As the title, what would you like to see in the pipe for 40K, whether it's a new faction, a new model for an existing faction or even new rules, campaigns or whatnot?
For me, I got one wish fulfilling with the recently revealed Skitari transport. However, if I had my choice, I would like to see a new Tau war engine - say a six-legged walker/transport armed with Tau plasma (or a railgun) and missiles. Of course, I wish GW would also get us plastic Eldar aspects as well.
Plastic aspect warriors, a revamp/recut of the eldar guardians akin to what the tau firewarriors got. That kit needs a refresh,..also plastic spiritseer.
Personally, I'd rather see the primarchs left where they've always been, wherever that is (I forget what the fluff is about them). It's getting too much like The End Times/Age of Sigmar, what with the return of Robot Girlyman. I fully expect that, over the next few years, the rich tapestry that is and always has been the 40k that I've known and loved since the early 90s, will be butchered and made unrecognisable in the same way that Warhammer has been.
As for what I'd like from GW over the next 12 months? Difficult question as I'm not that greatly enthused about buying GW product at the moment, haven't been for a while, I might buy a model once a year now...
If I had to nail down some things I'd like to see -
Titans. As an affordable multi-option plastic kit, just because I have this weird yearning for a 40k scale titan but can't afford FW's eye watering prices for one (although I probably don't have display room for one either). Although given the price of Imperial Knight models I understand that the term affordable in conjunction with a Games Workshop product is rather at odds...
More focus on games such as Adeptus Titanicus where you can't already buy the models from existing ranges, not in the same scale at least, might be good if a new version of Epic was brought out...
New tooled plastic [insert Imperial Guard sub-faction here], especially Steel Legion, there's no variation in Imperial Guard anymore and the 'Nam jungle fighters were a laughably poor boxed set even when they were brand new.
Something original. Tau having been a good example of GW jumping on a bandwagon, gundam/anime anyone?! Something that isn't just a blatant excuse for a model range refresh, Primaris anyone?! Something that isn't a gateway product, basically a shill for the existing model range, Kill Team anyone?! (I'm sure the recent Warhammer Quest variants fit into that category also but I can't quite work out how). Basically anything that you can't immediately look at and find a blatantly obvious reason for it being there, just something they wanted to make for the sake of making it, which I know in business these days is a rare occurrence because everything has to tick a number of boxes and fit into x y or z pigeon hole in order to grab as much "market share" and "appeal to as wide a demographic" as possible, yada, yada, yada, yada, random business speak for justifying products, yada, yada, yada, yada look how inclusive our products are yada, yada, yada, yada...
A way of refreshing my 100-ish model 20 year old Dark Angels army with newer fresher models that won't see me having to take out a mortgage...
A less monopose models policy instituted. I've noted a trend in recent years, that whilst many of the new models, mostly characters on foot, are multipart, they're monopose. You put the model together, quite often in a push fit fasihon, and that's it, you can't do anything with them, some are even moulded in such a way that conversions become if not difficult, pointless, due to the amount of work required. For one thing it seems like a massive step backwards to the 90s and the days of metal, especially when you consider that monopose models are cheaper to make, but the cost to us has in fact risen!!
Can I mention cost? Be nice to see an end to the way above inflation (and my disposable income) price hikes...
CA and faq replaced with a simple rules pamphlet that gets replaced twice a year. This would contain all rules at their most recent iteration. It has to be cheap, like 10$ max. Seriously the bloat is at a point where it's almost impossible to resolve rules disputes.
Some new Imperial Guard releases.
IG Veterans kit with options they had back in 7th or better.
Updated Infantry kit.
Rest of the IG range reviewed and made more viable to play, especially the FW stuff.
New non-humanoid Xeno faction or Men of Iron faction.
Gitdakka wrote: CA and faq replaced with a simple rules pamphlet that gets replaced twice a year. This would contain all rules at their most recent iteration. It has to be cheap, like 10$ max. Seriously the bloat is at a point where it's almost impossible to resolve rules disputes.
I actually like CA. The matched play rules updates currently total just one page so that's not really the cause of the bloat. CA also covers all of the points changes across all codexes. I agree that the FAQs are a mess, but I see those more as clarifications than something you need physical copies of during a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for what I want? I'm really looking forward to the new Chaos Knights codex. Model-wise I already have a backlog so no desires there.
Gitdakka wrote: CA and faq replaced with a simple rules pamphlet that gets replaced twice a year. This would contain all rules at their most recent iteration. It has to be cheap, like 10$ max. Seriously the bloat is at a point where it's almost impossible to resolve rules disputes.
And what rules are you willing to see drasticly simplified to make this doable?
I want to see my favourite faction - Corsairs - actually get their rules back.
Seriously, it's beyond a joke at this point. If it was just working with Index rules that would be one thing but they've literally removed ~95% of Corsair units from the game altogether. And it's been like this for bloody years now.
vipoid wrote: I want to see my favourite faction - Corsairs - actually get their rules back.
Seriously, it's beyond a joke at this point. If it was just working with Index rules that would be one thing but they've literally removed ~95% of Corsair units from the game altogether. And it's been like this for bloody years now.
Yep, same show for many fw lists, DKoK got folded into one type, r&h lost 50% of it's troop choices.
A couple of pages written word to help explain what is needed to play the game, and what you need or dont need, and the reasons why this is. I mean a couple of pages explaining it in a way thats easy to understand for soem one who has a couple of brain cells, because i dont understand any thing at all.
Some one made a thread once here asking about if any ones feeling 40k fatigue , and i am feeling it, and always felt it, never till this day undesstood what is needed to play.
For Eldar to get a BIG release chock full of updated sculpts and new models to use. I think of all the 40K armies they've got the most out of date at present and the age really shows on them.
I'd also love if GW really embraced their more exotic alien aspects in the designs - make them more orate and alien than just cone shaped helmets.
What I’d like to get:
I’d like the rules to be brought into line with game play and fluff, rather then marketing. A.k.a get rid of the “no model, no rules” nonsense. And stop the special snowflake just to be special stuff. Every new unit doesn’t need a bespoke rifle with a wacky rule that triggers on a 6. It’s just slowing down the game and adding bloat.
Replace a lot of old finecast models with modern plastics. Not new units that do the same thing, enough of that bloat. Just new kits of old stuff that needs an update. Top on my personal wishlist is plastic aspect warriors, but many armies need this.
While finecast replacements should take priority, there is a lot of aged plastic that could use a re-cut, despite still holding up OK. With new sprue technology and how well they pack things in these days, you could consolidate kits. Dreadnoughts, Eldar grav tanks, a lot of the rhino chassis, etc. There are some other kits that havn’t aged as well that could use being replaced, like SM scouts.
What I am more likely to get (and still be happy with):
Multipart versions of the new vanguard marines. I didn’t care enough to pick up the box, as I only play the marine side, and was “meh” on half that. But suppressors with more options, a small squad of the infiltators, and maybe a trio of eliminators for flavor could find their way to the shelf. But I don’t need those HQs with crap play options (although the Lib is cool looking, but I’m not sure he’s worth clampack prices) Suppressors are something I might kitbash, as I’m not fond of the looks. Might grow on me though.
They’ve recently done a SM vs. Eldar box, which had the best chance to grab me as I play both sides, so it’s unlikely to happen again. But if they had one with new kits, I’d eat that up.
Gahering storm was a mess from a fluff perspective, even tho there where many good ideas in there.
Now we have so many threads that don't lead anywhere, the aeldari fluff is really in a bad state. But it doesn't need much to reconciliate all of it. Unfortunately the new Ynnari Index showed, that GW doesn't know what to do with the Aeldari race.
Furthermore this fluff problem bleeds into the models and rules. There is so much potential with the Ynnari. But... nothing. What about the old Aspects? ... nothing. What about Commoragh just having a massive shake-up? ... nothing. What about the Harlequins - Cegorach - Ynnead relationship? ... nothing.
So GW: What is the path forward for the Aeldari?
Show us that you have a vision where to go from the now. Story, codex, model range...
We don't need the full thing, just hints and tidbits would be enough.
I'd like to see <Traitor Guard> regiment, similar to as <Brood Brothers> are.
Something like:
Traitor Guard
In the Codex: Astra Militarum, replace all IMPERIUM and ASTRA MILITARUM tags with CHAOS and TRAITOR GUARD tags. You cannot include any named characters blah blah blah...
Bringing a concept that was in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex and updated in the "Eye of Terror" campaign book back to life. Some groundwork has been done with the BSF traitor guard already. Add a proper cultists kit, some truly chaotic abominations (somewhere between actual Chaos Spawns and "normal" mutants), some more chaotic upgrades to imperial vehicles, and a new unit or two.
I'd like to see more expansions for Xenos armies (T'au/Necrons/Tyranids in particulars) since they mostly received a codex and nothing else (I don't really consider a single plastic character a "serious model release" for the aforementioned codices)
If love Kroot Mercenaries codex, obviously WE Codex(with daemon Angron model). I'd also like to see some new big things. Like a decent array of 'Knight'-like options for pretty much every army. Sorry guys, I love big robots/monsters lol.
Faction themed terrain that doesn't have special rules attached to it. Upgrade kits with weapons/wargear for most factions. Conversion bits for OOP models with rules. (Sonic Dreadnought, various IG factions, FW Hammerhead variants etc) Terrain Conversion kits like the new Hobbit-hole, but for 40k. An official army builder that uses points and is friendlier to new players than battlescribe.
Other posters have covered a lot of the stuff I'd like to see in terms miniatures for Eldar, DE, Inquisition, IG infantry etc. A couple of things I'd add to that list would be Flayed Ones, C'tan shards, and updated GK kits (in a similar manner to the new CSM). Faction upgrade sprues should also be more of a thing/
In terms of the rules, GW really needs to do a rewrite of the core rules to tighten them up -- a revision that's clear and concise. A reference sheet without the flavour text would be swell. It'd be great if the 40k rules team followed the AoS team in having consistent use of language around functionally identical rules across different codexes. Hopefully we also start seeing some 2.0 codexes for factions that need to consolidate new units (daemons, space marines) or ones that need a fundamental rethink (GK! ).
Edit: Almost forgot to add -- better terrain rules and some proper LoS blocking terrain.
1. A loyalist power armored force that isn't a complete joke.
2. Chaos Slaanesh and/or Khorne codexes. I don't play them, but I wanna SEE them.
3. Look, I KNOW there will be more Primaris releases. Please make some of them both awesome looking AND good in terms of gameplay. All the current units either look mediocre and are good in game (Intercessors), or look awesome and suck in game(Almost everything else?). I won't buy something just because it looks cool, so please make them good?
4. MAYBE new space marine bike models/characters? I feel like the current ones are the same as I was buying in the 90s.
5. New Space Maine codex would be nice.
6. Literally anything exciting for my Tyranids. I have zero hype for them at the moment.
Gitdakka wrote: CA and faq replaced with a simple rules pamphlet that gets replaced twice a year. This would contain all rules at their most recent iteration. It has to be cheap, like 10$ max. Seriously the bloat is at a point where it's almost impossible to resolve rules disputes.
And what rules are you willing to see drasticly simplified to make this doable?
By simple i mean no art, bakground fluff or other extras. Just the rules. They dont have to be changed, just consilidated
So over the 2019-2020 year I would like:
Short term: release of the primaris and either a space marine codex 2.0 or codex primaris
Medium term: an update to the cover rules. They are too simplistic at the moment. I want more depth to the.
Long term: scrapping the IGUG system, bring back weapons skill effecting combat, make the wounding system more in depth, make vehicles feel like vehicles not higher toughness units with lots of wounds.
New Xenos models. Especially Necrons. And I don't just mean one new character and call it a day. I want to see a full release schedule over 6 months with all new units or in the case of Eldar, upgrading their current range to plastic.
I'm starting to get really, really tired of the Imperium and Chaos spank fest
Fightingfirst wrote: Medium term: an update to the cover rules. They are too simplistic at the moment. I want more depth to the.
Long term: scrapping the IGUG system, bring back weapons skill effecting combat, make the wounding system more in depth, make vehicles feel like vehicles not higher toughness units with lots of wounds.
I second this. Kill-team has a good system. I bet it would work with 40k too so some extent and with some changes.
A expansion/campaign pack with psychology rules. The Night Lords thread got me thinking how largely irrelevant and uninspired it is currently and thinking back these were some of the more engaging rules that got me into these rulesets back in the day.
Fightingfirst wrote: Medium term: an update to the cover rules. They are too simplistic at the moment. I want more depth to the.
Long term: scrapping the IGUG system, bring back weapons skill effecting combat, make the wounding system more in depth, make vehicles feel like vehicles not higher toughness units with lots of wounds.
I second this. Kill-team has a good system. I bet it would work with 40k too so some extent and with some changes.
Since they have been testing the AA system with killteam (and i think apocalyspe is gonna use a similar system from my understanding). We might get some (beta?) rules allowing us to ditch IGOUGO in our games. Its honestly one of the most swingy mechanics in the game and it highly favors gunline armies.
Anyway, personally i wish for mechanicum rules in 40k and for a consolidated ruleset.
drbored wrote:Emperor's Children codex and new plastic noise marines.
Yes please. One of.
Also;
New Lucius sculpt
Rules for 'Dark' Mechanicus.
Fix Renegades & Heretics rules
Fix FW Greater Daemon rules (Zarakynel at nearly 1.5 times the price of a Knight is insane)
Plastic Aspect Warriors
Archon/Succubus alt. sculpts
40K Fulgrim
And while we're wishing in one hand and gaking in the other, I'd like to see a price-drop of at least 50% across the range.
Ain't gonna happen (squatting players' armies of the most popular faction for the last 30 years and the current contents of the SM start collecting box).
I'm doubting 9th Edition is coming in 2019 or 2020. Don't get me wrong, 9th Edition will come, but I doubt it'll be in the next 19 months.
I could be mistaken, but I believe 8th Edition is the most successful edition of the ruleset that GW has had in many, many years. Not only are the core rules greatly reduced to allow for ease of new players, but many, many people who haven't played in years are flocking back to the hobby and the game.
I have a feeling that GW is going to ride 8th as long as it possibly can before releasing 9th.
Ain't gonna happen (squatting players' armies of the most popular faction for the last 30 years and the current contents of the SM start collecting box).
Wow... people still refuse to see it coming huh...
ServiceGames wrote: I'm doubting 9th Edition is coming in 2019 or 2020. Don't get me wrong, 9th Edition will come, but I doubt it'll be in the next 19 months.
I could be mistaken, but I believe 8th Edition is the most successful edition of the ruleset that GW has had in many, many years. Not only are the core rules greatly reduced to allow for ease of new players, but many, many people who haven't played in years are flocking back to the hobby and the game.
I have a feeling that GW is going to ride 8th as long as it possibly can before releasing 9th.
SG
Its also become a bloated mess of documents, books, faq errata, and community articles thats frankly near impossible to keep up with and daunting as feth for anyone joining now.
It could use a better structured and higher quality clean slate.
I think 8th will last exactly as long as it takes for them to release enough primaris units to build a whole primaris codex. And then its done.
Editiin 8.5, get an updated brb out with all faqs, erratas, and beta rules
Electronic living ruleset, ideally a subscription service that grants access to all rules and codexes. Otherwise just electronic rules that get updated with point costs, faqs, etc
Traitor guard released as a dedicated kit. As mentioned above, brood brothers rules for traitor guarf
Thats pretty much it. 8th is in a good place, if gw is smart, they wont jump to 9th too soon. They need to reel in their release schedule and get what is imo the biggest problem with 40k fixed: having to bring a small library and multiple printouts to every game.
Lance845 wrote: Its also become a bloated mess of documents, books, faq errata, and community articles thats frankly near impossible to keep up with and daunting as smurf for anyone joining now.
It could use a better structured and higher quality clean slate.
I think 8th will last exactly as long as it takes for them to release enough primaris units to build a whole primaris codex. And then its done.
I started this hobby in 2015, so I wasn't around before 7th Edition. But, I know that 7th edition wasn't much better (if not worse) when it came to being a bloated mess of documents, books, faq, errata, etc.
Ain't gonna happen (squatting players' armies of the most popular faction for the last 30 years and the current contents of the SM start collecting box).
Wow... people still refuse to see it coming huh...
I'm not sure why some people seem to delight in the idea that a lot of people's armies might be squatted. If GW are going to do it and risk alienating a lot of people, I still think they would need to stop selling the models first.
While 40K can live without Dark Eldar, Necrons and Tau, it certainly cannot live without the big three races; Space Marines, Orks and Eldar. Its been that way since the early 90s where those three are the most recognisable characters of the 40K universe, and the Eldar definitely need an overhaul.
Seriously, they still have models in the Eldar range from at least as far back as 1998.
I would be thrilled if GW released a new, balanced, ambiguity-free, tactics and decision-based ruleset. Paints in dropper bottles. And dramatically reduced prices.
Hmm... If they could find a way to release rules that doesn't turn armies into a mess of using many books, it would be a start...
In terms of models, I'd be happy with 40k primarchs, but happiest if they make a proper Fulgrim... I don't care if he's any good or not, I just want to build and paint the guy...
ChaosDad wrote: Hmm... If they could find a way to release rules that doesn't turn armies into a mess of using many books, it would be a start...
A thin, staple bound rulebook with just the rules that can be re-issued regularly as rules get updated and clarified. Lightweight, lays flat when opened, and cheap enough to be essentially disposable. I believe 40k had a promotional rules set released when 8th came out in this format, it should be standard and included in every Start Collecting or bigger box set.
AoS style warscrolls that can be updated online as needed, so you can print out the units you need on a few sheets of paper rather than lugging the whole codex around.
Those two things would allow you to keep everything needed for play in a folder weighing less than a codex - you should only need the big rulebook and codexes for army construction.
Ain't gonna happen (squatting players' armies of the most popular faction for the last 30 years and the current contents of the SM start collecting box).
Wow... people still refuse to see it coming huh...
I'm not sure why some people seem to delight in the idea that a lot of people's armies might be squatted. If GW are going to do it and risk alienating a lot of people, I still think they would need to stop selling the models first.
I'm not delighting in anything. Why are you saying that?? Anybody that does not have a vested interest in old marines can see it happening because its extremely unlikely that it wont happen. It's just being reslistic, I dont have a horse in the race. I think its great they are doing it slowly and not just WHFB it overnight. I think its a shame because it means more power armour primaris to update the range and less cool aliens.
But it doesnt change the fact there is no old marines updates or models. I'm just blown away by denial in light of overhelming circuimstantial evidence.
Lore wise, return the Loyalist primarchs and kick the Demon Primarchs out of the eye of terror. Each builds a small empire and proceeds to explain they are the actual successor to the Imperium.
The Emperor loses dies is reborn, saves earth with dues ex machina, sets up a new force of GK, Custodes and Solar Auxilia to take the Emprire, from all those worthless sons of his.
The eye of Terror now almost nothing but Demons turning into a giant ball of fighting between Nids, Orks and Demons. Basically a 3 .. or 7 way stalemate. Waghs, Tendril Fleets, and Crusades issue out to cause others problems.
Eldar Ynnari goes into along term stale mate with Slanessh Neither wins, neither loses, builds some small empires, hates each other. Tau and Necrons. Who cares.
Ohh and 9 is released, and Adeptus Titanicus brought back to full Glory by introing Orks, Eldar, Nids, Tau, and Tanks, remains infantryless.
Ain't gonna happen (squatting players' armies of the most popular faction for the last 30 years and the current contents of the SM start collecting box).
Wow... people still refuse to see it coming huh...
I'm not sure why some people seem to delight in the idea that a lot of people's armies might be squatted. If GW are going to do it and risk alienating a lot of people, I still think they would need to stop selling the models first.
They dont need to do it first. They just need to do it at the same time.
Its not delight in your loss. Its delight in the cleaning up and refinement of a codex that has so many damn units and options that the army suffers for being directionless with so many units having no clear purpose. Primaris units have VERY clear purpose and when you strip away all the regular sm stuff they start looking like a more and more cohesive army.
Karol wrote: Primaris Grey Knights or a new Grey Knight codex.
Seconded. Much as I am loathe to say it, at least rules-wise if not model wise...what 40k needs most right now is...morespacemarinecontent UGH. BLUGH.
UGH I said it. Are you happy? As a terminally outraged special snowflake faction player, there is a phenomenally massive amount of the 40k fandom tied up in space marines and space marine accessories, and their rules have been aggressively mediocre to dog gak all edition.
especially the grey knights, who provide the appeal of the "all psyker faction" basically horribly compared to Eldar and Thousand Sons, and have consistently terrible tournament performance.
A ground-up all marines rework is needed.
(psst.
<.<
>.>
You know what you could do at this point.
Is put them in one big, mega-huge, super duper codex like an Index Imperium 1 with all the shared stuff in it and all the relics, WL traits, chapter traits, etc for all the different marine factions there in that one book.
That way, you could balance them all together instead of dragging out allllllll the different marine codexes in a bloated mess, and nobody would get stuck with Vindicators being horrible because we've printed the rules for Vindicators in every marine codex and we can't just change it now.)
Ain't gonna happen (squatting players' armies of the most popular faction for the last 30 years and the current contents of the SM start collecting box).
Wow... people still refuse to see it coming huh...
I'm not sure why some people seem to delight in the idea that a lot of people's armies might be squatted. If GW are going to do it and risk alienating a lot of people, I still think they would need to stop selling the models first.
I'm not delighting in anything. Why are you saying that?
My comment wasn't really aimed at you. Lance845 has since explained why he wants to see regular marines squatted. I personally wouldn't make my wish for the next year to see other people's armies squatted, but I guess he's entitled to his opinion.
Frankly theres no reason to do another edition yet. 8th edition is the best the game has ever had, and all we need are a consolidation.
They need to release a new BRB this Christmas, in digital format with all the FAQ and errata updates included. Call it 8.5 if you must.
They should at this point also re-release all the codex's in digital form with their updates, along with any new models released for those factions (uncluding beta rules and such). These codex's should auto-update with any pertinent changes and be available for IOS and android. They should also include any changes in points cost that come out of Chapter approved forever.
After this 8.5 update i'd like to see all the current planned primis releases out, along with a major rebalancing of the way CP is handled and stratagems (fixed CP based on PL or points limits). Armies that have fallen behind (due to powercreep) need updates.
Models that have not been updated for 10 years also need new releases to keep in line with the quality of the new stuff. They charge far too much to be using 11-20 year old models still.
Ain't gonna happen (squatting players' armies of the most popular faction for the last 30 years and the current contents of the SM start collecting box).
Wow... people still refuse to see it coming huh...
There will never be a "poof" your army has no rules and is "illegal" ever again after AoS
I do think that there will be a soft squat where units become unplayable. It'll happen with marines and slowly most likely every faction
I play Craftworlds, Dark Eldar, Harlequins and Tyranids. None of these factions have had a model release of any note since May 2015, 4 years ago. It would be nice to see something more than just a character.
Let's see how it goes first; but man am I excited for that 7" Bandai Space marine... gimme some marks of armour/legion choices, and some wider 40k universe figs any day... have always loved making stop-motion animations, and if these are as articulated and versatile as they look I could see myself making a series on youtube akin to TSOALR...
2. A sweet Imperial Guard cavalry kit, or kits. Rough riders with variant build. Light cav, medium cav, heavy cav. Lancers, dragoons, skirmishers, etc. Mounted HQs, elites, troops, and fast attack options.
3. If option 2 doesn't happen, give me 40 huey's for air cav that hold...11 guys?, and up the valkyries carrying capacity to 20.
A 16-page Core Rules replacement that incorporates all the Errata, clears up any existing rules issues (just check our rules curmudgeon for things that need fixing), and includes updated Cover rules, including rules for all basic terrain types.
dan2026 wrote: All three Eldar factions need some love.
They have all got feck all in the last few years.
Craftworlds are the worst. They badly need new models for Aspect Warriors and Phoenix Lords. The army is so out of date its silly.
Dark Eldar fair slightly better but badly need new models for at least Incubi, Grotesques and Mandrakes.
I'm puzzled as to why you think Craftwords are in a worse state when it's DE that have had their codex completely shredded. We've lost:
- Vect
- The Decapitator
- The Duke
- Baron Sathonyx
- Lady Malys
- Jetbike Archons.
- Skyboard Archons
- Jetbike Haemonculi.
- Skyboard Haemonculi
- Dracons
- Mini-Haemonculi
- Harlequins
- Bloodbrides (Technically still in the Index but there's basically 0 point to taking them over regular Wyches)
On the one hand, many of them were overpowered (though the issue was more with the difference between early-7th and late-7th Formations, the latter being orders of magnitude stronger than the former) and some would basically shoehorn you into particular combinations of units. e.g. if a Necron player wanted to use Wraiths, he'd have to take a Spyder and Scarab Swarm with them.
However, I think late-7th Formations were vastly more successful in encouraging armies to use a diverse selection of units and provided a more logical and organic army, compared with the mess of 8th edition detachments.
The Emperor's Champion is so awesome he should have his own Codex full of rules...
"If met in battle by a Carnifex, the beast will immediately fail a moral check and run away, screaming."
"You may field the Champion so long as he has been painted by a Slayer Sword winner."
"If a squad of friendly units are within 12" of the Champion, they receive a D12 bonus to their morale checks and ask for his autograph and selfies."
"Should the impossible happen and the Champion is slain, he is just playing dead and will cast off his broken armour. Replace his model with Sly Marbo."
The Emperor's Champion is so awesome he should have his own Codex full of rules...
"If met in battle by a Carnifex, the beast will immediately fail a moral check and run away, screaming."
"You may field the Champion so long as he has been painted by a Slayer Sword winner."
"If a squad of friendly units are within 12" of the Champion, they receive a D12 bonus to their morale checks and ask for his autograph and selfies."
"Should the impossible happen and the Champion is slain, he is just playing dead and will cast off his broken armour. Replace his model with Sly Marbo."
Please don't encourage them.
Given the latest Regimental Standard they would do it.
dan2026 wrote: All three Eldar factions need some love.
They have all got feck all in the last few years.
Craftworlds are the worst. They badly need new models for Aspect Warriors and Phoenix Lords. The army is so out of date its silly.
Dark Eldar fair slightly better but badly need new models for at least Incubi, Grotesques and Mandrakes.
I'm puzzled as to why you think Craftwords are in a worse state when it's DE that have had their codex completely shredded. We've lost:
- Vect
- The Decapitator
- The Duke
- Baron Sathonyx
- Lady Malys
- Jetbike Archons.
- Skyboard Archons
- Jetbike Haemonculi.
- Skyboard Haemonculi
- Dracons
- Mini-Haemonculi
- Harlequins
- Bloodbrides (Technically still in the Index but there's basically 0 point to taking them over regular Wyches)
DE definitely lost more unit entries to "No model, no rules" than CWE. But from a kit perspective, DE is way better off.
Compare the Kabalite plastic kit to the Guardian kit. The Kab kit has a ton of detail and lots of options. The Guardian kit can... give one guy some tool-looking thing and that's just about it.
Compare the Wych plastic kit to the Dire Avenger plastic kit - again, Wyches have tons of more options. Although the DA kit isn't nearly as bad as the Guardian kit.
Compare the Wrack plastic kit to either the Finecast Rangers or the finecast upgrade kit Storm Guardian sprue... what a joke.
Compare Scourges to the Finecast Swooping Hawks.
Most of the DE line is plastic, and most of the kits have a great variety of bits. Most of the CWE line is Finecast. What is in Plastic is often minimalistic.
CWE have it better for units that can be taken, but has worse kits.
Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.
Disagree on every level.
Free bonus rules for prepackaged list building in ways that never were balanced. Terrible.
But actual army variety outside of tournament builds. I could sacrifice flexibility for an outflanking army for example. But now there's no reason to vary. For example my Eldar used to vary so I could try different builds and different formations but now I have absolutely no reason to do anything other than Alaitoc because -1 to hit is amazing. Also I miss initiative.
DE definitely lost more unit entries to "No model, no rules" than CWE. But from a kit perspective, DE is way better off.
Compare the Kabalite plastic kit to the Guardian kit. The Kab kit has a ton of detail and lots of options. The Guardian kit can... give one guy some tool-looking thing and that's just about it.
Compare the Wych plastic kit to the Dire Avenger plastic kit - again, Wyches have tons of more options. Although the DA kit isn't nearly as bad as the Guardian kit.
Compare the Wrack plastic kit to either the Finecast Rangers or the finecast upgrade kit Storm Guardian sprue... what a joke.
Oh, I agree that the DE kits are more up to date. But my point is that this is only because every DE unit without a model was deleted altogether.
CWE have it better for units that can be taken, but has worse kits.
That's fair. However, I still think priority should be given to the army that's had about half it's codex systematically removed.
An Eldar player who wants to field Asurmen but dislikes the model can opt to convert his own model and use that. A DE player who wants to use Vect gets to eat gak.
The Emperor's Champion is so awesome he should have his own Codex full of rules...
"If met in battle by a Carnifex, the beast will immediately fail a moral check and run away, screaming."
"You may field the Champion so long as he has been painted by a Slayer Sword winner."
"If a squad of friendly units are within 12" of the Champion, they receive a D12 bonus to their morale checks and ask for his autograph and selfies."
"Should the impossible happen and the Champion is slain, he is just playing dead and will cast off his broken armour. Replace his model with Sly Marbo."
Please don't encourage them.
Given the latest Regimental Standard they would do it.
- A serious rebalancing so units are "relevant". Grey Knights have been the most suffering in this respect.
- Get off the pot and release the gosh-darn sisters already, those fans have suffered enough.
- Get to unit activation for goodness sakes and most of the very "legitimate" griping can be dealt with.
- Clean up cover a wee bit more.
- After all the "fixing" release the more stable codex books as version 2 / 3 with all the updates so we do not have to carry around all these updates.
Are we at the age of licensing limited printing of minis yet?
Can we have a 3D painter? Ah! the 3D ink-jet!
But seriously, like emporers children, our only-us stuff boils down to an elites unit that becomes troops, and a special character. There is so much potential for both, all the allies shenanigans that can be done with the new knights etc, and if both get a revamped range even just the size of TS I would be over the moon.
Oh what I would pay for a box of three multipart many optioned WE characters. The exalted sorcerer kit is just perfect.
Angron and Fulgrim too! What potential to flesh out the primarchs! We all know they're still kicking about, unlike many of the loyalist ones who would need a major plot development to emerge. The potential of how goddamn awesome they could be....
If they were to be made any good, too, I would be left with no money. The lack of any mention they get makes me upset really. I've already bought a full AoS khorne army as an excuse 'ill use them as allies.' and I'm really considering getting some of those knights too ooo they're pretty.
Like alot of people have said, a living ruleset would be cool.
So, for my Necrons, I want:
A Lieutenant-esque HQ option that helps alleviate some of the heft of our HQ tax.
A reasonable means to avoid folding to MWs and Psyker-heavy armies like a wet paper bag.
So, ultimately I want a Lord Pariah HQ option with Culexus-esque abilities as an aura buff.
AND/OR
A Specialist Detachment that turns Lychguard (who need the buff, good gods) into Pariahs with similar anti-psychic buffs. Brings back an old unit type but also fills niches instead of lumping us with more 1-trick melee infantry that can't get into combat.
vipoid wrote: I want to see my favourite faction - Corsairs - actually get their rules back.
Seriously, it's beyond a joke at this point. If it was just working with Index rules that would be one thing but they've literally removed ~95% of Corsair units from the game altogether. And it's been like this for bloody years now.
Please!!!
Also, I want the dark eldar to get their named characters back.
Power armor that is actually tough and decent protection.
That's about it, really though I'm pretty happy with the state of 40k so if things keep on the way they have been for the last couple years I'll be good.
Battlefleet Gothic.
Emperor's Children.
World Eaters.
Rule changes:
Firstly, fix for soup. It's absurd that you're rewarded for taking the best units out of every dex you can rather than being punished or restricted in some manner for not doing it.
Fixes to existing units. Why do I have 4 LoW's and every single one of them is unplayable garbage, while Knights were given an entire dex full of OP to borderline OP ones? A million other examples of balance that needs fixing though too.
Sisters release. but not just models like they did with gloomspite gitz. Give us some actual starter sets to make the investment in them a bit easier.
Kroot/Tau Auxiliaries Codex. Perfect world that would come with two or 3 new model boxes to round out the "multiple alien species" idea of the Tau Auxiliaries. Maybe the Demiurge and Nicassar.
Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.
Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines
Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!
DE heroes would be greta to welcome back
Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.
are we now forgetting that the balance on formations was so far off that you couldn't really justify them even in narrative?
3 Helldrakes one that didin't even function?
Spam x unit to gain y bonus was and always will be bad when the formation was literally monobuilt.
and they were, they would have to massively invest into balancing them if they ever think about bringing them back in such a way.
Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.
Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines
Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!
DE heroes would be greta to welcome back
Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.
are we now forgetting that the balance on formations was so far off that you couldn't really justify them even in narrative?
3 Helldrakes one that didin't even function?
Spam x unit to gain y bonus was and always will be bad when the formation was literally monobuilt.
and they were, they would have to massively invest into balancing them if they ever think about bringing them back in such a way.
With the extreme ones yes. Then you have things like Firewolves and the Aspect Lord Shrine that really weren't OP at all. Monobuilds also weren't a bigger issue than now because you could vary most choices in the army.
But they still cost money you have to buy the book to run them, and your going to buy an army anyway if you want to play. At least with formations, I imagine, GW was saying this is the way we want that army to play and this is the most optimal way to do it.
It is better to have to play an army in one good way, then have the freedom to buy a ton of different stuff and it never works.
From hell's heart I stab thee! (directed at the few remaining finecast models that need to be transfered to plastic).
New, completely redone Aspect Warriors and Incubi (or at least in plastic).
A proper warboss model with some weapon options, customisation bits (or is it bitz) and the choice to have one in mega-armor, heavy armor or t-shirt armor.
New guardsmen with a unique box for veterans and conscript. New Rough Riders made to match the rest of the regiments with option for lancers or dragoon. A new Scion unit something like jetpack unit OR an Arbites unit for close combat guards.
New berzerkers of Khorne (and Noise Marine if it's not already done). New Chosen. Make Chaos Land Raiders Great Again (or for the first time come to think of it).
Two new Necron Units (return of the Pariah anyone) and Make Monolith Great Again.
A new air superiority flyer and a new heavy bomber for the Tau. New Kroot units with a Shaper HQ. (let Forge World make human militia for them).
Genestealer-hybrid Ork (big burly, ugly, heavy support option, like a sort of biovore with some genestealer traits), Genestealer-hybrid Eldar (Kerrigan ports into 40K elite choice), Genestealer-hybrid Tau (Genestealer-with wings!), Genestealer-hybrid Kroot (Genestealer hounds).
A new Primaris battletank and a new Primaris Lieutenant as per tradition.
- Plastic Lictors. Either as a single sprue "character" with alt parts for Deathleaper, or a box of 3 that includes the above and an alternate build of some new unit they dream up.
- Plastic Biovores/Pyrovores. Box of 3. Includes lots of Spore Mines.
- New Gaunts. Both flavours are presently too physically large for their statline and nowhere near spiky enough. Roll the biomorphs and alternate guns onto the Termagant sprue, like what the Warriors got.
- The gaunt change would necessitate a new Ripper kit. Format it like the Nurglings kit and base it on the old FW Rippers, aesthetically.
Rogue trader Codex and crew that has more options than included in the 40k datasheets from kill team.
More than happy for them to be included in an Agents of the Imperium codex that includes Imperial Navy and merchant navy, Navigators and minor characters that don't fit else where.
Starter sets to stay in stock for the duration of it being valid. If it sells out, produce more or release a new one. Kill team starter set has been out of stock forever, with nothing to replace it.
Abhumans. Kits for more than a couple of breeds, with options for 'loyal', chaos and neutral.
Datasheets for OOP figures available to download free, or alternatives to use. Recognition that after 30 odd years, there are more than the current few lines available.
Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.
Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines
Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!
DE heroes would be greta to welcome back
Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.
Remind me of all the various Sisters of Battle Power Formations? What were the same for Imperial Guard or Dark Eldar at the time.
If you make totally broken formations for a few super special factions they ruin casual play as much or more than torunament play - been there.
The 8th version at least costs CP rather than simply money.
Guard had some from Warzone Damocles and Dark Eldar had Haemonculus Covens as I recall. Sisters were just ignored entirely from before I started playing to very recently so I wouldn't say they count.
I don't have a complete memory of all the Formations but the ones I'm familiar with could be used with a decent spread of models so it's hardly like you had to buy a new army to use any of them.
If one person brings an obviously broken army with no handicap against an army that's around average power that's not casual my friend.
I don't think there was a single ork formation anyone could that didn't force you to buy additional models or did not give any meaningful bonus at all.
Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.
Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines
Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!
DE heroes would be greta to welcome back
Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.
Even at the friendly level, formations made the game a nightmare. I left for HH until 8th launched, the game is lightyears better today than it was back then.
That said:
I'd really like to see Primaris move to their own codex, separating them from the old marines. Going forward I'd just like the old marines to become an index army. As it currently sits, the SM codex is a joke of a book, overloaded with too many mediocre choices, and no flare or zest. Especially when you compare it to CSM book 2, which is way better by comparison. Release the character models in clampacks, give us more generics for non-standard chapters, and flush out the heavier/special weapons for Primaris so that we can fill our roles more properly.
It would be really nice to see Eldar get the redesign, as they currently sit their range is a mishmash of ugly, outdated models. Their rules are also a bit too powerful, especially when compared to Imperium codexes. It would be great if craftworlds just got replaced with Ynarri, and Harliquins should be roled into either that book, or into the DE books from now on.
I'd like to see some of the imperial facts get squatted as well. There are loads of models that could be rolled into other books. There are just too many factions in this game at current time, it makes it confusing for new players.
It would be really nice to see Eldar get the redesign, as they currently sit their range is a mishmash of ugly, outdated models. Their rules are also a bit too powerful, especially when compared to Imperium codexes. It would be great if craftworlds just got replaced with Ynarri, and Harliquins should be roled into either that book, or into the DE books from now on.
I agree a lot of that, but that's gonna be a negative from me chief.
Craftworlds and Ynnari are two different things, I will never support merging two armies like that with completely different lore and the like.
Remove Old Marines from the game, give Primaris Old marine options, problem solved.
Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.
Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
I'd love for finecast to be completely cast aside for plastic models.
After starting drukhari and seeing how many models were still finecast-only i've given up on buying them until new kits come out (Grotesques, Incubi, Mandrakes, Beasts and the court of the archon models all need plastic models)
Other than that, a consolidated ruleset would be amazing.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.
Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.
Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
Ummm all of the troops are T3 1W....
Don't they get a bunch of cover buffs and debuffs to enemy accuracy though? I mean, stat wise they are weak, but they get a bunch of abilities that increase their resiliance. Or maybe that's just the vehicles.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.
Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
Ummm all of the troops are T3 1W....
Don't they get a bunch of cover buffs and debuffs to enemy accuracy though? I mean, stat wise they are weak, but they get a bunch of abilities that increase their resiliance. Or maybe that's just the vehicles.
these buffs are the in-game representation of their speed and agility.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
I am almost certain that Ynnari is a derivative of Ynnead using the -ari suffix common to most of the GW Eldar words for "Followers of" or "From".
Ynnead is actually pretty old lore, from 3rd edition at least and perhaps before. It's just been used as GW scramble to bring copyrightable concepts up to the forefront of their brand. It's a lot like how Imperial Knights were an obscure Epic 40,000 lore tidbit from the pre-3rd edition Warhammer 40k days until they brought them to the forefront because selling 20 pence of plastic for £100 is profitable.
I've got an old GW catalogue somewhere and knights were certainly not "a lore tidbit" They had a range of different knight classes for the tabletop. Far as I recall only the standard knight that we see today (gun and chainsword) got made in plastic, the rest were all in solid metal.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
I am almost certain that Ynnari is a derivative of Ynnead using the -ari suffix common to most of the GW Eldar words for "Followers of" or "From".
Ynnead is actually pretty old lore, from 3rd edition at least and perhaps before. It's just been used as GW scramble to bring copyrightable concepts up to the forefront of their brand. It's a lot like how Imperial Knights were an obscure Epic 40,000 lore tidbit from the pre-3rd edition Warhammer 40k days until they brought them to the forefront because selling 20 pence of plastic for £100 is profitable.
Bah of course, I forgot about Ynnead. Yeah, that makes sense. No idea how to pronounce it though. Is it In-Nah-ri, or Yin-Nah-ri?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I've got an old GW catalogue somewhere and knights were certainly not "a lore tidbit" They had a range of different knight classes for the tabletop. Far as I recall only the standard knight that we see today (gun and chainsword) got made in plastic, the rest were all in solid metal.
Yeah, knights did exist on the table top, but I think that was just for Epic.
Yeah, knights did exist on the table top, but I think that was just for Epic.
Yep back then the biggest was something awesome huge like dreadnought or dragon (the old serpentine ones) and they were solid metal. It was only once GW got the skills and investment to make larger and larger plastic moulds that we saw things like hive tyrants grow to two or three times the size of the original and huge models like knights became finanically viable outside of Forgeworld Resin.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.
Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
The problem is it doesn't make much sense for them to have their own units. Ynnari comes from Ynnead. You just replace ead with ari. It actually makes much more sense than the Aeldari, Asuryani, Drukhari nonsense.
I'm of the opinion that the new formations are far less game breaking than those back in 7th. Although, not all formations were that bad. I really liked the one where you had a tank, a commissar and an infantry squad and the squad had 4+ cover if they were within 6" of the tank I guess. Armoured Shield it was called IIRC.
The problem is it doesn't make much sense for them to have their own units.
I don't think they need to have their 'own' units per se.
However, the way in which Ynnari detachments are constructed currently is an absolute mess.
At the very least, it would be far better to reprint all the Eldar, DE and Harlequin units in a Ynnari codex (altered as appropriate). Personally, I think you could easily have auras overlap (especially considering the degree to which they've been hit with the nerf-bat) - e.g. allow a Ynnari-Autarch to buff Ynnari-DE units. But even if they wanted those factions to remain separate, they could just approach it in the same manner as the DE codex (effectively counting them as 3 subfactions).
It just seems like a much neater way of doing things, and could allow Ynnari-lists to be constructed without the ridiculous special character requirement (a concept I thought we'd buried with 5th edition).
Yeah, Formations were a bold faced attempt by Kirby to introduce a pay-to-win model to 40k, where if you field this exact configuration of models, you get some heavy buffs. It wasn't great.
Advancements to the narrative.
Progress on moving from finecast to plastic
Some new releases for Xenos factions
A unification of the various materials needed to actually play the game now.
The top of my wishlist is to see a quick-start .pdf with all the base rule changes and errata in one place, including the sidebar for how Plasma interacts with to-hit modifiers (and anything else like it) from the main rules.
The next thing on my list is for them to make another pass over the next CA after any other adjustments specifically looking for places where one weapon/unit changed price and another that is clearly based on it did not. Stormbolters -> Hurricane Bolters, Twin-linked Lascannon -> Lastalon, Intercessor -> Hellblaster, that sort of thing.
In no particular order after that:
Custodes could really use the option to take Custodian Guards with a Misochondria and an Assault Bolter (or something like it) in addition to that squad's other weapon load outs. Having some actual ranged ability in the troop slot wouldn't make them viable as a monocodex, but it would let them play without ranged support from another faction being mandatory.
For marines, four words: "Captain in Centurion Armor".
Imperium in general doesn't need a lot of new releases. Focus on new/updated Xenos kits instead.
Marine codex v2. Marines need new rules a lot more than they need new models.
GK codex v2. I don't even play the sorry [expletive] and I want to see them get better.
Seriously, some sort of downside to taking allies. We've been complaining about that since the edition dropped, you'd think GW only cared about the sales figures or something.
-new subtype of “lesser” mortal wounds that don’t fully ignore saves.
-new character rules like joint charging so melee support characters can do their job a lot easier.
-nerfs to fall back mechanic. Make it less of a no-brainer option and simultaneously remove the need to use the very finicky methods of denying fall back that make casual players instantly hate you.
- New plastic guardsmen for all of the regiments in codex.
- tyranids Super heavies from gw.
- tyranids rules update
- tau "formations"/ special detachment.
- good Apocalypse, with 28mm figures, 8th edition rules, and loads of new content.
New, not-potato guardsmen (ideal kit for me would be leaner, slightly more 'adronymous', or neutral sculpts, with a flak torso, sleeved arms with Lucius-pattern lasguns, and options for heads with both exposed and visored faces, and trouser legs/greatcoat legs options.
Plastic sisters.
More primaris.
A white dwarf series on 'how to narrative'. Show the thought process behind the game-building that is narrative gaming, and 'matching' armies appropriately for this. rather than just 'take 2000pts, pick ascenario and GO!'.
We need more xenos bits, I think we all agree that we've had too many Imperium releases in the last few years whilsts Xenos were left starving for models and rules updates
Agree to disagree. I'd much rather play 7th than 8th.
No you wouldn't. You'd rather play whatever watered down, house ruled, 'don't bring x, y, or z so it's fair' version of 7th you and your friends played in your basement.
REAL 7th was a dumpster fire and I can't imagine preferring 7th over being set on fire, let alone 8th.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.
Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.
Ummm all of the troops are T3 1W....
Don't they get a bunch of cover buffs and debuffs to enemy accuracy though? I mean, stat wise they are weak, but they get a bunch of abilities that increase their resiliance. Or maybe that's just the vehicles.
these buffs are the in-game representation of their speed and agility.
Which is totally irrelevant when discussing balance.
Crablezworth wrote: Fire arcs, armour facings, fewer cards, low cover becoming relevant to the game again.
Go play 30k if you want the fire arcs. Terrible in practice.
Yeah, anyone else remember that period where knights had a giant blind spot directly in front of them? Or when it was completely impossible for both guns on a crusader to hit the same target? Plus they never adequately explained the Arcs on Doomscythe's or Wave serpents. That's not even getting into the whole 'riptide as a monstrous creature because we don't even wanna TRY determining the firing arcs for that one.
And armor facings never really mattered. Vehicles exploded into shrapnel with a thought back in 6th and 7th.
Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.
Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines
Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!
DE heroes would be greta to welcome back
Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.
Remind me of all the various Sisters of Battle Power Formations? What were the same for Imperial Guard or Dark Eldar at the time.
If you make totally broken formations for a few super special factions they ruin casual play as much or more than torunament play - been there.
The 8th version at least costs CP rather than simply money.
Guard had some from Warzone Damocles and Dark Eldar had Haemonculus Covens as I recall. Sisters were just ignored entirely from before I started playing to very recently so I wouldn't say they count.
I don't have a complete memory of all the Formations but the ones I'm familiar with could be used with a decent spread of models so it's hardly like you had to buy a new army to use any of them.
If one person brings an obviously broken army with no handicap against an army that's around average power that's not casual my friend.
They could have resolved the facings issues by giving every vehicle a base that has arc indicators on it, so you know exactly where everything was.
Vehicles being fragile in 6th - 7th ed was because GW decided to give them wounds but not a save, which meant that high RoF were more efficient at killing vehicles than anti-tank weapons. Which was dumb.
They should have changed the damage table to be a critical damage table, where the affects are only applied if the vehicle loses enough hull points or if you roll high enough when penetrating armor, depending on the weapon of course.
Mechanicus rules for Mechanicum units & more Admech in general.
If you want Squats Triumph got you covered with their new game AoW-Planetfall which will be released in August this year. You can play as the Dvar and they have a theme which can be best described as Russian space dwarfs. So paint up the red star on your vehicles and get ready to prospect some sectors. Oh, and don´t forget to incinerate and bombard enemy pixel units on the way.
GW and Squats? Buhah! They will probably release them in ten years or so. Just take a look at the mess that they done with the Sisters. It took them twenty years to re-release the faction. Pathetic.
Battlefleet Gothic could use a return. It would probably be limited to ForgeWorld though, and have a different rule set. Which is fine I guess, I was more into the fluff anyway.
They could have resolved the facings issues by giving every vehicle a base that has arc indicators on it, so you know exactly where everything was.
Which would interfere with a part of the hobby which includes modelling and all that. Fire Arcs bases work well for X-Wing due to them being all flyers and X-Wing isn't really intended as a modelling hobby.
Argive wrote: A year without pandering to the imperium fanboys to see new units across other factions.. alright i might as well wish for a winning lotery ticket.
This is coming from someone who plays Tau, Sisters, and Space Wolves. Imperium got barely anything last year, in fact, the two biggest releases (new models) last year were BOTH Xenos (GSC and Orks) So stop plugging Imperium hate in with Primaris hate, I would love for Primaris to get shot in the foot, but stop spitting on Imperium as a whole, Space Wolves got absolutely squatted in the tournament scene, as well as grey knights. Most Xenos factions have been doing very well at tournaments, please stop whining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: We need more xenos bits, I think we all agree that we've had too many Imperium releases in the last few years whilsts Xenos were left starving for models and rules updates
Again, last year alone Orks and GSC had the two largest releases with new models and rules than any other faction, probably combined. While I would personally love to see less primaris (unless its for GK or SW specific stuff), please stop pretending like everyone in the imperium is a whole faction. There are plenty of Imperium factions that get nothing EVERY year (sometimes for decades!) Space Wolves was by far the largest let down of a codex of this edition (Grey Knights don't count as when they came out they were good compared to index). I would love to see new Eldar stuff, even though they have the best by far old sculpts in the game.
I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.
What? I can dream Harold!!!
Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.
The Warp Forge wrote: I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.
What? I can dream Harold!!!
Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.
This is my #1 want's as well honestly. Though I feel like Night Lords even getting a White Dwarf index is unlikely, just update their rules somehow to make them a bit less gimmicky!
SHUPPET wrote: You don't need to give Space Wolves new models to help them competitively, you just need to fix their old ones.
GW dumped a few Space Wolves kits like Long Fangs.
That Codex was just a slap in the face.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd like to see rules for more unique characters turning Primaris so we can finally get an answer on what is happening with oldmarines.
Alternatively the Primaris going all Order 66 in the fluff so the Imperium moves another couple of seconds towards midnight allowing the returning Primarchs to be a last stand blessing.
A return to the atmosphere and actual "we actually care what our customers think" mentality of the 90s and early 2000s. Also I'd like to point out that I still play 6th ed cause 8th is too simple with some real dumb rule changes and 7th was almost as bad.
The Warp Forge wrote: I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.
What? I can dream Harold!!!
Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.
This is my #1 want's as well honestly. Though I feel like Night Lords even getting a White Dwarf index is unlikely, just update their rules somehow to make them a bit less gimmicky!
I mean isn't that like all off the regular CSM legions?
AL was always just used as a meme magic wand.
WB, well are there even WB players left at this point...
etc.etc.
Also the less said about Renegade guard, also known as R&H , lists and or varietes of them the better.
Fact is FW/GW fethed up big time, especially in the CA's which could've easily fixed the lists but GW decided not to bother:
cue Corsairs (now ilegal to field) DKoK losing a whole list of regiment type (Huray) or R&H ( army defined by adaptabe rules and modifications too troops to make this your dudes, f.e. Dark mechanicus with lobotomized slave soldiers, etc. Replaced with codex bland murderhobos worshpping chaos out of sheere stupidity i guess. Did i mention that about 70% of troop options don't exist anymore?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hawky wrote: I wish to see less invulnerable saves or a way to lower or get around them. They are like a plague in this edition.
Isn' t the Invulnerable save inflation just a matter of fact because the damage output skyrocketed?
It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more.
e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.
Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.
Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.
Hawky wrote: It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more. e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.
Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.
Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.
Is it really that common though? There's not that many vehicle / MCs that come with a stock invul save. There's already counters to invul saves in the game too. Well, at least for Imperials (Null Zone, I believe its called?) and Necrons (Entropic strike stratagem. Only 1 attack, but it ignores invuls, iirc). I dunno about other factions. They should probably get something too.
Hawky wrote: It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more.
e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.
Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.
Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.
Is it really that common though? There's not that many vehicle / MCs that come with a stock invul save.
There's already counters to invul saves in the game too. Well, at least for Imperials (Null Zone, I believe its called?) and Necrons (Entropic strike stratagem. Only 1 attack, but it ignores invuls, iirc). I dunno about other factions. They should probably get something too.
Daemon engines have always a 5+ invulnerable, but they always had that and more importantly are not that great.
Personally knights are the biggest Insult to that since you cant lower their armor effectively.
The Warp Forge wrote: I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.
What? I can dream Harold!!!
Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.
This is my #1 want's as well honestly. Though I feel like Night Lords even getting a White Dwarf index is unlikely, just update their rules somehow to make them a bit less gimmicky!
I mean isn't that like all off the regular CSM legions?
AL was always just used as a meme magic wand.
WB, well are there even WB players left at this point...
etc.etc.
Also the less said about Renegade guard, also known as R&H , lists and or varietes of them the better.
Fact is FW/GW fethed up big time, especially in the CA's which could've easily fixed the lists but GW decided not to bother:
cue Corsairs (now ilegal to field) DKoK losing a whole list of regiment type (Huray) or R&H ( army defined by adaptabe rules and modifications too troops to make this your dudes, f.e. Dark mechanicus with lobotomized slave soldiers, etc. Replaced with codex bland murderhobos worshpping chaos out of sheere stupidity i guess. Did i mention that about 70% of troop options don't exist anymore?)
I fully agree. GW were immensely lazy with the CSM traits, they fething copy pasted RG rules for Alpha Legion which is just appalling for example, half the rest are garbage.
So yeah, double my statement for everyone, but especially the shittest ones.
Hawky wrote: It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more.
e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.
Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.
Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.
Is it really that common though? There's not that many vehicle / MCs that come with a stock invul save.
There's already counters to invul saves in the game too. Well, at least for Imperials (Null Zone, I believe its called?) and Necrons (Entropic strike stratagem. Only 1 attack, but it ignores invuls, iirc). I dunno about other factions. They should probably get something too.
They are rare, problem is at least two vehicles that use them are ultra common - Imperial Knights and Eldar Flyers.
Both of which got nerfed.
There are more weapons that don’t care about Invulnerable saves than there are vehicles with Invulnerable saves. Dedicated anti-tank should be +1 to wound anything with the Vehicle, Monster or Titanic Keywords.
An add-on Space Marine codex that covers additional material for the C:SM, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Deathwatch.
A dedicated Primaris Transport
Primaris dedicated anti-tank infantry
More Primaris Special Characters (Primaris Pedro Kantor explicitly)
Primaris Techmarines
Primaris Terminators
Primaris Bikes (NOT Jetbikes)
Emperor's Children codex
New Noise Marines (with Guitar Sonic Blasters)
Noise Marine Terminators
Fulgrim
A big Eldar release that replaces the aging Aspect Warrior kits
Exodites
A big fix to the Necron, Ad Mech, and Grey Knights codexes. Nerfs to the Tau, Eldar Craftworlds, and Astra Militarum codexes.
I'd like GW to revisit the "if everything you have on the table is a dedicated flyer you lose on the spot" rule. For one thing Rule of Three should help stop the flyer abuse it was put in place to prevent, and for another it makes some very expensive transports almost unusable. At the very least it should take loaded transports into account.
Context here; I bought a Stormraven for reasons, and quickly realised that it conveniently fits an entire Outrider detachment at 1000 points. That's a super fluffy list that has the little disadvantage of instantly losing during deployment.
jobalisk wrote: A return to the atmosphere and actual "we actually care what our customers think" mentality of the 90s and early 2000s. Also I'd like to point out that I still play 6th ed cause 8th is too simple with some real dumb rule changes and 7th was almost as bad.
What kind of reverse world were you living on in the 90s and early 2000s? GW's Staff changeup is singlehandedly what saved it from dying to other game companies, as is 8th edition being the smoothest (at release) and best launch of a miniatures edition ever. It pretty much killed Privateer Press (though they helped destroy themselves to be fair), and all the other miniature games lost any steam they had in cornering the market. GW actually cares about their customers now as opposed to pretty much FU pay me. This is done through the Community Survey and their Community Page in general is a whole lot better than what they used to be. I'm not sure what kind of messed up Stockholm Syndrome you have but you need some help man.
Caprican 775499 10460261 wrote:GW actually cares about their customers now as opposed to pretty much FU pay me. This is done through the Community Survey and their Community Page in general is a whole lot better than what they used to be. I'm not sure what kind of messed up Stockholm Syndrome you have but you need some help man.
they maybe care about some of their customers. I don't see how any of the stuff they did could point at the fact that they care for people who have a Grey Knight army or want to buy one. Unless we count something like that they haven't pulled grey knight models from stores.
The Newman wrote: I'd like GW to revisit the "if everything you have on the table is a dedicated flyer you lose on the spot" rule. For one thing Rule of Three should help stop the flyer abuse it was put in place to prevent, and for another it makes some very expensive transports almost unusable. At the very least it should take loaded transports into account.
Context here; I bought a Stormraven for reasons, and quickly realised that it conveniently fits an entire Outrider detachment at 1000 points. That's a super fluffy list that has the little disadvantage of instantly losing during deployment.
Apparently GW is a step or two ahead of me on this one.
Caprican 775499 10460261 wrote:GW actually cares about their customers now as opposed to pretty much FU pay me. This is done through the Community Survey and their Community Page in general is a whole lot better than what they used to be. I'm not sure what kind of messed up Stockholm Syndrome you have but you need some help man.
they maybe care about some of their customers. I don't see how any of the stuff they did could point at the fact that they care for people who have a Grey Knight army or want to buy one. Unless we count something like that they haven't pulled grey knight models from stores.
Honestly i don't think it's lack of caring, i think it's complete lack of knowing. Anyone who plays 40k can read the codecies and get the distinct impression that whoever wrote them has never played a game of 40k. I don't think it's malice, i think it's ignorance. They honestly don't even know how much grey knights suck because they don't play their own games, and when they do they've even admitted they don't really care about rules and just kinda make it up as they go based on 'what seems like it might be cool." So they think balance is fine as is.
They also seem hesitant to even attempt to fix rules that are obviously broken. Chaos codex 2 showed that. They had the perfect opportunity to tweak chaos rules but they didn't touch any of the things that were issues in it, just basically a reprint with 1 unit changed. And in CA they only ever change points. Again, they probably have no idea what's wrong with it so don't understand why they would change something someone already wrote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: I want them to hire a technical writer, issue FAQs every 2 months and balance changes every 6.
THIS!!!!!
I've taken courses in technical writing and it's so much different than fiction writing. In fact most technical writing courses have you create game rule sets as projects. GW can't seem to grasp that writing cool stories is not anywhere near the skill set required to design well written game rules. They give all their codecies to guys who granted write pretty awesome fiction and lore, but have no idea how to create balanced, coherent, and clear rules, and it's glaringly obvious. They need game designers designing the game, not story writers.
BaconCatBug wrote: I want them to hire a technical writer, issue FAQs every 2 months and balance changes every 6.
THIS!!!!!
I've taken courses in technical writing and it's so much different than fiction writing. In fact most technical writing courses have you create game rule sets as projects. GW can't seem to grasp that writing cool stories is not anywhere near the skill set required to design well written game rules. They give all their codecies to guys who granted write pretty awesome fiction and lore, but have no idea how to create balanced, coherent, and clear rules, and it's glaringly obvious. They need game designers designing the game, not story writers.
Successful companies have both - creative people who come up with stuff that sounds cool and technical people who refine in the output of the creative people into properly written and balanced rules.
Honestly i don't think it's lack of caring, i think it's complete lack of knowing. Anyone who plays 40k can read the codecies and get the distinct impression that whoever wrote them has never played a game of 40k. I don't think it's malice, i think it's ignorance. They honestly don't even know how much grey knights suck because they don't play their own games, and when they do they've even admitted they don't really care about rules and just kinda make it up as they go based on 'what seems like it might be cool." So they think balance is fine as is.
They also seem hesitant to even attempt to fix rules that are obviously broken. Chaos codex 2 showed that. They had the perfect opportunity to tweak chaos rules but they didn't touch any of the things that were issues in it, just basically a reprint with 1 unit changed. And in CA they only ever change points. Again, they probably have no idea what's wrong with it so don't understand why they would change something someone already wrote.
Well my assumption is, that after 30 years of designing stuff, not knowing is a really bad excuse. I get that someone who just started lets say any contact sports, doesn't know all the different tournament rules, or the rules for sparring etc. But if someone wrestled for 30 years, he can't say oh I didn't know that in classic an eye poke is not allowed. As being cool, well am not against that. I tsure is better to have cool mechanics, the boring ones.
The problems start, I think, when GW decides that puting some lore in the book, covers the cool aspect in the game too. Harder or weaker to play armies are always going to exist, just like you ain't going to grow longer arms or bigger hands in 2 months for an event, but the rules should work. GK rules, from what I take out of WD articles and the design comentary, were suppose to be about turn 1 deep strike, having access to a lot of smites when other do not and being elite with superior stats, but fewer numbers.
Out of the 4 right now, they have the fewer numbers and that was suppose to be the negative that reign them in vs other armies. Right now that would be as if chaos got a rule that all their weapons are damaged and old, so when they roll a 1 they explode hiting the person and removing it from their sheet. It maybe flavourfull, and maybe cool for some opponents, but it sure wouldn't be fun to play with.
Review of certain Codexes. Personally Necrons (Really like to see 3+ Warriors and T5 Immortals again). Dark Angels,Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and Demons ALL need to be shown some attention instead of 'Here is something to hold you over'.
Core Game:
- More consistent points balancing for Monstrous/Vehicles. I think the rules are fine, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind points once a model gets in the 8+ Wound range.
- 'Sudden Death' and 'Alternating Deployment' back in the CA missions. HORRIBLE mechanics that should never have been suggested, let alone implemented.
- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.
- Refinement of the 'Command Points' system. Continue addressing and tweaking this 8th ed. mechanic.
Tournament:
- An ACTUAL GW Tournament kit release. We've seen it with Shadespire/Kill Team. Give us a functional one for 40k. (End the ITC missions)
- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.
It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.
Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.
Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.
Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.
I agree with the Supreme command detachment going the way of the dodo. If you want to take Bobby G or three captains (#vomit) then you should have to take troops. I also wouldn't mind them getting rid of super heavy auxiliary detachment either
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: It might be enough to restrict the number of detachments allowed in tournament lists from 3 to 2. That forces some decision making. You can have the Guard for numbers and CP, the Smash Captains for their assault potential, the Knight for the ranged shooting, but you can't have all 3.
Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.
Yeah, leave herohammer to the annals of history.
Supreme Command to narrative only, I say.
Works for me. Maybe GW should move more of that stuff to Narrative only. I
love my generic HQ's & dont really have any named although I did make a Harath Shen model since I had the right components & wanted an apothecary.
Akar wrote: Review of certain Codexes. Personally Necrons (Really like to see 3+ Warriors and T5 Immortals again). Dark Angels,Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and Demons ALL need to be shown some attention instead of 'Here is something to hold you over'.
Core Game:
- More consistent points balancing for Monstrous/Vehicles. I think the rules are fine, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind points once a model gets in the 8+ Wound range.
- 'Sudden Death' and 'Alternating Deployment' back in the CA missions. HORRIBLE mechanics that should never have been suggested, let alone implemented.
- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.
- Refinement of the 'Command Points' system. Continue addressing and tweaking this 8th ed. mechanic.
Tournament:
- An ACTUAL GW Tournament kit release. We've seen it with Shadespire/Kill Team. Give us a functional one for 40k. (End the ITC missions)
ITC is fine. GW missions wouldn't automatically be better because GW made them.
In fact, if you played Sigmar you'd know that GW makes missions that deliberately cripple certain armies (no deepstriking, large models start tucked in the backed corner despite Sigmar being a predominantly melee game, maximum shooting/magic range of 6", etc).
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Also, get rid of the Supreme Command detachment. It makes no thematic sense that a bunch of a faction's top commanders are just going to randomly show up and leave their army behind. From a game perspective, it's just used to spam powerful characters and turn the game into HeroHammer.
Sure, but then the "no faction bonus for single LoW" rules need to go away. It's stupid that a supreme command detachment is the only way to get the full rules for a LoW in a normal 1500-2000 point game, but that's how it is now and taking away that option means you're stuck with spending ~1500 points on a full detachment of LoW and creating a very skewed (and often not fun) list in the process. But if you can take a Baneblade in a normal detachment then yes, kill off the supreme command detachment. Normal detachments have plenty of HQ slots for everything you could reasonably need.
(Though, again, the answer is to go back to the 5th edition FOC with a single LoW slot added and either 2-3 flyer slots or flyers put back into normal FOC slots like they used to be. You get one detachment and that is it. No allies, no additional detachments. Save that nonsense for narrative play where only genuinely fluffy and interesting combinations can earn special approval to break the army construction rules.)
Akar wrote: Review of certain Codexes. Personally Necrons (Really like to see 3+ Warriors and T5 Immortals again). Dark Angels,Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and Demons ALL need to be shown some attention instead of 'Here is something to hold you over'.
Core Game:
- More consistent points balancing for Monstrous/Vehicles. I think the rules are fine, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason behind points once a model gets in the 8+ Wound range.
- 'Sudden Death' and 'Alternating Deployment' back in the CA missions. HORRIBLE mechanics that should never have been suggested, let alone implemented.
- An end to 'Soup' lists for Matched play. Stop the implementation of fixing an armies weakness through allies, while other armies are forced to accept them.
- Refinement of the 'Command Points' system. Continue addressing and tweaking this 8th ed. mechanic.
Tournament:
- An ACTUAL GW Tournament kit release. We've seen it with Shadespire/Kill Team. Give us a functional one for 40k. (End the ITC missions)
ITC is fine. GW missions wouldn't automatically be better because GW made them.
In fact, if you played Sigmar you'd know that GW makes missions that deliberately cripple certain armies (no deepstriking, large models start tucked in the backed corner despite Sigmar being a predominantly melee game, maximum shooting/magic range of 6", etc).
HoundsofDemos wrote: I agree with the Supreme command detachment going the way of the dodo. If you want to take Bobby G or three captains (#vomit) then you should have to take troops. I also wouldn't mind them getting rid of super heavy auxiliary detachment either
What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff. Without the supreme detachment, and being forced to run troops for groups of 2. A Grey Knight players would have to spend more then 2000 points on units, if they wanted to run a brigade.
Togusa wrote: Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.
Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.
All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.
Peregrine wrote: Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
So you find it acceptable that the ITC community excludes an entire section of GW’s customer base?
Your statement operates under the assumption that the ITC, and other Alt-40k formats, is making improvements to the game. Which is only true when you cater to individuals who dislike the rules changes. This is BRILLIANT on the ITC part, since there is profit to be made off of creating an environment to provide for those who feel the same way. It also means that the ITC, specifically its ranking system, is only relevant to the ITC community. Same applies to all of the Alt-40k formats, but the ITC is probably the lead contender.
The TRUE absurdity is the belief that any Alt-40k format is somehow superior to the 40k format by default, or that the changes made are for the good of the community as a whole, and not just limited to their respective formats. This elitism is what is dividing the 40k community and has created a very Toxic environment. It doesn’t matter where the pro-40k players voice their views, there is always someone trying to shut them down, rather than trying to find ways to include them. What’s odd is that the ‘You will be assimilated’ attitude of the Alt-40k community is NOT one that Reecius, and probably a majority of the FLG team, push or even support. Reecius himself has said on several occasions that players can play how they want, something the ITC/Alt-40k community needs to adopt. There are Competetive players out there who don’t participate in Alt-40k events, like the ITC.
Competetive 40k itself has become problematic, since it no longer means what it’s supposed to. The strictest definition should be, ‘Those who play 40k in a competition setting’. The Alt-40k community has restricted its application to those who support their respective formats. Comments of lists, units, Armies, missions, etc, as not being ‘competetive’ plague every social aspect of the game. Trying to find Battle Reports, List advice, even answers to some rules questions, that AREN’T influenced by the Alt-40k community is not impossible, but is more difficult than it should be.
Spoiler:
The ITC has been the biggest detriment to Competetive 40k for sometime. I’m sure this applies to other Alt-40k groups, but the ITC is the most active one in my area, so can only base my observations on them. From 6th to 7th, GW underestimated how big of a monster the ITC had become. They did listen to the community at the time and gave us Maelstrom in response to the stale EW missions in tournament play, and Allies to give narrative a boost. We also got Death Stars addressed to a degree and then there was the Formations to encourage themed play. All of which the ITC cherry picked what to include.
That loss of control was a huge factor in us getting 8th, but that’s just my gut feeling on it. This time GW was smart, and included the ITC in their playtesting, feedback, and development of what is still their game. The release of 8th should’ve brought the ITC/Alt-40k community back in line with what they want 40k to be. Instead, they gave GW the finger and kept to their old ways.
Chapter Approved and the FAQs come along, still including the ITC, showing a level of activity never seen before on GWs part. We don’t have to wait for updates on codexes before we see points changes. We have a concrete release of FAQs clarifying what the intent is. Most importantly, we’ve gotten a yearly update of the missions that GW wants us to play. These are influenced by the inclusion of the ITC community. There are technically 36 missions the are instructing us how they want the game played, with the most current 12 reflect the influence of Alt-40k. Of these, the ITC has still given the finger to GW and refuse to play the game, even after they’ve been included.
GW will eventually need to do something to bring the community back together. If NOT, then they need to release a statement showing that each FAQ/CA mission update will push the game closer to what the Alt-40k wants. That way, we can decide to sell off our armies before the ITC drives the company into the ground.
A tournament kit/packet from GW would go a long way to reclaiming what Competetive 40k should be. It’s good to see that GW is creating content for those who are competitively minded. Games designed with competition in mind, like Shadespire, Kill Team, Warcry are intended to provide outlets for those who feel that way about games. Unlike 40k, which is still intended to be a hobby/story driven form of entertainment.
I’m not AGAINST the ITC. They have done quite a bit of good. They filled the void left when GW stopped running events. They provide instructions for FLGS and Independent organizers to run an event. They provide a location resource for those wishing to participate and/or locate their events, and provide a ranking system for players who care.
If they’re going to be included in providing feedback, then it would help if they started playing 40k at their events. The Evolution of how Reserves work, the Rule of 3, formation limitations, etc have all been good temporary fixes that have made their way into 40k at the cost of screwing some armies/units over without having much impact on actually balancing the game. I really hope that we get Alternating deployment back, but I see the value of Army dropping in a Time sensitive environment. Whoever managed to get Sudden Death removed from the missions needs to be shot.
What do we need? We need GW to release a kit/packet to invalidate the Alt-40k format. Not that it’ll do much good since they’d probably continue to give GW the finger and run their own events anyway, but it would go a LONG way to show that GW is including the 40k community as a whole instead of catering to those that refuse to play it. Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.
Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.
On a more general note, I'd like to see lethality brought down a notch. The reason marines and the like struggle is that their slightly tougher profiles don't mean crap because of how easy everything is to kill.
Also like to see some steps towards making proper anti-tank firepower viable again, rather than spamming mid-tier weaponry with a billion shots.
Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.
LMAO now that's a bald faced lie.
There are three different claims in that quote - you may need to be more precise.
Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.
LMAO now that's a bald faced lie.
There are three different claims in that quote - you may need to be more precise.
Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game.
LMAO now that's a bald faced lie.
There are three different claims in that quote - you may need to be more precise.
Eihnlazer wrote: Killing off 60+% of the competitive tournaments in NA can hardly be called good for the game no matter how much anyone may dislike the ITC format.
Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?
NO one is suggesting we kill off competitive tournaments. Just the format. If there is one thing that the FLG guys have shown is that they will sell out tickets no matter how bad they screw the game up. I have ZERO doubt that should they scrap their system and play 40k that players would still show up and complete. I honestly believe they are in the BEST position to do so. ITC champs for LVO next year are over 5 or 600 right? Why not split the event and have the ITC format and 40k formats both running, split the prize pool and create more winners for these events? You could even go 3 ways have have Maelstrom / Eternal War / and ITC formats all represented with that player base.
This alone would significantly improve the quality of the community and reveal more about the current state of the game than the current competitive scene does.
- Non Alt-40k players would have an option worth attending. You wouldn't have to worry about not filling all the available space, as players would select which format they prefer to play at the time of registration and go until seats sell out. Not only would this include the community, but it would also show the number of players who actually prefer 40k over the ITC. (Still skewed based on who would sign up first as I was told that they were sold out within hours)
- Since army lists tend to be different for both formats, we'd get to see a side by side comparison on how armies perform in 40k compared to how they perform in the ITC. This is a Win-Win for GW because there are two outcomes. One, the rankings are completely different to the ITC which would reveal that the ITC isn't reflective of the current state of 40k. Two, the performance of armies in the two formats don't change, which means all the extra crap that the ITC includes isn't necessary and isn't balancing the game at all. Both of these outcomes would result in the ITC needing to scrap it's format. The second one would show which armies GW needs to address in terms of needing an update. This would eventually happen in the first one, but not until everyone starts playing competitive 40k instead of the ITC.
So my WISH for 2019-2020 is for GW to release an official Tournament kit. (On topic again, My apologies Stormonu)
EVEN if GW did release a tournament kit that was in direct contrast to Alt-40k, and the ITC didn't adopt it, it would be a win-win for the community. Supporting what the ITC is built on, players are allowed to play how they want, and as long as the ITC keeps filling it's seats, then there would be no reason to stop offering an alternative for those who don't play 40k in it's current state. What is would do is force the ITC (and other Alt-40k events) to title their events properly. Honestly this is something that a majority of pro Alt-40k already do by stating up front if their events/lists/rules questions are directed at GW or toward the Alt-40k community. If you're on the supporting side of Alt-40k, then you don't understand the frustration of looking for advice, lists, tips, Battle reports, etc, where we click on them and either find out that it's not 40k. The worst are the comments in forums, and after actual games, stating that a unit, list, or even a game that was just lost, as invalid because it isn't 'Competitive'. IMAGINE stealing the win away from your opponent because he outplayed you in 40k, just to have it invalidated because they don't modify the game to the point you do.
So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game. It's an honestly thought out opinion on how scrapping Alt-40k interference would allow GW to do what they've been doing for the good of the game, and as a result, the 40k community as a whole. A truly competitive event would have every army at a 50% chance of winning. Nothing the ITC is doing is having an impact on that, and there are no facts to support that any of the ITC changes are doing anything more than providing a place for those who dislike 40k. As a result, they aren't making any improvements to the game, or the community as a result.
If you truly feel that the ITC is the best system, then there is a home on FLG forums for those individuals. Please be respectful of others opinions when on a shared forum. This has been a home for everyone to discuss their hobby since as early as 4th if I remember correctly. Comments like yours, do nothing but show that the ITC community is exclusive, toxic, and isn't doing anything to improve the community.
Togusa wrote: Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.
Spoiler:
Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.
All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.
Peregrine wrote:
Togusa wrote: Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.
Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.
All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.
Akar wrote:
Peregrine wrote: Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
So you find it acceptable that the ITC community excludes an entire section of GW’s customer base?
Your statement operates under the assumption that the ITC, and other Alt-40k formats, is making improvements to the game. Which is only true when you cater to individuals who dislike the rules changes. This is BRILLIANT on the ITC part, since there is profit to be made off of creating an environment to provide for those who feel the same way. It also means that the ITC, specifically its ranking system, is only relevant to the ITC community. Same applies to all of the Alt-40k formats, but the ITC is probably the lead contender.
The TRUE absurdity is the belief that any Alt-40k format is somehow superior to the 40k format by default, or that the changes made are for the good of the community as a whole, and not just limited to their respective formats. This elitism is what is dividing the 40k community and has created a very Toxic environment. It doesn’t matter where the pro-40k players voice their views, there is always someone trying to shut them down, rather than trying to find ways to include them. What’s odd is that the ‘You will be assimilated’ attitude of the Alt-40k community is NOT one that Reecius, and probably a majority of the FLG team, push or even support. Reecius himself has said on several occasions that players can play how they want, something the ITC/Alt-40k community needs to adopt. There are Competetive players out there who don’t participate in Alt-40k events, like the ITC.
Competetive 40k itself has become problematic, since it no longer means what it’s supposed to. The strictest definition should be, ‘Those who play 40k in a competition setting’. The Alt-40k community has restricted its application to those who support their respective formats. Comments of lists, units, Armies, missions, etc, as not being ‘competetive’ plague every social aspect of the game. Trying to find Battle Reports, List advice, even answers to some rules questions, that AREN’T influenced by the Alt-40k community is not impossible, but is more difficult than it should be.
[spoiler]The ITC has been the biggest detriment to Competetive 40k for sometime. I’m sure this applies to other Alt-40k groups, but the ITC is the most active one in my area, so can only base my observations on them. From 6th to 7th, GW underestimated how big of a monster the ITC had become. They did listen to the community at the time and gave us Maelstrom in response to the stale EW missions in tournament play, and Allies to give narrative a boost. We also got Death Stars addressed to a degree and then there was the Formations to encourage themed play. All of which the ITC cherry picked what to include.
That loss of control was a huge factor in us getting 8th, but that’s just my gut feeling on it. This time GW was smart, and included the ITC in their playtesting, feedback, and development of what is still their game. The release of 8th should’ve brought the ITC/Alt-40k community back in line with what they want 40k to be. Instead, they gave GW the finger and kept to their old ways.
Chapter Approved and the FAQs come along, still including the ITC, showing a level of activity never seen before on GWs part. We don’t have to wait for updates on codexes before we see points changes. We have a concrete release of FAQs clarifying what the intent is. Most importantly, we’ve gotten a yearly update of the missions that GW wants us to play. These are influenced by the inclusion of the ITC community. There are technically 36 missions the are instructing us how they want the game played, with the most current 12 reflect the influence of Alt-40k. Of these, the ITC has still given the finger to GW and refuse to play the game, even after they’ve been included.
GW will eventually need to do something to bring the community back together. If NOT, then they need to release a statement showing that each FAQ/CA mission update will push the game closer to what the Alt-40k wants. That way, we can decide to sell off our armies before the ITC drives the company into the ground.
A tournament kit/packet from GW would go a long way to reclaiming what Competetive 40k should be. It’s good to see that GW is creating content for those who are competitively minded. Games designed with competition in mind, like Shadespire, Kill Team, Warcry are intended to provide outlets for those who feel that way about games. Unlike 40k, which is still intended to be a hobby/story driven form of entertainment.
I’m not AGAINST the ITC. They have done quite a bit of good. They filled the void left when GW stopped running events. They provide instructions for FLGS and Independent organizers to run an event. They provide a location resource for those wishing to participate and/or locate their events, and provide a ranking system for players who care.
If they’re going to be included in providing feedback, then it would help if they started playing 40k at their events. The Evolution of how Reserves work, the Rule of 3, formation limitations, etc have all been good temporary fixes that have made their way into 40k at the cost of screwing some armies/units over without having much impact on actually balancing the game. I really hope that we get Alternating deployment back, but I see the value of Army dropping in a Time sensitive environment. Whoever managed to get Sudden Death removed from the missions needs to be shot.
What do we need? We need GW to release a kit/packet to invalidate the Alt-40k format. Not that it’ll do much good since they’d probably continue to give GW the finger and run their own events anyway, but it would go a LONG way to show that GW is including the 40k community as a whole instead of catering to those that refuse to play it. Like Togusa said, killing the current Competetive 40k would do more good than harm. There are groups out that that refuse to adopt the ITC format and there are fewer, not more, complaints about the game[/spoiler].
ITC is not40k, it is ITC's version of the game. When you require an almost entirely different system to the game, it is no longer the same game. Any feedback they(ITC) provides should not influence how the game is balanced since any data collected does not correlate to the game GW makes.
I will 3rd, 4th, 5th any suggestions for an official tourney ruleset. We have several refugees from the tourney scene and I asked why they're no longer competing. The response was that the only way they could get any practice is to play more games, but no casual or non tourney players want to play ITC rules. I've been asked numerous times if I want to play ITC, I politely look over the rules and respectfully decline, since I happen to think that GW has done a great job on the game that we play @ my flgs.
Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?
For some of us GW is literally the only game in town, the local gaming group just isn't open to switching systems.
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.
Eihnlazer wrote: Killing off 60+% of the competitive tournaments in NA can hardly be called good for the game no matter how much anyone may dislike the ITC format.
Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?
NO one is suggesting we kill off competitive tournaments. Just the format. If there is one thing that the FLG guys have shown is that they will sell out tickets no matter how bad they screw the game up. I have ZERO doubt that should they scrap their system and play 40k that players would still show up and complete. I honestly believe they are in the BEST position to do so. ITC champs for LVO next year are over 5 or 600 right? Why not split the event and have the ITC format and 40k formats both running, split the prize pool and create more winners for these events? You could even go 3 ways have have Maelstrom / Eternal War / and ITC formats all represented with that player base.
This alone would significantly improve the quality of the community and reveal more about the current state of the game than the current competitive scene does.
- Non Alt-40k players would have an option worth attending. You wouldn't have to worry about not filling all the available space, as players would select which format they prefer to play at the time of registration and go until seats sell out. Not only would this include the community, but it would also show the number of players who actually prefer 40k over the ITC. (Still skewed based on who would sign up first as I was told that they were sold out within hours)
- Since army lists tend to be different for both formats, we'd get to see a side by side comparison on how armies perform in 40k compared to how they perform in the ITC. This is a Win-Win for GW because there are two outcomes. One, the rankings are completely different to the ITC which would reveal that the ITC isn't reflective of the current state of 40k. Two, the performance of armies in the two formats don't change, which means all the extra crap that the ITC includes isn't necessary and isn't balancing the game at all. Both of these outcomes would result in the ITC needing to scrap it's format. The second one would show which armies GW needs to address in terms of needing an update. This would eventually happen in the first one, but not until everyone starts playing competitive 40k instead of the ITC.
So my WISH for 2019-2020 is for GW to release an official Tournament kit. (On topic again, My apologies Stormonu)
EVEN if GW did release a tournament kit that was in direct contrast to Alt-40k, and the ITC didn't adopt it, it would be a win-win for the community. Supporting what the ITC is built on, players are allowed to play how they want, and as long as the ITC keeps filling it's seats, then there would be no reason to stop offering an alternative for those who don't play 40k in it's current state. What is would do is force the ITC (and other Alt-40k events) to title their events properly. Honestly this is something that a majority of pro Alt-40k already do by stating up front if their events/lists/rules questions are directed at GW or toward the Alt-40k community. If you're on the supporting side of Alt-40k, then you don't understand the frustration of looking for advice, lists, tips, Battle reports, etc, where we click on them and either find out that it's not 40k. The worst are the comments in forums, and after actual games, stating that a unit, list, or even a game that was just lost, as invalid because it isn't 'Competitive'. IMAGINE stealing the win away from your opponent because he outplayed you in 40k, just to have it invalidated because they don't modify the game to the point you do.
So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game. It's an honestly thought out opinion on how scrapping Alt-40k interference would allow GW to do what they've been doing for the good of the game, and as a result, the 40k community as a whole. A truly competitive event would have every army at a 50% chance of winning. Nothing the ITC is doing is having an impact on that, and there are no facts to support that any of the ITC changes are doing anything more than providing a place for those who dislike 40k. As a result, they aren't making any improvements to the game, or the community as a result.
If you truly feel that the ITC is the best system, then there is a home on FLG forums for those individuals. Please be respectful of others opinions when on a shared forum. This has been a home for everyone to discuss their hobby since as early as 4th if I remember correctly. Comments like yours, do nothing but show that the ITC community is exclusive, toxic, and isn't doing anything to improve the community.
[spoiler]
Well to be honest, most players who want to kill ITC format post nothing but toxic exclusiveness. Your post was literally the ONLY one I have read that had a good idea in it towards moving the goal posts as it were. They really should split up the LVO champs tournament into different formats since its grown so big. Any 3 day tournament that has more than 8 undefeated players on the third day is too large in my opinion. I absolutely love the suggestion of turning the LVO into a multiple format tournament. This is however a large increase in logistics for the organizers.
Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?
For some of us GW is literally the only game in town, the local gaming group just isn't open to switching systems.
This is always really sad :( That players would play a game they do not want to simply out of that or nothing choice. I often think it was the players saying nothing is wrong that ultimately killed 40k as a standard here. Nothing could be done to fix it as it was fine. Then just no one keep turning up.
We play what could only be described as a heavy modified version now when we do pull out 40k. And i think its similar to ITC, Its the fact that ITC can exist and so many players would choose it can only be explaned by the poor management of the system. 40k just is not really in a good place i think.
So for me. I would like to see.
- Clean up the rules, this is a tough one i think. CLeaning up the rules is a lot more than simple ballance, but its working out the scale the game is playing at. Marines are supposed to be tough, in comparison to most standard infantry. But when a player can just play 3 knights. There is only so much difference they can have. Now with primerius marines This line is even slimier.
Things like knights need to be expanded to require support, probably tanks and such should have facing as well. With rules that make them interesting to use and face.
I know GW like to Forge the Narrative, but the rule suck for it.
-Narrative, as said above. There is a lot more to good narritive rules than every min faction needs some snowflake rule. Often these would be set by good balance and encouragement to use units fit for the chapter on the standard battlefield, rather than snowflake rules that depending what color you paint your minis can determine wether your whole army is good or bad.
But its also about know the setting and using the advantages that good setting can bring, Where does each marine chapter operate, who are they fighting against the most. Why would they participate and what difficulty do they have in a battle that is unreasonably far away from there home ground. Even just getting around is a story.
This also comes into having a good standard of play, A standard that is fair and as well balanced to every army and each one is set to that expected battlefield. Thought from the design team on good terrain is a must. But also Expansion to the standard and away from the standard that is well thought out, and above all fun out of the box.
This can be less balanced from the standard if its offering fun alternatives. Things like death worlds, city fight and night fighting go here. With war gear for every race for these alternate environments. If the standard is good, then its much more a easy sell for the players to other players to try alternatives.
These can also have rules for fighting in Hives, tunnels and other area where tanks cannot get to. Units on foot, And the smaller walkers the heavy units of these games.
Last, less a focus on Imperium stuff. I think it would go a long way to make players feel like they actually matter, if they got a few minis every year. even a single release in a big box can be huge.
This i think would help as well, Put a elder character in with a space marine army against Tyranids or Chaos. With special rules for the scenario in the box, and rules for standard play as well
-better thought out terrain, they have some good stuff. But some things i just cannot help but think they went though design on auto pilot for.
-good quality rules help me as a narrative player, As much as good quality writing does. And i think both could be improoved if they where willing to sit down and ask themselves about what they want from the game and the setting. Things like flyers, if they want these on the battlefields of 40k, then they need to act like them. And give fair access access to all unit types, With any force that breaks from the norm having counters as well as weakness that keep them Fun as well as ballanced.
Eihnlazer wrote: Well to be honest, most players who want to kill ITC format post nothing but toxic exclusiveness.
I haven't seen any posts to support this. There is nothing exclusive about wanting to play 40k right out of the BRB/CA Missions since that's how the game is written. That said it's not unreasonable to believe that there are forum-ites that would act this way. I confident that there are pro-ITC players who struggle to get practice games in for when they're planning on attending an event. Outside of this, I can't think of any other time where they would be excluded. To be clear, this isn't something I do. I've had a few players over the years ask me to practice for the ITC with them, which is why I dislike the format.
Eihnlazer wrote: Your post was literally the ONLY one I have read that had a good idea in it towards moving the goal posts as it were.
Thank You
Eihnlazer wrote: They really should split up the LVO champs tournament into different formats since its grown so big. Any 3 day tournament that has more than 8 undefeated players on the third day is too large in my opinion. I absolutely love the suggestion of turning the LVO into a multiple format tournament. This is however a large increase in logistics for the organizers.
Yes, and no. Yes it would be more effort on the Tournament Organizers, but I don't think the logistics of it would be that problematic. Assigning TO's to specific players would ease the responsibility. ITC TO, for example would be responsible for the first 200 players, and would only have to keep an eye on their 100 tables. The 40kTO would be responsible for their 200 players, and wouldn't have to cover more than their 100 tables, etc. Separate registration tables for the individual events would also speed up that nightmare for those that don't pre-reg. The biggest logistical nightmare would be setting up a sign-up system to put people into the requested format. While setting up a flat number of spots would make it easy, I don't think it would be worth it. You'd easily end up with players being forced to play in a non-preferred format if their preferred format sold out, but they still want to go.
Keeping on topic though, the points would also factor in to the logistics of it, and a GW Tournament kit would clarify that. The upcoming NAGT is going to be 1750 for example, something that has been called for several times by those within and outside of the ITC, and something else the ITC refuses to adjust to. It wouldn't be unreasonable for an EW format to go to 1500. This would address several other issues that the ITC has as well. Players who struggle with keeping times reasonable, those that rush to acquire/paint models, or just want a simpler option / less stressful option, would have options. The smaller games could even allow more free time between games to simply walk around and enjoy the event.
While I'm happy you think this is a good idea, it creates a bigger mess after the events are over. You'd need separate tracking for players doing well in the 40k format, separate from those doing the Alt-40k format. Lists would then have to be marked for which format they succeeded/failed in. Players rankings would have to be sorted accordingly as well. Which is why I still support the idea of the ITC format disappearing and we go back to one, single 40k format that reflects the 40k community as a whole.
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.
If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.
If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.
Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.
Then, quite frankly, what the hell are you doing here?
For some of us GW is literally the only game in town, the local gaming group just isn't open to switching systems.
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.
But those things are not always applicable. I don't know about Martel, but I don't hate the lore or the game, I'm just bothered by how bad GW seems to be at writing coherent rules and balancing factions. Especially for how long they've been at this.
And in my case it's not the LGS group being inflexible, it's that 40k is on a day I can get to and the other system I'd like to try out (x-wing) is on a day where I have another commitment. And the 40k group is pretty flexible about trying different formats within the 40k rule set, but sunk costs are a thing and we're mostly invested enough to make switching systems sound painful.
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.
If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.
Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.
I think I am not following you there, if you don't spend money you can't play other games, Am not sure how not spending money on warhammer should help with getting money for another hobby.
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote:
But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.
If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.
Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.
I think I am not following you there, if you don't spend money you can't play other games, Am not sure how not spending money on warhammer should help with getting money for another hobby.
Well if you don't spend X amount on Warhammer in a month then that's X more you have in general, that you can spend on a different hobby.
pm713 775499 10465954 wrote:
Well if you don't spend X amount on Warhammer in a month then that's X more you have in general, that you can spend on a different hobby.
Ok, I get that. But how does that help someone who is not spending money on warhammer? if the hobby money is close to zero or zero, then with the money your not going to start any other hobby with it.
Akar wrote: Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?
Ok, so let's turn that suggestion around. Do you think we should "kill off" the narrative community because having a format (all of their house rules, custom scenarios, special characters, etc) that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is not good for the game? Should the only acceptable format be playing the official GW book missions according to strict RAW?
So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game.
Perhaps, but you've certainly moved the goal posts to get there. The initial statement was in favor of killing off competitive 40k and said nothing about ITC.
Akar wrote: Having a format that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is good for the game how?
Ok, so let's turn that suggestion around. Do you think we should "kill off" the narrative community because having a format (all of their house rules, custom scenarios, special characters, etc) that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is not good for the game? Should the only acceptable format be playing the official GW book missions according to strict RAW?
So no, it's not a bold faced lie that killing off the format would be good for the game.
Perhaps, but you've certainly moved the goal posts to get there. The initial statement was in favor of killing off competitive 40k and said nothing about ITC.
Unfortunately competitive & ITC seem to go hand in hand. At least here in the USA.
Peregrine wrote: Ok, so let's turn that suggestion around. Do you think we should "kill off" the narrative community because having a format (all of their house rules, custom scenarios, special characters, etc) that does not currently reflect, represent, or include the 40k community is not good for the game? Should the only acceptable format be playing the official GW book missions according to strict RAW?
- There isn't an Alt-Narrative 40k community.
- They aren't trying to be something they're not, with Narrative players not trying to prove they're better than other Narrative players.
- There isn't a Narrative group that believes that the way they play narrative better than other narrative players.
- There is already a plethora of Narrative play options provided by GW, and don't really need a 'Narrative' kit/packet like the Competitive players DO need.
- The Narrative community isn't split, welcomes everyone who wants to play, and does in fact, represent what the 40k community should aspire to.
Peregrine wrote: Perhaps, but you've certainly moved the goal posts to get there. The initial statement was in favor of killing off competitive 40k and said nothing about ITC.
Really confused by your statement here. Are you suggesting I attempted to move the goal posts to facilitate a lie?
Racerguy180 wrote: Unfortunately competitive & ITC seem to go hand in hand. At least here in the USA.
THIS is the lie, not the other way around. The short of it is that we need to kill the current 'Competitive 40k' to make way for 'Competitive 40k' to return. When we hear the term 'Competitive 40k', the first thing that pops into our head is ITC/Alt-40k, which is the problem. One that would be addressed by the release of a Tournament kit/packet from GW. It's long overdue, but the Alt-40k/ITC community needs to update their format, and not the other way around.
Which is ALL I would like to see happen in 2019-2020. I would REALLY like to see the competitive 40k community to not be so split. It's clear at this point that GW is going to have to do it, and it's my hope they will. It's also clear that the ITC won't do anything about it, and there is no need for them to for the reasons listed in the above post. If the ITC wants to continue being a positive force for changing 40k, then they need to start playing it.
Akar wrote: - There isn't an Alt-Narrative 40k community.
There absolutely is. Many, if not most, narrative players use custom characters/missions/etc that are not GW's official content. There is zero difference between ITC creating custom missions and a group of narrative players doing the exact same thing.
- There isn't a Narrative group that believes that the way they play narrative better than other narrative players.
Lolwut? I've been told many times by narrative players that they do it better than I do. Unless all you mean here is a ridiculous nitpick that ITC is an organized group while narrative players aren't as well organized on a national level?
Really confused by your statement here. Are you suggesting I attempted to move the goal posts to facilitate a lie?
I'm saying that the original post I was replying to said "kill competitive 40k" and you have moved the goalposts to "kill ITC". Whether or not your claim about ITC is true it is a very different argument to make, one that is much weaker than the initial attack on all competitive 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akar wrote: When we hear the term 'Competitive 40k', the first thing that pops into our head is ITC/Alt-40k, which is the problem.
Why? If ITC is a better format than RAW40k then why is this a problem? So far you seem to be obsessing over whether or not "competitive 40k" is straight out of the rulebook and saying very little about whether or not ITC's changes are good for competitive play.
As per tradition, every such thread needs the obvious: Less imperium, More xenos & Plastic aspects/new aspects. Maybe someone at GW will stumble across dakka....
pm713 775499 10465798 wrote: But when you hate the lore, the game and have an inflexible community you just find a hobby you actually enjoy. There's a point where you're basically just torturing yourself.
If you have the money for it, it would probably be the best thing to do.
Now while it's entirely possible to play Warhammer and not continue spending money I find it hard to believe that if someone complains for years then they can't easily move to a new hobby by just not spending on Warhammer.
I think I am not following you there, if you don't spend money you can't play other games, Am not sure how not spending money on warhammer should help with getting money for another hobby.
There are plenty of games out there. Heck, even MtG is free now. You could also just sell your army you loathe so much to get into a less expensive hobby - even an army of semi-decent ("pro painted!") grey knights should fetch you enough to get you started on underworld, killteam, necromunda or blood bowl. And probably a whole lot of non-GW games.
It really depends whether your hobby is playing WH40k or complaining on dakka.
There are plenty of games out there. Heck, even MtG is free now. You could also just sell your army you loathe so much to get into a less expensive hobby - even an army of semi-decent ("pro painted!") grey knights should fetch you enough to get you started on underworld, killteam, necromunda or blood bowl. And probably a whole lot of non-GW games.
It really depends whether your hobby is playing WH40k or complaining on dakka.
I awas aksing more in general, not about Grey Knights, plus no one wants to buy them I asked around here. Maybe parts, but that is like not even 1/10th of what it cost me.
Am also not sure how MtG is free, you still have to buy the card to play, and you can't play tournaments without protectors. I mean I guess you could play highlander and have friends give you cards, but then one as well may have friends give them a w40k army to play with. Kind of a requires having good friends.
Plus lime the other person here the games played here are w40k and AoS, and AoS is like 7 people going to tournaments in bigger cities. There was also infinity, but the people playing it moved because they left for school, and warmahorde dies thanks to tha company making them not sending models to sell to our part of the world.
I dont want to see 9th for years! Continue to update the game and balance the rules through faqs.
And with the recent nerfs to knights and eldar, the game is closer to being balanced than it have ever been.
To be honest, the only reason to update the game would be to change the concept of "I go, you go". Alternate activations, or simultaneous activations of turns were casualties are removed (both players having the shooting, psychic, cc phase at the same time, so casualties are removed after everything have activated).
Peregrine wrote: Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
So you find it acceptable that the ITC community excludes an entire section of GW’s customer base?
What the.... LOL
This argument is so dishonest that I can't take anything you say seriously.
Nobody is EXCLUDED by itc play, narrative play still exists right along next to it and isn't removed by ITC's existence if you wish to play it.
On the reverse side, you are literally asking for a game mode removed because YOU don't like it even though others do.
Just get over it dude. Honestly, this is just sad.
- There isn't a Narrative group that believes that the way they play narrative better than other narrative players.
There is literally a group of people who call themselves "the narrative guys" and advertise that they do it best. And, after seeing their events, I'm very much inclined to agree with them, it was incredible and just completely dripping in the essence of Warhammer. But the point is you don't really know what you're talking about.
There are plenty of games out there. Heck, even MtG is free now. You could also just sell your army you loathe so much to get into a less expensive hobby - even an army of semi-decent ("pro painted!") grey knights should fetch you enough to get you started on underworld, killteam, necromunda or blood bowl. And probably a whole lot of non-GW games.
It really depends whether your hobby is playing WH40k or complaining on dakka.
I awas aksing more in general, not about Grey Knights, plus no one wants to buy them I asked around here. Maybe parts, but that is like not even 1/10th of what it cost me.
Ebay is a thing. Getting $200 for a half-decent army should be no problem if you want to.
Am also not sure how MtG is free, you still have to buy the card to play, and you can't play tournaments without protectors. I mean I guess you could play highlander and have friends give you cards, but then one as well may have friends give them a w40k army to play with. Kind of a requires having good friends.
You probably have missed Magic Arena. Free to play magic for everyone that owns a windows device.
Plus lime the other person here the games played here are w40k and AoS, and AoS is like 7 people going to tournaments in bigger cities. There was also infinity, but the people playing it moved because they left for school, and warmahorde dies thanks to tha company making them not sending models to sell to our part of the world.
From your stories, not playing with the people in your area would probably be one of the best choices. There also are plenty of hobbies which are not tabletop gaming.
Wibe wrote: I dont want to see 9th for years! Continue to update the game and balance the rules through faqs.
And with the recent nerfs to knights and eldar, the game is closer to being balanced than it have ever been.
To be honest, the only reason to update the game would be to change the concept of "I go, you go". Alternate activations, or simultaneous activations of turns were casualties are removed (both players having the shooting, psychic, cc phase at the same time, so casualties are removed after everything have activated).
A clear concise set of matched play rules that are used for pickup games as well as tournaments. None of this "rule of 3 isn't an official rule its just a suggestion" garbage. Something that simply goes: These point totals have these limits so build your army within the guidelines for your chosen point total, set up the terrain matching one of our suggested examples (show pictures of actual GW game tables not diorama tables) or follow our guidelines for each table size (2 big LOS blockers, 4 Medium Ruins etc or whatever turns out to be a good amount), roll on one table of missions to determine mission, deploy your armies, determine first, start playing the game. A standard list of instructions to be expected whether its people meeting at a friend's house for their weekly game night or a multi-day 100+ person tournament. Pretty much MTG's Standard, but for 40k. Edit: Fixed some spelling.
same thing i always want. an army builder app by GW that is good and an algorithm that reads match data and adjusts points according to unit performance.
allow users to log in and actually keep track of casualties on the app itself to get all of the performance data. heavily weigh in tournament results over pick up games, but do not ignore pick up games altogether. adjust points for units quarterly based on performance and before to long we would actually have a balanced game. playtesters and rules writers are human, they might be the place to get us the jumping off point but they will always have imperical bias. they may roll bad a few tiems on a unit and decide it is needing to be lower in cost to points, or (and i am assumign it has happened to orks a lot) they may roll hot on say a stompa and decide it is worth the 1k points it currently costs when it just isn't.
G00fySmiley wrote: same thing i always want. an army builder app by GW that is good and an algorithm that reads match data and adjusts points according to unit performance.
allow users to log in and actually keep track of casualties on the app itself to get all of the performance data. heavily weigh in tournament results over pick up games, but do not ignore pick up games altogether. adjust points for units quarterly based on performance and before to long we would actually have a balanced game. playtesters and rules writers are human, they might be the place to get us the jumping off point but they will always have imperical bias. they may roll bad a few tiems on a unit and decide it is needing to be lower in cost to points, or (and i am assumign it has happened to orks a lot) they may roll hot on say a stompa and decide it is worth the 1k points it currently costs when it just isn't.
This is a terrible idea. Want to buff your army? Submit tons of fake battle reports where all of your units suck and automatically drop their points.
A lot of the meta is following trends anyway. This would be constantly skewed and not at all as good a way of balancing instead of just, you know, hiring people good at the game, or good at game design, and listening to them.
Ebay is a thing. Getting $200 for a half-decent army should be no problem if you want to.
I dont think I would buy anything GW, if I had 200$. Too much money that can just be flushed down the toilet thanks to GW. I wish they said stuff like, you need X minimum month income to play this game. And not lure people in to wait months for changes, spending money on books that fix nothing.
You probably have missed Magic Arena. Free to play magic for everyone that owns a windows device.
Probably did, I don't really have a PC or tablet to play games on right now. Was kind of a my choice w40k or that.
There also are plenty of hobbies which are not tabletop gaming.
Not where I live. I could get in to drinking, but alcohol is a no go with the medicin I have to take.
G00fySmiley wrote: same thing i always want. an army builder app by GW that is good and an algorithm that reads match data and adjusts points according to unit performance.
allow users to log in and actually keep track of casualties on the app itself to get all of the performance data. heavily weigh in tournament results over pick up games, but do not ignore pick up games altogether. adjust points for units quarterly based on performance and before to long we would actually have a balanced game. playtesters and rules writers are human, they might be the place to get us the jumping off point but they will always have imperical bias. they may roll bad a few tiems on a unit and decide it is needing to be lower in cost to points, or (and i am assuming it has happened to orks a lot) they may roll hot on say a stompa and decide it is worth the 1k points it currently costs when it just isn't.
This is a terrible idea. Want to buff your army? Submit tons of fake battle reports where all of your units suck and automatically drop their points.
first off there would be the issue of scale with how many people are playing 40k a thousand games would be nothing. second you program in a correction for specific users, you have to factor so that a given user can only influence the score by a determined step outside actual tournament results unit preformance so unless thousands of peopel are underreporting thousands of games and having to do it in real time of a suppossed game. another safeguard would be the requirment of a handshake so both players have to use the ap and link it to a GW set of users. sign in with lists, keep track of casualties on said list and boom its harder to game the system unless you have multiple user accounts, even then if the same users submit to many battlereports back over say 10 per month or so you flag the connection and purge that data out as its either the same person trying to game the system or two players playing against each others list making thus not relevant to the meta as a whole.
I trust a computer a hell of a lot more than I do play testers and rule writers as it stands now. there are jsut so many units that under.over perform for thier points and somebody decided to gset them there/ and adjust based on how they feel vs actual cold honest data
Peregrine wrote: Why? If ITC is a better format than RAW40k then why is this a problem? So far you seem to be obsessing over whether or not "competitive 40k" is straight out of the rulebook and saying very little about whether or not ITC's changes are good for competitive play.
I feel you've missed my point, and we're not going to see eye to eye after attempts to explain it. There is no evidence to support that the ITC is a better format because there is nothing to compare it to. There isn't any data showing comparisons between 40k events and Alt-40k events. I'm not disagreeing that my discussion HAS moved from 'competitive 40k' as a whole to directly mentioning the 'ITC'. It's because there isn't a difference here in the US, so it's easier for me to compare my experience with the problem. I'm confident that the other Alt-40k formats, like NOVA, ATC/ETC, all have their supporters/detractors as well. They aren't an influence in my area, and that's all that needs to be said at this point.
'The ITC is a better format' is not an opinion shared by the 40k community.
Spoiler:
DominayTrix wrote: A clear concise set of matched play rules that are used for pickup games as well as tournaments.
Racerguy180 wrote: ITC is not40k, it is ITC's version of the game. When you require an almost entirely different system to the game, it is no longer the same game. Any feedback they(ITC) provides should not influence how the game is balanced since any data collected does not correlate to the game GW makes.
Togusa wrote: I disagree, we stopped using the ITC format in our local group. Games have become 100% more fun. ITC stands only to prep up the extreme competitive.
Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.
Crimson wrote: Just use the Chapter Approved missions. Be tournament organisers, stop trying to be game designers.
Wayniac wrote: I get before that you had to "fix" the game when GW didn't care, and the initial missions in 8th edition were lackluster. But the Chapter Approved 2018 Eternal War (not Maelstrom ofc) missions are IMHO stellar. You should just use those, and not have what is essentially your own version of the game with completely different missions that change fundamental things about gameplay and list design. You did your part to get GW to pay attention to tournaments; it's time to come back in the fold and end your rebellion.
Nithaniel wrote: Reece, you (the ITC) have a lot of power in the 40k community. What you've achieved for the game is phenomenal. Listening to the feedback is important but you should consider adopting the main CA eternal war missions. If you can use your power to move towards a unified tournament format then the credibility of 40k as a competitive 'sport' would be cemented.
Red Corsair wrote: Last years CA (eternal war) were already better IMHO. But now 2018 has even better missions and better fixes with the new deployment and acceptable casualties. The ITC missions are bland do to simple primaries but the secondaries bloat the game and eat way too much time in the pregame.
Spoletta wrote: ITC missions are not more "competitive" than vanilla missions, so drop that attitude, it's not helping the discussion.
oni wrote: What specifically makes ITC and NOVA missions "competitive" (i.e. more suited for 'competition' than other missions)?
The final mechanism for selecting an army is to use points, most commonly associated with matched play. These will be familiar to anyone who plays the game today and are designed to balance your force for use in the 12 Eternal War and Maelstrom of War missions.
This is something the ITC hasn't done. There are technically 36 missions that GW wants players to balance their armies for. Something that has failed to be incorporated by the current Competitive formats. Anyone who starts here and falls in love with the game, will eventually grow restless with their group. At some point they will jump into tournaments. They quickly realize that everything they learned needs to be thrown out the window. It's clear that there are those who are okay with this, just as there are those who aren't. There are things in the ITC that have made it into the game, like the rule of 3, removal of sudden death, etc. Regardless of my feelings on it, good job. There are other things that haven't made it in, that really need to be dropped. The secondary objectives, and their diversity need to be removed. They didn't make it in the transition from 7th to 8th, and there is still no sign of them in each of the CA updates. LONG overdue for them to go. When are we going to see Maelstrom in competitive events? Quite a few tournaments wanted to see it gone when 8th dropped, and it's not only still around, but it's significantly improved in the short time it's been around compared to EW missions. Don't care if you don't want to play them or not. Just can't see any claim that the current competitive scene is reflective of the community when they refuse to play something that is very much a part of the game. Especially when it's been included as part of the Matched Play aspect of the game.
---------
Going to add this bit in, since there are some players who seem to forget this.
Reecius wrote: Don't forget, we don't dictate things. If you all prefer any other type of missions and in your events want to run them, feel free to. You can still participate in the ITC global community and have fun and play the game the way you want to if that is the general consensus in your area.
The idea is to have fun and participate, how you choose to do that is up to you and your local community.
As for what we do as the baseline of the ITC, that comes down to what participants want. Everyone has their own perspective on it, often conflicting, so this is why we solicit feedback to find the most broadly appealing choice. It isn't always exactly what we all want (myself included) but compromise is the name of the game. The hope is to come close to what we all want but we do have to accept none of us are likely to get exactly what we want down to the smallest details.
THIS is directly from the man's post. He is quite clear that the ITC comes down to what the participants want. There is ZERO mention that the ITC is any reflection of what GW or the 40k Community wants. They've always had an open door for those to participate and post their events, and even score toward their system and there has never been a requirement to use the ITC missions. Doesn't really mean much, when all it does is attract players who are of the opinion that the ITC missions are superior, and do nothing but show up and ensure that those who do participate fail to have a good time. (*Yes, this has happened on several occasions. These are not the kind of players anyone should want at any event, so the ITC can keep them at theirs.)
Past surveys that Reecius/FLG limited their surveys to those who participated, I believe it was in part because of all the disgruntled players who spam-voted against the system. The tragic outcome of this was the exclusion of those genuinely providing input. Opening it back up was a step in the right direction, but when it initially happened, the comments on several different forums were plagued with pro-ITC players ignoring the fact that Reecius posted the survey on open forums, and insisting that the survey was STILL for those who participated. Unfortunately, the current 2019 survey is still worded that way, but at least Reecius has acknowledged those that have informed him of it. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of it.
Regardless. At NO point in time does Reecius ever state that the ITC is superior in any way to the GW missions. COMPROMISE is what the ITC is built on, not INCORPORATING. As a result, the ITC only represents a collected group of players who have some common rules that they choose to ignore. They have a wealth of data to support that, and that they're willing to adapt their format to those who participate is a major factor in it's success. It's also nothing new and goes back to long before the ITC. At one point in time it used to be 'Adepticon' with the Adepticon FAQ being the external source that players referenced and Yakface being the Reecius of the time. So the concept of a player driven environment is nothing new, and won't be going anywhere. That compromise has been found, and each evolution of the ITC should be aimed at introducing an aspect that GW has given us, so that they can find a good compromise to develop the game as a whole.
-----
Back on topic and why ALL of that is relevant. The ITC is currently doing nothing to push players toward playing 40k the way the designers intended. It's more accurate to say that it's a haven for players who don't like certain aspects of the game, which to be clear IS PERFECTLY FINE with me. There is a misconception that I am against the ITC, or it's existence, which is entirely not true. What I am against is players using the ITC as some sort of measuring stick to reflect how good they are at 40k, or that the compromises collectively voted on are somehow improvements on the game as a whole. This might have been true prior to 8th. We have a different GW now. We have GW annually giving us updates on how 40k is to be played. It's not up to the ITC to dictate that. The ITC can't change until their participants also see that, and start voting accordingly. A vote that can't happen until they change their surveys.
A GW TOURNAMENT KIT IN 2020 would address this. Competitive players would finally have a direct resource on how they game is to be run and the ITC community would have to adapt if they want to represent a true 'Competitive 40k' community. If they do NOT want to play 40k, then they will still have that option to do so, and they'll do with with GW support by providing coverage and new releases at their events, and asking them to playtest/feedback developments of their game. A tournament kit would define what competitive 40k should be, and the current competitive community can go back to Labelling/Titling/Advertising their events correctly.
I want to be quite clear, that I would be perfectly okay if GW released a Tournament kit that reflected the ITC, or Alt-40k in general. At least we would know what direction GW wants the game to progress toward, instead of watching each update incorporate changes, only to still be ignored by the ITC community. Just like a Tournament kit that would ignore the ITC format, it would be up to each player to decide what route they want to support. For me personally, it would be the nail in the coffin since that would finally lead to the downfall of 40k, and GW as well. Other great games have fallen when they let a portion of the community dictate how the game progresses before investing their money into it, instead of providing a great system/product for players to participate in.
G00fySmiley wrote: same thing i always want. an army builder app by GW that is good and an algorithm that reads match data and adjusts points according to unit performance.
allow users to log in and actually keep track of casualties on the app itself to get all of the performance data. heavily weigh in tournament results over pick up games, but do not ignore pick up games altogether. adjust points for units quarterly based on performance and before to long we would actually have a balanced game. playtesters and rules writers are human, they might be the place to get us the jumping off point but they will always have imperical bias. they may roll bad a few tiems on a unit and decide it is needing to be lower in cost to points, or (and i am assuming it has happened to orks a lot) they may roll hot on say a stompa and decide it is worth the 1k points it currently costs when it just isn't.
This is a terrible idea. Want to buff your army? Submit tons of fake battle reports where all of your units suck and automatically drop their points.
first off there would be the issue of scale with how many people are playing 40k a thousand games would be nothing. second you program in a correction for specific users, you have to factor so that a given user can only influence the score by a determined step outside actual tournament results unit preformance so unless thousands of peopel are underreporting thousands of games and having to do it in real time of a suppossed game. another safeguard would be the requirment of a handshake so both players have to use the ap and link it to a GW set of users. sign in with lists, keep track of casualties on said list and boom its harder to game the system unless you have multiple user accounts, even then if the same users submit to many battlereports back over say 10 per month or so you flag the connection and purge that data out as its either the same person trying to game the system or two players playing against each others list making thus not relevant to the meta as a whole.
I trust a computer a hell of a lot more than I do play testers and rule writers as it stands now. there are jsut so many units that under.over perform for thier points and somebody decided to gset them there/ and adjust based on how they feel vs actual cold honest data
You can build something and refine it forever, but if you allow unverified gaming results to influence game balance, some jerk WILL exploit it. Eg:
Scale: Automate the result submission. Submit 100 billion games saying Eldar suck, and see their points drop like a rock! Have the automation generate new accounts every ~100th submission so they can just trash all your made up data.
Handshake to make sure no cheat: Lol, automate scam this, just make 2 accounts.
You trust a computer.....but these rules for determining what a computer accepts or doesn't is MADE by humans. So you can design a possibly exploitable system that would maybe tune points better.....or spend that time and energy tuning points better. I think you are of the opinion that GW doesn't, or sucks at tuning, so how could you ever expect them to spend the time, money and resources to build something like this....and if they DID, how could you have faith they would get it right? It's just a system on top of a system!
I like Maelstrom with the cavities of 1d3 are always worth 2 points and discarding 6 cards at the beginning / or the ones you can't accomplish.
But is not a system I would use for tournaments.
My preffered form of play are the combined CA missions that are one Eternal War mission with one Maelstrom One, so you have both the flexibility of Maelstrom but the Eternal War Mission, to gain points with a defined objetive, so you have the best of both worlds, and even better, because the sum is bigger than is parts.
I disagree with some posters that seem a little fixated with ITC and how toxic and bad for 40k is. But I'll also add that theres a TON of ITC elitism. I have seen many posters here and in other forms of social media disregarding all European and UK tournaments, results, and games, just because they aren't ITC so the meta is garbage and isn't proper competitive 40k.
And to be honest that generates that at least in Europe not many people looks at ITC with good eyes. Not the sistem on itselff or his merits, but the "community" that surrounds it.
Galas wrote: I like Maelstrom with the caviteis of 1d3 are always worth 2 points and discarding 6 cards at the beginning / or the ones you can't accomplish.
But is not a system I would use for tournaments.
My preffered form of play are the combined CA missions that are one Eternal War mission with one Maelstrom One, so you have both the flexibility of Maelstrom but the Eternal War Mission, to gain points with a defined objetive, so you have the best of both worlds, and even better, because the sum is bigger than is parts.
Oh, ITC combined arms missions are like that. They don't get used, because the maelstrom is still random. I'm assuming that's why.
I honestly don't understand the community's active dislike for certain game formats, be it ITC, Malestrom, etc You would think GW were pointing a gun to people's heads and telling them what they must play! There is room for all of these variants and I don't quite understand people who only play one way (unless they are very limited in times they can play in which case you may want to stick to one variant). I played ITC earlier this year for first time and had no problem with it, I have also played Malestrom, Eternal War, and currently loving some of the missions from the Vigilus books (so narrative play basically). Why on earth would you limit yourself (apart from time) to just playing one way all the time? I would think the game would get stale that way.
For me, I would like to see more campaign books, an overhaul of the Eldar old miniatures and better terrain rules.
bullyboy wrote: I honestly don't understand the community's active dislike for certain game formats, be it ITC, Malestrom, etc You would think GW were pointing a gun to people's heads and telling them what they must play!
Because maelstrom is . If GW did hold a gun to my head and order me to play maelstrom I'd tell them to pull the trigger.
bullyboy wrote: I honestly don't understand the community's active dislike for certain game formats, be it ITC, Malestrom, etc You would think GW were pointing a gun to people's heads and telling them what they must play!
Because maelstrom is . If GW did hold a gun to my head and order me to play maelstrom I'd tell them to pull the trigger.
Maybe for tournament play? Hmmm, but so far I've not had any issues with the maelstrom decks in my local games. What is the problem with it?
Open War deck balances stuff out with ruse & twist. May be a bit too random for competitive but we've been playing almost exclusively with the deck and have always had an interesting game.
bullyboy wrote: I honestly don't understand the community's active dislike for certain game formats, be it ITC, Malestrom, etc You would think GW were pointing a gun to people's heads and telling them what they must play!
Because maelstrom is . If GW did hold a gun to my head and order me to play maelstrom I'd tell them to pull the trigger.
Maybe for tournament play? Hmmm, but so far I've not had any issues with the maelstrom decks in my local games. What is the problem with it?
Same with me, locally almost everyone defaults to maelstrom. we usually remove impossible objectives (kill a flyer vs admech for example) and make sure that the area denial card cannot be achieved on the first turn.
It makes people bring TAC lists instead of hyperspecialized linear lists. sure you get some bad draws sometimes but it happens on either side of the table.
for tournaments however, our TO usually brings out some ITC missions that we play with no secondaries. that way everyone is even.
Togusa wrote: Maybe for tournament play? Hmmm, but so far I've not had any issues with the maelstrom decks in my local games. What is the problem with it?
Maelstrom has three problems:
1) The objectives are nonsensical from a fluff point of view. A 40k game is representing a few minutes of combat at most, and somehow your army's objectives get changed several times during that short amount of time. Capture the objective in the middle of the table, wait, no, kill enemy aircraft, no, forget all of that and just cast as many psychic powers as possible. They would be semi-reasonable if you generated them once at the beginning of the game and that was it, but there's no way to make any kind of coherent story out of a RAW maelstrom game.
2) The extreme randomness removes player agency. Winning is mostly determined by how lucky you get with the objective deck, and which cards you get have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in the game. It's not like you proceed from A to B to C in any kind of coherent chain of events, scoring objective A gives you a completely random objective B to do next. No more trying to deceive the other player(s) about what your path to victory is, no more having to look at a table full of objectives of equal value and make long-term plans about which one to focus on and how to get there, etc. You just roll dice to kill the enemy and hope that you draw enough VP along the way to win the game. Which is great if you're 10 years old and have no ability to make long-term plans, since you're now on an equal playing field with an experienced veteran. But it's pretty disappointing if you want an interesting strategy game driven by player choices.
3) The specific objectives in the deck are a spectacular example of bad game design. You can get a "kill enemy flyers" objective when your opponent has no flyers in their army. You can get a "cast psychic powers" objective when your faction has no psykers. Your Tau shooting army can get a "kill enemies in melee" objective. You can get a "destroy enemy HQs" objective when you've already killed them (accomplishing the objective from a fluff point of view) but get zero credit for it because you didn't save those kills until after you drew the objective card. Etc. And the difficulty of those objectives is immensely variable. You might get an objective that is virtually impossible to complete, or you might get an objective that rewards you with free VP for doing something you were going to do already ("cast a psychic power" in a psyker-heavy army, etc). Even if you assume that random objectives are good the maelstrom deck is .
Finally, I'll note that it really says a lot when even the strongest maelstrom advocates don't play it straight RAW.
Martel732 wrote: I find that insisting on not allowing free discards for impossible stuff is the easiest way to get someone off maelstrom.
Let's wait for the inevitable "bUt YoUr'E nOt PlAyInG fOrTy KaY tHeN..." response to those damnable house rules.
I mean, it is a house rule. The game gives you the chance to discard impossible cards already. I don't see why you feel the need to disparage people for playing by the rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: By that logic so is re-rolls before modifiers and Flamers Hitting Supersonic Aircraft.
Now you're starting to get it. But please don't draw this off into another instance of your absurd slippery slope argument where changing one rule means you have to allow every stupid rule anyone can think of. Nobody besides you plays the game the way you describe, and I doubt even you honestly play that way. So nothing you are posting is relevant at all to this conversation.
The Warp Forge wrote: I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.
What? I can dream Harold!!!
Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.
This is my #1 want's as well honestly. Though I feel like Night Lords even getting a White Dwarf index is unlikely, just update their rules somehow to make them a bit less gimmicky!
Yeah, I'm currently working on an Fan-Supplement, but I hope by the next edition of the Codex it's something that makes NL the dominators of the Morale phase or something more flexible/de-buffing your opponent, like taking away CP to show how NL disrupt the comms of the enemy.
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.
bullyboy wrote: What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
Because it takes away player agency, turns the story into a nonsensical mess, and makes the game about what happened with the random D6 tables instead of the choices made by the players. None of these things are fun.
They had a range of different knight classes for the tabletop. Far as I recall only the standard knight that we see today (gun and chainsword) got made in plastic, the rest were all in solid metal.
. If 