled a single die. I also don't see WYSIWYG as an issue. If someone objects to my loadout not matching, I probably won't play with them much.
Not sure if serious...
...but just in case. I would suggest reading the core rules and researching loadouts if you want to play anything beyond Combat Patrol.
Totally serious. I can't wait to get some plastic dudes on the table! I'll be reading up on rules and such, just want to avoid the feelbad of messing everything up without even knowing it. But I can understand the change is a big step down in customization.
well, now you can be happy since there is an even bigger trap just ready for you.
No, 40k ruleswriter team still feuding with the FW team probably.
Also they heard people wanted reduction and consolidation, especially of marines, which meant that CSM had clearly to many options.
.
What feud rulewriter has over miniature designer...
Rather look at marketing department. Margin on plastic far greater so op rules on plastra more profitable.
usernamesareannoying wrote: i wonder if the indexes are more up to date or the app?
i noticed one difference on the krieg infantry entry.
the index lists the medipak with no actual way to equip it but the app doesnt even mention it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno if anyone else has clocked it previous, but at least Darksphere (10% discount) and Element (RRP) have copies of Leviathan available for pre-order.
Makes sense that they have been pumping out quantities in the quiet week and a half odd since the preorder.
So the app either seems to be awful, or great. So to parse from this it is OK with the removal of bugs and introduction of some quality of life features it should be relatively decent in the long term?. Whether it is worth paying for in the future is a case of YMMV.
Uhhuh they haven't been doing more leviathan boxes. you don't do pile of them in short notice and this was 1 run and done.
Rather cancellations anyway. Those always happen and 10th looks to be divisive. Not surprising that people, especially tournament "competitive ones, cancel preorders.
Positively surprised by the new app, works much better on iPads now! Still forces you into portrait mode for some reason, but at least it doesn't need to be zoomed like the previous abomination.
I just can't build my list with this since it doesn't have the new legend entries.. include those in the app and you will have my subscription
Overall, I feel list building with this is faster and seems more fluent than with Battlescribe (which to be fair is developed for desktops in terms of UI)
For actually playing tho, I think I'll prefer a custom PDF made from all my datasheets, will be faster to use
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno if anyone else has clocked it previous, but at least Darksphere (10% discount) and Element (RRP) have copies of Leviathan available for pre-order.
Makes sense that they have been pumping out quantities in the quiet week and a half odd since the preorder.
So the app either seems to be awful, or great. So to parse from this it is OK with the removal of bugs and introduction of some quality of life features it should be relatively decent in the long term?. Whether it is worth paying for in the future is a case of YMMV.
Uhhuh they haven't been doing more leviathan boxes. you don't do pile of them in short notice and this was 1 run and done.
Rather cancellations anyway. Those always happen and 10th looks to be divisive. Not surprising that people, especially tournament "competitive ones, cancel preorders.
GW did say it was a 2 week window preorder and they are suggesting people to look into their stores this weekend... Would not be surprised if it was extra boxes allocated just for the 2nd week. Cancelations also is a possibility but Element has this new window open for a couple days and still not sold out... loads of cancelations does not seem right.
I dont know guys but after avoiding it like the plague I think this last minute window has sucked me in... oh noes
I think alot of people will have double or triple tapped on the box. I know I grabbed one from GW but was able to get one at discount from a FLGS, so after a few days cancelled the GW order. I can see quite a few people doing that especially given the recent issues with things like Killteam boxes.
I know I wound up with 2 erroneous charges because webpages were breaking down. So yes chances are more than a few people wound up with more boxes than they needed and cancelled them.
There's also the fact that many of these stores staggered their distribution of stock. Some on the day itself in doing waves of pre-orders and even holding stock back for physical release since not all their customers will be in the online world.
For GW there's also likely a sense of letting the dust settle and adjusting stock based on the actual sales rates and such.
So yep plenty of space for stores to have more material than was put up for pre-order.
I also expect an explosion of more material in trader groups and ebay to happen steadily over the next few days up to the weekend and into early next week. Which in theory will bring the prices down for a while. Tyranids I expect to go down fairly well on the big things, modest on the troops; Marines might have a more dulled curve because they are more popular by far, but still I'd expect a lowering in trader groups for a little bit then a steady/rapid rise as the stock gets bought up
With the WH Community post on the app mentioning that you can enter a code from the codex (codex code? cododex?) to unlock options on the app, I'm wondering if that will apply to ebooks too. I'm really unlikely to actually buy any dead tree books for this edition, apart from possibly the main rulebook.
SgtEeveell wrote: With the WH Community post on the app mentioning that you can enter a code from the codex (codex code? cododex?) to unlock options on the app, I'm wondering if that will apply to ebooks too. I'm really unlikely to actually buy any dead tree books for this edition, apart from possibly the main rulebook.
Very unlikely, they have had the codes for a long while now for 40k and Age of Sigmar but no sign of ebooks returning.
SgtEeveell wrote: With the WH Community post on the app mentioning that you can enter a code from the codex (codex code? cododex?) to unlock options on the app, I'm wondering if that will apply to ebooks too. I'm really unlikely to actually buy any dead tree books for this edition, apart from possibly the main rulebook.
there are no ebooks, were already gone with last edition and are not returning for now
I really wish they hadn’t abandoned ebooks as I much preferred those. Wish I could just buy a digital app code online for cheap instead of being required to pay for the overpriced paper packaging the physical codes come in.
Sunno wrote: The new 40K app is just very very very poor.
Compare it to other apps from other companies.
Are you comparing it to other companies apps in the niche on their launch day state though?
The new app is a little rough in some places and clearly didn't hire enough or listen to SQA, but it's a solid enough foundation if they don't just stall and call it done.
Trickstick wrote: Which do people consider to be the definitive set of rules? The pdfs on warcom, or the app? If there is a conflict, which is correct?
The PDF, because it is more widely available. Anyone with internet access, regardless of how they access it, can get the PDF.
RaptorusRex wrote: All they had to do to outcompete the third party options was to make a free app. It's baffling why they didn't.
As long as points are free it doesn't matter much. It looks to me like the datasheets will be available, but not the builder and that's all that I need. If the sub cost is just having Warhammer+ then all the better.
RaptorusRex wrote: All they had to do to outcompete the third party options was to make a free app. It's baffling why they didn't.
As long as points are free it doesn't matter much. It looks to me like the datasheets will be available, but not the builder and that's all that I need. If the sub cost is just having Warhammer+ then all the better.
Dudeface wrote:
RaptorusRex wrote: All they had to do to outcompete the third party options was to make a free app. It's baffling why they didn't.
At this stage, what 3rd party options? I'm sure they won't be far behind, but we've no idea what anything will cost atm.
While Battlescribe and its offshoots are on the ropes right now, they will eventually scrounge together something that will have less errors than the app. I've already personally seen plenty of Guard players confused over the Infantry Squad's loadout because of discrepancies between the datasheet and the app.
And while I don't really engage in salty posting, it is telling that GW is the sole holdout in a wargames scene full of free listbuilder apps. Mantic, Warlord, etc. all have one.
It's pretty surprising that they would want to lock the app behind a WH+ subscription. I would think that the marketing and data collection opportunities of having a free app that every Warhammer player uses would justify the costs of creating and maintaining such an app.
Sunno wrote: The new 40K app is just very very very poor.
Compare it to other apps from other companies.
Are you comparing it to other companies apps in the niche on their launch day state though?
The new app is a little rough in some places and clearly didn't hire enough or listen to SQA, but it's a solid enough foundation if they don't just stall and call it done.
Are you saying we should give a multi million dollar company with thousands of people working for them the same excuses as a small indi company with 10 people
Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch
Pariah Press wrote: It's pretty surprising that they would want to lock the app behind a WH+ subscription. I would think that the marketing and data collection opportunities of having a free app that every Warhammer player uses would justify the costs of creating and maintaining such an app.
You would be right. But, in the words of a GW CEO of the past, market research is otiose in a niche. It seems that for all that has changed, GW is still the same when it comes to them not understanding the value of user data and business intelligence.
Okay, so I'm gonna be honest. With this edition, no wargear cost, unit blocks and datacards printable. An app kinda feels uneeded. I use it for HH to quickly reference stuff. In 10th you can just have the card there to reference units and list writing is straightforward if a little boring.
kodos wrote: Are you saying we should give a multi million dollar company with thousands of people working for them the same excuses as a small indi company with 10 people
Wouldn't be the first time he's suggested that this week.
In the assembly instructions for the Sternguard in the Leviathan box, the Combi-Plasma and Combi-Melta have different rules, the former being Anti-Monster/Hazardous, he latter being Anti-Vehicle/Melta. The Lieutenant's Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover as well.
Hmm...
Insectum7 wrote: The Heavy Plasma Cannon is an option for the Boxnaught on its datasheet. There's also a Twin Heavy Plasma Cannon available for the Storm Raven.
Which is fantastic, but neither of those sheets are in this Index. And, again, these are the base weapons of this unit, and aren't in its rules. That is quite silly.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In the assembly instructions for the Sternguard in the Leviathan box, the Combi-Plasma and Combi-Melta have different rules, the former being Anti-Monster/Hazardous, he latter being Anti-Vehicle/Melta. The Lieutenant's Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover as well.
Hmm...
Maybe the Sternguard sprue and instructions are future-proofed for a Codex release where Combi-plasma, combi-melta, and combi-flamer are restored as datacard options?
Man, I can almost make myself believe that. Clap a little harder...
It's not impossible that the codex will re-introduce some of the consolidated wargear options. In fact, I'd say its more than likely, with the indexes being free, the codexes need to have a bunch of new stuff to justify their purchase
Sunno wrote: The new 40K app is just very very very poor.
Compare it to other apps from other companies.
Are you comparing it to other companies apps in the niche on their launch day state though?
The new app is a little rough in some places and clearly didn't hire enough or listen to SQA, but it's a solid enough foundation if they don't just stall and call it done.
Are you saying we should give a multi million dollar company with thousands of people working for them the same excuses as a small indi company with 10 people
Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch
It is useful and "ready". GW did exactly what most multi-million dollar companies with thousands of employees none of which will be app devs do with the last one. They outsource it because they don't know wtf they're doing. They likely hired a small team in the interim, which if memory serves right they were hiring devs about 18 months ago. If they got this far in 18 months from a standing start then that's not terrible depending on team size.
Although I appreciate dodging the question completely.
Are you saying we should give a multi million dollar company with thousands of people working for them the same excuses as a small indi company with 10 people
Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch
It is useful and "ready". GW did exactly what most multi-million dollar companies with thousands of employees none of which will be app devs do with the last one. They outsource it because they don't know wtf they're doing. They likely hired a small team in the interim, which if memory serves right they were hiring devs about 18 months ago. If they got this far in 18 months from a standing start then that's not terrible depending on team size.
Although I appreciate dodging the question completely.
It's also worth pointing out that pointing out that GW have thousands of employees is disingenuous at best, their last annual report shows 2,554, but design and development is only 348. The lion's share is production, distribution and retailing, hell they have more admin staff that design staff.
Sure that's a fair few more than a small indi company with 10 people, but by the time you take out middle managers, sculptors, painters, artists etc, there won't be that many actually working on game design or on the app.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In the assembly instructions for the Sternguard in the Leviathan box, the Combi-Plasma and Combi-Melta have different rules, the former being Anti-Monster/Hazardous, he latter being Anti-Vehicle/Melta. The Lieutenant's Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover as well.
Hmm...
This is so, so weird. I see no logic why they wouldn't just use those profiles then in the indexes. I know there doesn't need to be. But I still find it really weird. Interesting and hopeful as well. Although I'm not sure if I prefer more boring universal rules or more flavorful rules that are drip fed to the game via codexes... the fact that it will take years to get everyone a codex is to me the worst part of their current business/release model. Ugh.
Sure that's a fair few more than a small indi company with 10 people, but by the time you take out middle managers, sculptors, painters, artists etc, there won't be that many actually working on game design or on the app.
but GW can hire ones
they don't need to have the 1 designer there is to do 3 other jobs because they cannot afford a dedicated app designer
and it is not that 10th was a surprised launch because somehow everyone expected it to be 5 years until the next edition
they could and can hire as many people as necessary as many years as necessary in advance without any problem to come up with an app were they just need to add in the digital version of the cards (and not copy&paste plain text and format it so that similar named rules get mismatched)
could have also made a database to manage all the cards no matter if they go into the app, the pdf, the codex or being printed standalone, so that all of those are the same and not with different typos each time
if you need 10 people to do that over 2 years, it is literally no problem to get 10 more people just for that task
for a company like GW there is no excuse not doing it and specially not the indi/start-up excuse that there are not enough people and not enough money
Sure that's a fair few more than a small indi company with 10 people, but by the time you take out middle managers, sculptors, painters, artists etc, there won't be that many actually working on game design or on the app.
but GW can hire ones
they don't need to have the 1 designer there is to do 3 other jobs because they cannot afford a dedicated app designer
and it is not that 10th was a surprised launch because somehow everyone expected it to be 5 years until the next edition
they could and can hire as many people as necessary as many years as necessary in advance without any problem to come up with an app were they just need to add in the digital version of the cards (and not copy&paste plain text and format it so that similar named rules get mismatched)
could have also made a database to manage all the cards no matter if they go into the app, the pdf, the codex or being printed standalone, so that all of those are the same and not with different typos each time
if you need 10 people to do that over 2 years, it is literally no problem to get 10 more people just for that task
for a company like GW there is no excuse not doing it and specially not the indi/start-up excuse that there are not enough people and not enough money
They're not a software development company, how would you expect them to know how many people or how long they need? They've little experience in the field, that's exactly the point. Half the problems the dev team will face will be the misunderstanding of people going "Oh it's easy my mate made an app in 2 weeks in a shed with a typewriter" because it's not as simple as a lot of people act like it is.
Sure that's a fair few more than a small indi company with 10 people, but by the time you take out middle managers, sculptors, painters, artists etc, there won't be that many actually working on game design or on the app.
but GW can hire ones
they don't need to have the 1 designer there is to do 3 other jobs because they cannot afford a dedicated app designer
and it is not that 10th was a surprised launch because somehow everyone expected it to be 5 years until the next edition
they could and can hire as many people as necessary as many years as necessary in advance without any problem to come up with an app were they just need to add in the digital version of the cards (and not copy&paste plain text and format it so that similar named rules get mismatched)
could have also made a database to manage all the cards no matter if they go into the app, the pdf, the codex or being printed standalone, so that all of those are the same and not with different typos each time
if you need 10 people to do that over 2 years, it is literally no problem to get 10 more people just for that task
for a company like GW there is no excuse not doing it and specially not the indi/start-up excuse that there are not enough people and not enough money
I feel like you missunderstand Games Workshops priorites, sure they could throw resources at it to make a fantastic app, but as Dudeface said they're not a software company. As far and GW is concerned they make and sell miniatures. The games are marketing tools, the app is at best, a small part of that marketing tool. It's never going to be a priority. I'm sure the individuals working on it want it to be good, but I doubt their bosses care provided that it's functional. Setting your bar much higher than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.
If they're charging for it, then a level of quality shouldn't just be assumed, it should be required. You can't just go "It's a marketing tool!" when you're making your customers pay for your marketing.
If they're charging for it, then a level of quality shouldn't just be assumed, it should be required. You can't just go "It's a marketing tool!" when you're making your customers pay for your marketing.
What's required is that it's functional, whether the quality is worth the cost is up to the consumers. That may be annoying or even infuriating, but it's reality.
If they're charging for it, then a level of quality shouldn't just be assumed, it should be required. You can't just go "It's a marketing tool!" when you're making your customers pay for your marketing.
That's their choice, they want a return on their investment and clearly don't see its free use doing that. No software launches perfectly, the turn around on fixes and ongoing support is the yard stick you should be judging it by. I'm not fussed about GW charging or anything, just that people give the devs a chance without just crapping on their work due to it being GW.
Dudeface wrote: That's their choice, they want a return on their investment and clearly don't see its free use doing that.
That is neither a good excuse nor does it justify their actions. If anything it makes the criticism even more valid.
Dudeface wrote: No software launches perfectly, the turn around on fixes and ongoing support is the yard stick you should be judging it by.
Never said it had to be perfect on launch, but being a buggy mess or being full of errors at launch is pretty bad. I don't think anyone did, actually. I think functionality was expected, and pointing out areas where it is failing at functionality should be encouraged in the hope that they fix it.
Dudeface wrote: I'm not fussed about GW charging or anything, just that people give the devs a chance without just crapping on their work due to it being GW.
The devs had a chance prior to launch. "We'll fix it in post" is an unhealthy mentality GW shouldn't have, nor any software developers they're working with.
Dudeface wrote: That's their choice, they want a return on their investment and clearly don't see its free use doing that.
That is neither a good excuse nor does it justify their actions. If anything it makes the criticism even more valid.
Dudeface wrote: No software launches perfectly, the turn around on fixes and ongoing support is the yard stick you should be judging it by.
Never said it had to be perfect on launch, but being a buggy mess or being full of errors at launch is pretty bad. I don't think anyone did, actually. I think functionality was expected, and pointing out areas where it is failing at functionality should be encouraged in the hope that they fix it.
Dudeface wrote: I'm not fussed about GW charging or anything, just that people give the devs a chance without just crapping on their work due to it being GW.
The devs had a chance prior to launch. "We'll fix it in post" is an unhealthy mentality GW shouldn't have, nor any software developers they're working with.
Criticise away the choice to make it chargeable, but again the devs won't have chosen the release date and GW weren't going to move it because the app needed polish. But 100% raise the areas it does badly/behaves incorrectly, they might be aware already but it'll add pressure to sort it sooner. Just make sure it's raised with them, not just the forum.
I feel like you missunderstand Games Workshops priorites, sure they could throw resources at it to make a fantastic app, but as Dudeface said they're not a software company. As far and GW is concerned they make and sell miniatures. The games are marketing tools, the app is at best, a small part of that marketing tool. It's never going to be a priority. I'm sure the individuals working on it want it to be good, but I doubt their bosses care provided that it's functional. Setting your bar much higher than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.
I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum
that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse
there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag
A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this
GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy
GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free
GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse
I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum
that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse
there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag
A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this
GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy
GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free
GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse
I feel like you missunderstand Games Workshops priorites, sure they could throw resources at it to make a fantastic app, but as Dudeface said they're not a software company. As far and GW is concerned they make and sell miniatures. The games are marketing tools, the app is at best, a small part of that marketing tool. It's never going to be a priority. I'm sure the individuals working on it want it to be good, but I doubt their bosses care provided that it's functional. Setting your bar much higher than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.
I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum
that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse
there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag
A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this
GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy
GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free
GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse
Great example, as Porsche charge you a subscription for that suite of best in class connectivity:
If they're charging for it, then a level of quality shouldn't just be assumed, it should be required. You can't just go "It's a marketing tool!" when you're making your customers pay for your marketing.
Heh. White Dwarf is a merketing tool they charge for.
Not trying to excuse their behavior. Just an observation.
Insectum7 wrote: The Heavy Plasma Cannon is an option for the Boxnaught on its datasheet. There's also a Twin Heavy Plasma Cannon available for the Storm Raven.
Which is fantastic, but neither of those sheets are in this Index. And, again, these are the base weapons of this unit, and aren't in its rules. That is quite silly.
Oh I guess I don't know what index your'retalking about, then.
Dudeface wrote: but are you going to go to the Porsche forums and tell them it should be free?
people do, haven't seen anyone defending this and a lot of complaining as it offers nothing over carplay which is free
but to be fair with Porsche, if you buy one of their cars it is included for the first 3 years so comparing it with GW, if you buy Leviathan the App would be free until the next Edition launches
One tournament organizer in German seems to have banned 10th completely.
BTW if you are comparing porche thing with GW you can't say GW should have free for next edition to be same as porche. 3 years yes for porche free but unless porche lifetime is 3 years it's not same. It's relative % of lifetime that matters. Not absolute numbers.
Snord wrote: How on earth do threads like this get to the point of comparing GW with Porsche???
GW itself considers its product to be worthy of comparably luxury hobby objects.
And arguably on the model front, there are some that reach the quality standard, but of course it is kinda absurd in comparison and stems from the broad 4 product types scheme that exists in buissness classes. (i don't got the name right now and my economy courses are now quite a few years behind so i am sorry).
Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch
This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.
Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.
I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.
Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch
This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.
Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.
I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.
You could start making the app before you had any of the rules for 10th, because much of the work that goes into the app, such as database design, logic, etc. functions exactly the same regardless of what the rules turn out to be. I've worked in software design, making a web portal for an international shipping insurance company. That required me to write code that would automatically populate the fields on an insurance policy document based on user input. I was able to make that code using Lorum Ipsum long before I got sent the actual policy text templates by the company in question. And those policy template texts were revised multiple times throughout development, but that was easy to fix as all it required was updating database entries for the relevant information.
For instance, GW always knew they were going to be making use of special rules and keywords. The developer doesn't need to know what the finalised text of the special rules is to code in a system where you can tap on a keyword on a weapon profile and it opens a box telling you what that keyword means. They don't need to know how many special weapons a space marine squad can take to code in logic where the app checks your selections against a limit in the database and doesn't let you add more than you are allowed.
xttz is right: GW didn't start working on 10th Edition three years ago. They started two years ago.
Insectum7 wrote: White Dwarf is a merketing tool they charge for.
That's a grey area. WD certain contains advertisements, and it can be seen as a form of advertisement from a broad perspective, but it is also a form of entertainment. Transformers and GI Joe are ostensibly toy commercials, but that doesn't mean they don't have any value outside of a toy commercial.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh I guess I don't know what index your'retalking about, then.
The so-called "Heresy era" Legends Indices that came out yesterday.
Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch
This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.
Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.
I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.
GW knew that the new Editon will be 3 years in the future, and GW had an App for 40k that wa snot working well while at the same time have an App for AoS that gets the job done
the App designer does not need to know the details in rules or what army composition will look like to make the interface working or to have an easy rules input for quick updates from one source (so that Datacards in the App and Datacards to download are always the same)
if you need a complete game to design the App around it, well if GW has really done that, we are going to see a new App with 11th simply because it won't be compatible with any change coming with the new Edition (or even will be broken with the mid Edition design shift)
the basic functionality of an App for Wargaming are always the same, chose units, chose options, cross link rules and sum up the points
easy army can handle several different games with the same basic program, that GW needs to have a finished product to design those features is not an excuse but just not understanding who those things should work in the first place
and that the GW App is missing the basic feature that if I chose one option, wargear that is replaced is not unchecked as well shows that the App was not designed with "final" product in mind
for designing an App for a game that does not exist, Battlescribe was developed for game that does not exist, it was designed with basic features to be compatible with any game
and GW must have made the decision to not use the base of the old App for their new Edition and if they did not made that early on but later and therefore had not enough time to do it right, it is their own fault and no reason to show sympathy or excuse it
Not like GW had 3 years time to make something useful and ready at launch
This is a flawed point that seems to have been skipped over. They only had three years to develop a new app if you assume that 10th edition was designed, written, and nigh-complete three years ago. We know that it wasn't, and no one is going to start developing an app for a game that doesn't yet exist.
Between comments by studio staff and the customer survey GW put out in late 2021, it's highly likely that the final design of the game wasn't nailed down until at least early 2022. It's also probable that writing on the 2000+ datasheets for indexes, IA, Legends, and Combat Patrol rules continued into 2023.
I would very surprised if the developers were able to spend more than 6-12 months on this new app.
GW knew that the new Editon will be 3 years in the future, and GW had an App for 40k that wa snot working well while at the same time have an App for AoS that gets the job done
the App designer does not need to know the details in rules or what army composition will look like to make the interface working or to have an easy rules input for quick updates from one source (so that Datacards in the App and Datacards to download are always the same)
if you need a complete game to design the App around it, well if GW has really done that, we are going to see a new App with 11th simply because it won't be compatible with any change coming with the new Edition (or even will be broken with the mid Edition design shift)
the basic functionality of an App for Wargaming are always the same, chose units, chose options, cross link rules and sum up the points
easy army can handle several different games with the same basic program, that GW needs to have a finished product to design those features is not an excuse but just not understanding who those things should work in the first place
and that the GW App is missing the basic feature that if I chose one option, wargear that is replaced is not unchecked as well shows that the App was not designed with "final" product in mind
for designing an App for a game that does not exist, Battlescribe was developed for game that does not exist, it was designed with basic features to be compatible with any game
and GW must have made the decision to not use the base of the old App for their new Edition and if they did not made that early on but later and therefore had not enough time to do it right, it is their own fault and no reason to show sympathy or excuse it
A database needs a schema to work, that schema needs to map out the relations between the data, which can't be made until you know whether say, wargear will cost points or not.
A database needs a schema to work, that schema needs to map out the relations between the data, which can't be made until you know whether say, wargear will cost points or not.
Or, you could build it so the wargear could cost points, and if they decide they don't (either just in combat patrol or throughout the edition) you just set the cost value to zero.
I feel like you missunderstand Games Workshops priorites, sure they could throw resources at it to make a fantastic app, but as Dudeface said they're not a software company. As far and GW is concerned they make and sell miniatures. The games are marketing tools, the app is at best, a small part of that marketing tool. It's never going to be a priority. I'm sure the individuals working on it want it to be good, but I doubt their bosses care provided that it's functional. Setting your bar much higher than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.
I don't care what their priorities are, they want me to pay for a product and as the biggest wargaming company I expect a certain minimum
that they are not a software company, or don't want to invest money into a product is not of my business, and for sure nothing I should have sympathy or see it as a good excuse
there is a certain bar for the luxury and high quality product with a luxury and high quality price tag
A Porsche not having a better software for linking my phone as a Dacia because those are car companies and not software companies and therefore I should not expect the Porsche to be better because this is not their priority is bs if GW wants to be the best and charge high prices, they need to deliver high level products and there is no excuse for this
GW wants to be Porsche of Wargaming they is a certain minimum required which is higher than for everyone else
that the small companies must be cheaper and better than GW while GW gets away with this things because "reasons" is a white knight level fanboy
GW is a miniature company and therefore we should not expect a good product for anything else but miniatures is bs because than everything but their miniatures should be free
GW is not an Indi company were "not our priority" or "we are not into software" is an excuse
I fear I'm going to come across as nitpicky and confrontational but this is just a bad analogy. Porche make cars, GW make miniatures. The 40k app to GW is more akin to a branded keyring to Porche, it is not their core business and it will never get the resource allocation that their core business gets. I'm not saying you have to be happy about it, just that we have to be realistic. Yes the app should be functional, it would be really good if it went beyond that, but expecting Porche quality out of the army building app is naive.
A database needs a schema to work, that schema needs to map out the relations between the data, which can't be made until you know whether say, wargear will cost points or not.
Or, you could build it so the wargear could cost points, and if they decide they don't (either just in combat patrol or throughout the edition) you just set the cost value to zero.
You'd make a good project manager or pre-sales. But ultimately that's time and wasted effort building things on a what-if.
Exactly, it'd be a waste of time to build a system let you spend points on anything other than models for 10th when there isn't a single other way of spending points.
It's not like Enhancements exist or anything.
Oh wait...
starting with the first 10th edition GT in Germany (Münsterland GT) we will use the following houserules in order to make the game enjoyable for all players:
[Towering] has no impact on measuring line of sights (measure as with every other model)
Wraithknights Heavy Wraithcannons lose the [Devastating Wounds] ability
Fatedice are limited to one dice per unit per phase
[Indirect] fire suffers the same penalty as in 9th edition (-1BS and +1 to save) in addition to any other applicable rules like cover [Stealth], etc. and cannot benefit from the +1 to hit for being [Heavy] when fired without line of sight (model wise)
Thousand Sons “Twist of Fate” Cabal Ritual is modified to “any armour saving throws of the unit are modified by -2” instead
The range of the “Fire Overwatch” stratagem is reduced to 12” and only visible units can be shot
Mortal Wounds from a single unit are capped at 6 MW per unit per phase when targeted at a non-Monster or non-Vehicle unit, any additional wounds e.g. with Assault Canons are then handled as normal (saves can be made etc.)
Models can move over and stay on objectives without limitations (as per 9th)
Lone Operative and similar abilities are subject to investigation of how to fix them best (tbd.)
This should be seen as a first try to restore the fun of Warhammer 40k
I fear I'm going to come across as nitpicky and confrontational but this is just a bad analogy. Porche make cars, GW make miniatures. The 40k app to GW is more akin to a branded keyring to Porche, it is not their core business and it will never get the resource allocation that their core business gets. I'm not saying you have to be happy about it, just that we have to be realistic. Yes the app should be functional, it would be really good if it went beyond that, but expecting Porche quality out of the army building app is naive.
the last time I checked GW also made games and sold them
and having app support for games is standard by now
so unless GW changed and is not selling games any more, having an an army builder for their games is part of their core business
so I guess you are just buying their miniatures to use them with other games and don't play 40k, which is fine
but this is not a reason to say that those that are playing the GW games should not expect the minimum requirements for game support from GW
tneva82 wrote: So what's the towering change doing? As is towering still requires you to have LOS. Only change they can do is ruins block LOS for towering units...
Towering ignores the Obscuring rule so Towering units are more or less always visible and can always see everything in return. That makes them very powerful because you can't hide form them and Towering units are pretty much always very powerful, well-armed models. It's been called out a few times in early battle reports as a problem, alongside the Devastating Wounds issues.
I fear I'm going to come across as nitpicky and confrontational but this is just a bad analogy. Porche make cars, GW make miniatures. The 40k app to GW is more akin to a branded keyring to Porche, it is not their core business and it will never get the resource allocation that their core business gets. I'm not saying you have to be happy about it, just that we have to be realistic. Yes the app should be functional, it would be really good if it went beyond that, but expecting Porche quality out of the army building app is naive.
the last time I checked GW also made games and sold them
and having app support for games is standard by now
so unless GW changed and is not selling games any more, having an an army builder for their games is part of their core business
so I guess you are just buying their miniatures to use them with other games and don't play 40k, which is fine
but this is not a reason to say that those that are playing the GW games should not expect the minimum requirements for game support from GW
So you are expecting perfect app from non-software company as a minimum requirement when even dedicated software companies don't do perfect app's...
Okay that's it. You just proved you aren't even trying to be reasonable but just complain for sake of complaining
Pretty much every single software launched has bugs to begin with and that's when whole lifeline of company is making software...
But OK. GW should drop miniatures, outsource them and focus on app then? Lol.
Companies like Microsoft, Nintendo etc aren't meeting your minimum requirement. Lol.
tneva82 wrote: So you are expecting perfect app from non-software company as a minimum requirement when even dedicated software companies don't do perfect app's...
so we are back to bs arguments to defend GW
I get that GW cannot do anything wrong but this?
ok, so why people expected a working game from a non-gaming company when even the gaming companies don't make perfect games?
so 40k is the best of a game that a non-gaming company can do and we should not expect Mantic Games level rules from a miniature company
I guess GW should just stop making games at all and focus on miniatures to be used in other games if it is only possible to make one thing
Companies like Microsoft, Nintendo etc aren't meeting your minimum requirement. Lol.
I missed that wargame those 2 are making
have link as I am really interested in those games as an alternative to 40k, having an App or not
tneva82 wrote: So you are expecting perfect app from non-software company as a minimum requirement when even dedicated software companies don't do perfect app's...
so we are back to bs arguments to defend GW
I get that GW cannot do anything wrong but this?
ok, so why people expected a working game from a non-gaming company when even the gaming companies don't make perfect games?
so 40k is the best of a game that a non-gaming company can do and we should not expect Mantic Games level rules from a miniature company
I guess GW should just stop making games at all and focus on miniatures to be used in other games if it is only possible to make one thing
Companies like Microsoft, Nintendo etc aren't meeting your minimum requirement. Lol.
I missed that wargame those 2 are making
have link as I am really interested in those games as an alternative to 40k, having an App or not
It's some sort of logical fallacy, not bothering to look it up - there's not just 'broken' and 'perfect', there's a spectrum in between. People are not asking for perfection, they're asking for reasonable standards that are state-of-the-art elsewhere. And that's a reasonable thing to ask for.
Dawnbringer wrote: I'm enjoying the efforts to restore the fun to 40K noting 10th isn't actually released yet.
Not saying there isn't going to be issues with 10th, but seems pretty reactionary to me.
the tournament side have a remarkably simple solution open to them: for the next six months use 9th for tournaments and watch for actual issues with 10th before tryoing to fix it
Tsagualsa wrote: It's some sort of logical fallacy, not bothering to look it up - there's not just 'broken' and 'perfect', there's a spectrum in between. People are not asking for perfection, they're asking for reasonable standards that are state-of-the-art elsewhere. And that's a reasonable thing to ask for.
Exactly. It doesn't really matter who you are or what your focus is, once you are charging money for something. Nobody would buy a car without power steering just because the manufacturer is mainly into selling bubble gum. I'm aware that the app is currently free, but that is most likely going to change soon / relevant parts will get paywalled.
even as a free app it does not do its job as you need to remove wargear that is replaced manually and if you forget to unclick that
which is the minimum I expect from an army builder, to actually build a legal army for that game and not just being a calculator with text output
Tsagualsa wrote: It's some sort of logical fallacy, not bothering to look it up - there's not just 'broken' and 'perfect', there's a spectrum in between. People are not asking for perfection, they're asking for reasonable standards that are state-of-the-art elsewhere. And that's a reasonable thing to ask for.
as I learned today GW is neither a gaming nor a software company (and not a book writing company either) but just a miniature company
therefore expecting anything but miniatures from them as not reasonable at all, and we should be grateful that a miniature company at least try to make rules for a game with software support and no matter how well those work
so they should not be measured on standards from gaming companies but only miniature companies
hence if GW games and app workes better than the game and app from Wargames Atlantic, Victrix Limited or Perry Miniatures, it is already above the standard for miniature companies
Tsagualsa wrote: It's some sort of logical fallacy, not bothering to look it up - there's not just 'broken' and 'perfect', there's a spectrum in between. People are not asking for perfection, they're asking for reasonable standards that are state-of-the-art elsewhere. And that's a reasonable thing to ask for.
Tsagualsa wrote: It's some sort of logical fallacy, not bothering to look it up - there's not just 'broken' and 'perfect', there's a spectrum in between. People are not asking for perfection, they're asking for reasonable standards that are state-of-the-art elsewhere. And that's a reasonable thing to ask for.
False dichotomy/false dilemma/false binary
Yeah, that's the one. Nobody loses their mind over bugs/typos, but i think one can expect - from a release product that is not clearly marked as 'beta' or whatever, mind - that about 80% of the things that are advertised work as intended, and have minor issues at most. Nice-to-have stuff is another question, but an app that is intended as a gaming aid should be actually useable, and useful, to that purpose on release day.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 70 point earthshakers are going to cause a bit of gnashing of teeth I feel.
Note that they could not be arsed to include the points values for the HH stuff for Space Marines, CSM and their relatives, but they did in fact add points for the Astraeus grav-tank and the Thunderhawk for Space Marines, for which we do not have Datasheets yet.
Edit: and the FW Tyranids are suspiciously lacking the Dimachaeron and Malanthrope.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 70 point earthshakers are going to cause a bit of gnashing of teeth I feel.
Note that they could not be arsed to include the points values for the HH stuff for Space Marines, CSM and their relatives, but they did in fact add points for the Astraeus grav-tank and the Thunderhawk for Space Marines, for which we do not have Datasheets yet.
Edit: and the FW Tyranids are suspiciously lacking the Dimachaeron and Malanthrope.
These are just the points for competitive games, it excludes Legends. I'm told via Discord that we'll get the IA datasheets tomorrow.
Not sure how/when the Legends point values are coming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 70 point earthshakers are going to cause a bit of gnashing of teeth I feel.
Note that they could not be arsed to include the points values for the HH stuff for Space Marines, CSM and their relatives, but they did in fact add points for the Astraeus grav-tank and the Thunderhawk for Space Marines, for which we do not have Datasheets yet.
Edit: and the FW Tyranids are suspiciously lacking the Dimachaeron and Malanthrope.
These are just the points for competitive games, it excludes Legends. I'm told via Discord that we'll get the IA datasheets tomorrow.
Not sure how/when the Legends point values are coming.
Most interesting, and thanks for your continued support of this thread!
Trickstick wrote: No engineers, vendetta, thudd gun, medusa, bombard, minotaur.
Engineers are almost 100% certain to be coming in plastic.
On what do you base this certainity?
There's art in the Octarius and Ork books of a slightly reworked Engineer unit.
Makes sense - OTOH, wasn't there also some artwork of redone Death Riders that (so far) never amounted to anything? Around the time 9th edition came out iirc?
Makes sense - OTOH, wasn't there also some artwork of redone Death Riders that (so far) never amounted to anything? Around the time 9th edition came out iirc?
There was a misidentified Rough Riders and a FW Death Riders for two different pieces of art.
I would not be shocked if the other pieces are coming in plastic too. Valkyrie is way long in the tooth and a refreshed kit could work. Same with the Basilisk.
Makes sense - OTOH, wasn't there also some artwork of redone Death Riders that (so far) never amounted to anything? Around the time 9th edition came out iirc?
There was a misidentified Rough Riders and a FW Death Riders for two different pieces of art.
I would not be shocked if the other pieces are coming in plastic too. Valkyrie is way long in the tooth and a refreshed kit could work. Same with the Basilisk.
Basilisk desperately needs a redone kit. Combo it with the Medusa again. Valkyrie is fine as a kit. A plastic Thunderbolt or Lightning would be a lot better. Or even a Vulture.
Makes sense - OTOH, wasn't there also some artwork of redone Death Riders that (so far) never amounted to anything? Around the time 9th edition came out iirc?
There was a misidentified Rough Riders and a FW Death Riders for two different pieces of art.
I would not be shocked if the other pieces are coming in plastic too. Valkyrie is way long in the tooth and a refreshed kit could work. Same with the Basilisk.
Basilisk desperately needs a redone kit. Combo it with the Medusa again. Valkyrie is fine as a kit. A plastic Thunderbolt or Lightning would be a lot better. Or even a Vulture.
If they redo the Basilisk it'll probably be in the context of a new Chimera base kit, and that in turn will probably consume a serious amount of release slots for an edition.
Makes sense - OTOH, wasn't there also some artwork of redone Death Riders that (so far) never amounted to anything? Around the time 9th edition came out iirc?
There was a misidentified Rough Riders and a FW Death Riders for two different pieces of art.
I would not be shocked if the other pieces are coming in plastic too. Valkyrie is way long in the tooth and a refreshed kit could work. Same with the Basilisk.
Basilisk desperately needs a redone kit. Combo it with the Medusa again. Valkyrie is fine as a kit. A plastic Thunderbolt or Lightning would be a lot better. Or even a Vulture.
If they redo the Basilisk it'll probably be in the context of a new Chimera base kit, and that in turn will probably consume a serious amount of release slots for an edition.
The Chimaera was updated a couple editions back. The current basilisk kit uses the old 3rd edition gun and platform sprue with the newer Chimaera hull. It's just the Basilisk parts that need redone, not the whole vehicle.
Makes sense - OTOH, wasn't there also some artwork of redone Death Riders that (so far) never amounted to anything? Around the time 9th edition came out iirc?
There was a misidentified Rough Riders and a FW Death Riders for two different pieces of art.
I would not be shocked if the other pieces are coming in plastic too. Valkyrie is way long in the tooth and a refreshed kit could work. Same with the Basilisk.
Basilisk desperately needs a redone kit. Combo it with the Medusa again. Valkyrie is fine as a kit. A plastic Thunderbolt or Lightning would be a lot better. Or even a Vulture.
If they redo the Basilisk it'll probably be in the context of a new Chimera base kit, and that in turn will probably consume a serious amount of release slots for an edition.
The Chimaera was updated a couple editions back. The current basilisk kit uses the old 3rd edition gun and platform sprue with the newer Chimaera hull. It's just the Basilisk parts that need redone, not the whole vehicle.
That makes more sense, it's reasonable to assume that it will get redone next round then (and probably get the obligatory dual-build with either something existing or a totally new thingy in the process). I assume you could just leave off the longer part of the barrel and add some recoil dampeners etc. to transform it into a Medusa or something similar.
If they redo the Basilisk it'll probably be in the context of a new Chimera base kit, and that in turn will probably consume a serious amount of release slots for an edition.
There's already a "new" Chimera base kit.
That's been part of the issue with the Basilisk going on however many years it has been since the Chimera got reworked. It's why the Basilisk came with a vehicle accessory sprue once they ran out of the "old" Chimeras, and apparently still does. The frame provided for the hull does not feature any of the hull mounted weapons--thus Vehicle Accessory Sprue provides you the Heavy Flamer to use.
A "new" Basilisk could simply be a single sprue, much like the Hydra/Wyvern is for the Chimera.
Basilisk desperately needs a redone kit. Combo it with the Medusa again.
I think the Basilisk might be in line for a total revamp, giving it either the Vanaheim or Armageddon pattern look options built in.
Valkyrie is fine as a kit. A plastic Thunderbolt or Lightning would be a lot better. Or even a Vulture.
I'd love a Vulture in plastic to finish out my air support wing, but I'm definitely thinking the Valkyrie is up for a redo. It was one of their earliest 3D scanned resin to plastic kits, and they could do much better fits now.
).
For 800pts you could have two Wraith Knights or two Imperial Knights. It is also disingenuous to allow a buff for the Stompa and not for the other faction. 
