So, first off the "Actions" concept looks to be something we've never seen in 40K before. If I understand correctly using an "Action" sacrifices your ability to take any other actions later that turn, right?
Where I get interested is that the primary of the mission below is 15 points total. With 3 secondaries that are also 15 points each that means the primary score is a lot smaller part of the pie and actions are potentially quite important.
Look at the mission below - you can score your full primary points on turn 2 if you hold two objectives and hold more than your opponent. Why is this (potentially) great? Well, if you are facing a strong shooting army you can score those points more easily. Then it is up to your secondaries. This Siphon actually looks fairly tough to achieve. It takes 5 turns holding only your own side to complete. That means static armies will have a harder go of it. A late game siphon with enough scraps of units on the table can net you significant points though.
I can't tell you exactly how all this is going to play out, but to me it seems very, very interesting.
Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.
Platuan4th wrote: Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.
Hmm. I suppose that makes sense. That makes is 75 possible points for primary and 45 for secondary. With scoring before movement we'll see a lot of scoring units get pushed and with secondaries scoring "mid-turn" you'll see those become more reliable.
Oh I just noticed no more dropping units onto objectives (for this mission). Interesting.
This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.
Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.
Aash wrote: This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.
Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.
It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.
Platuan4th wrote: Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.
Hmm. I suppose that makes sense. That makes is 75 possible points for primary and 45 for secondary. With scoring before movement we'll see a lot of scoring units get pushed and with secondaries scoring "mid-turn" you'll see those become more reliable.
Oh I just noticed no more dropping units onto objectives (for this mission). Interesting.
Why 45 for secondaries? Maybe I missed it, did they say you get 3 secondaries?
Also, I agree it looks like you can score up to 15 per turn for the primary.
Platuan4th wrote: Pretty sure that max 15 for the Primary is per turn. Note the wording on it that you score the points at the end of each Command Phase for a maximum of 15 points vs the Secondary rule where you score no more than 15 points for a Secondary per mission.
Hmm. I suppose that makes sense. That makes is 75 possible points for primary and 45 for secondary. With scoring before movement we'll see a lot of scoring units get pushed and with secondaries scoring "mid-turn" you'll see those become more reliable.
Oh I just noticed no more dropping units onto objectives (for this mission). Interesting.
Why 45 for secondaries? Maybe I missed it, did they say you get 3 secondaries?
Also, I agree it looks like you can score up to 15 per turn for the primary.
They haven't said how many Secondaries you get to pick.
Aash wrote: This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.
Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.
It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.
I saw that it avoids specific table size, but I was extrapolating. Given that they’ve already said that missions will be army size specific and there will be recommended amounts of terrain, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have recommended sizes of tables too.
Rereading the primary mission rules, the scoring in your own command phase is interesting. I missed that at first glance.
Aash wrote: This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.
Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.
It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.
I saw that it avoids specific table size, but I was extrapolating. Given that they’ve already said that missions will be army size specific and there will be recommended amounts of terrain, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have recommended sizes of tables too.
Nah, this is written exactly like the AoS missions are and those are specifically designed to be table size agnostic.
Aash wrote: This looks like it could be a fun mission, looks like there’s lots of emphasis on movement and board control.
Looking at the image, it seems it’s for 2000pts with a smaller sized table. Looks like it’s 5ft by 40 inches or so. Makes me wonder what size the recommendations will be for larger and smaller battles. I hope tomorrow’s reveal will be about cover, how it works and how much they will be recommending for the different sized games.
It specifically avoids stating any kind of table size, just like all the deployment maps in 8th.
I saw that it avoids specific table size, but I was extrapolating. Given that they’ve already said that missions will be army size specific and there will be recommended amounts of terrain, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have recommended sizes of tables too.
Nah, this is written exactly like the AoS missions are and those are specifically designed to be table size agnostic.
I haven’t played AOS, knowing that now, it does seem unlikely they’ll have recommended table sizes. I’m
A bit disappointed by that tbh.
Apocalypse did have recommended table sizes for different game sizes, why not here. The studio guys also said on twitch that these missions will now come in packages that are aimed for different sized games as well as different game styles, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had a general recommendation table in the book for each.
Regarding the "action" action, that's great. It gives weaker infantry a proper role in taking ground and doing things while your heavy elements do the killing, instead of simply acting as speed bumps in front of said heavier units. The narrative cockles of my heart are warmed by this.
It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.
I’m hoping that troops will still have a place. Looking at the mission it seems that troops aren’t required, but to perform the siphoning “action” it seems that you give up any other actions that turn, that’s a pretty big sacrifice for an expensive elite unit, while a cheap troops unit is probably better suited to it.
They haven't said how many Secondaries you get to pick.
On the stream they said 3 - each 15 points - no selecting the same type.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.
They won't and they will. Like mentioned above - cheap garbage units are great to use for wasting their shooing on an "Action" instead.
I think the important part is that you "can't" make an army that solves the whole puzzle, so, aim for elites and elite secondaries, but you may suffer elsewhere.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.
I’m hoping that troops will still have a place. Looking at the mission it seems that troops aren’t required, but to perform the siphoning “action” it seems that you give up any other actions that turn, that’s a pretty big sacrifice for an expensive elite unit, while a cheap troops unit is probably better suited to it.
Seems like a huge punishment for armies without any cheap options.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's not required that the unit siphoning is a troops choice, unlike the current Four Pillars mission. So maybe troops really aren't going to be that important in 9th.
I’m hoping that troops will still have a place. Looking at the mission it seems that troops aren’t required, but to perform the siphoning “action” it seems that you give up any other actions that turn, that’s a pretty big sacrifice for an expensive elite unit, while a cheap troops unit is probably better suited to it.
Seems like a huge punishment for armies without any cheap options.
Maybe, but it might be balanced against the new blast mechanic to deal with hordes so that cheap troops have a downside too. Or something else yet to be revealed. Just have to wait and see I guess.
yeah. my army is elite and doesn't have any blast weapons.
The soon and wait for something, is not an argument that makes me feel good, after what happened in 8th.
I would of course love for GW fix it somehow.. It would be great if they did. I just don't trust them, one bit.
I mean GK pay in pts for their ability to deep strike unit, and now all armies are going to get the option just by using reservs.
But who knows, maybe the CP and scoring system will somehow fix it. Maybe elite armies are going to be earning and losing points different, then non elite ones.
You picked an army that has never been billed as anything but "elite". And even with that, it's been no real secret that Grey Knights aren't a friendly army for players since they got split into their own codex.
You picked an army that has never been billed as anything but "elite". And even with that, it's been no real secret that Grey Knights aren't a friendly army for players since they got split into their own codex.
No one told me that when I was started. And for long time I thought that something like that would be fixed, for all elite armies. GW seems to claim they are going to help elite armies, but with those changes I fail to see how it could be possible.
And from what I have been told GK in the past were really cheap and had troops that cost under 20pts per , GW could give back that.
I mean, I'd squat them. So GW is doing better than that for you.
Then I hope you army gets the worse rules possible.
These latest reveals have actually made me very excited for ninth edition. Especially the moving points up - specifically calling out that this would make the game more accessible is for me a soft tonic for them announcing this reveal in the middle of a period of economic hardship for a lot of people. It looks like it is learning from ITC format without reducing every game to tarpits.
If I were to make a wish, it would be that the matched play games give you enough tools so that you can work with your opponent to decide what kind of armies you want to play and what mission provides you the best balance for both. That's totally possible now, but it requires more of a formal agreement and can't really scale up to a local league and pickup games. Maybe this edition will allow different playstyles at higher tables - or at least at San Diegan tables!
That said, when they say "everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army[,]'" I think we can all agree that is wishful thinking. I'm sure Very Good Combos will be there for exploiting no matter what they try and do. Nobody's expecting it to be perfect, GW, but it looks like you're actually trying pretty hard right now.
You picked an army that has never been billed as anything but "elite". And even with that, it's been no real secret that Grey Knights aren't a friendly army for players since they got split into their own codex.
People choose armies that speak to them. It's the reason I play eldar and harlequins. If GW doesn't plan on making elite armies like GK or Harlequins viable, then that needs to be messaged to the consumers. Very easy to sit there and say "sucks to be you, should have known better," when it's not your investment that's being potentially rendered obsolete.
Bring some characters or small units as buff bots, have them power the pillars. Mono Knights are not going to work, and Custodes may have trouble, but not sure about anyone else.
The corner deployment is interesting, as it will allow someone with fast aggressive units to go claim 3 towers, and get the 15 points straight off, plus potentially another 6 if they are happy to abstain on doing anything (advance move) while your opponent sits in a non-moving castle.
In practice I suspect the battlefield will tend to split half and half, with everyone earning 13 and then there will be an attempt to push one pillar once they are sufficiently weakened/straight away if you are a fast/aggressive faction.
Basically everything they've said sounds good. More focus on the mission, less focus on "just kill them and win" (which tbf never goes entirely and tends to peak late expansion due to creep). Quasi-addition of ITC secondaries.
All in all moving to cautiously optimistic from cautiously pessimistic on the first "X things we love" video.
Tyel wrote: Bring some characters or small units as buff bots, have them power the pillars. Mono Knights are not going to work, and Custodes may have trouble, but not sure about anyone else.
The corner deployment is interesting, as it will allow someone with fast aggressive units to go claim 3 towers, and get the 15 points straight off, plus potentially another 6 if they are happy to abstain on doing anything (advance move) while your opponent sits in a non-moving castle.
In practice I suspect the battlefield will tend to split half and half, with everyone earning 13 and then there will be an attempt to push one pillar once they are sufficiently weakened/straight away if you are a fast/aggressive faction.
Basically everything they've said sounds good. More focus on the mission, less focus on "just kill them and win" (which tbf never goes entirely and tends to peak late expansion due to creep). Quasi-addition of ITC secondaries.
All in all moving to cautiously optimistic from cautiously pessimistic on the first "X things we love" video.
Killing still prevents the execution of missions, however.
You picked an army that has never been billed as anything but "elite". And even with that, it's been no real secret that Grey Knights aren't a friendly army for players since they got split into their own codex.
People choose armies that speak to them. It's the reason I play eldar and harlequins. If GW doesn't plan on making elite armies like GK or Harlequins viable, then that needs to be messaged to the consumers. Very easy to sit there and say "sucks to be you, should have known better," when it's not your investment that's being potentially rendered obsolete.
I ran Skitarii in 7th. My whole frigging army got invalidated overnight with my Doctrina Imperatives all got nerfed and moved to a Stratagem that to get a modicum of what they had, my ability to go without an HQ removed(Harlequins got a Troupe Master added instead of getting forced to start taking something like a Ynnari character or the like), my pregame Scout move is gone(it's now coming back though!..but only as a custom Forge World lesser Dogma and only on Skitarii Rangers), and since I built around formations(Sicarian Killclade, most notably ) rather than strictly an 'army'? I had to get Techpriest Dominii, Enginseers, and soon Manipulii for running my army the same way I ran it before.
Ooh, or we can talk about how my Guard overnight with the first Cruddace book was invalidated! 10 Infantry Squads worth of Sergeants that had to have lasguns removed from them because the option was gone, and 6 Kasrkin Squads worth that I had to attempt to track down the Veteran Sergeants individually for(since I had bought my Kasrkin via blisters rather than the boxed set as I didn't want flamethrowers or grenade launchers).
Karol does nothing but complain about Grey Knights or prices on this forum. I get that it's frustrating to have an army not be what you hoped it is, but there comes a point where either you need to make it work or realize that it's time to move off of it.
Keep in mind that this is a single mission we've seen. Others may be more friendly to elite armies; as a matter of fact, the Psychic Interrogation action they showed would work best in a GK or Ksons army since every unit is psychic.
PenitentJake wrote: Keep in mind that this is a single mission we've seen. Others may be more friendly to elite armies; as a matter of fact, the Psychic Interrogation action they showed would work best in a GK or Ksons army since every unit is psychic.
To be honest I thought psychic interrogation looked a bit like a new power thats going to replace smite when I looked at that...
Is there a stream for this at all like the Q&A? I seen a mention of it somewhere.
Something people are ignoring with the syphon secondary is that it's an optional secondary you can take instead of other seconrdaries. Armies like Custodes and Knights obviously would skip it, but armies with cheap troops like Cultists or Termagaunts would get use out of that secondary as a sort of hold/hold more point scoring method.
PenitentJake wrote: Keep in mind that this is a single mission we've seen. Others may be more friendly to elite armies; as a matter of fact, the Psychic Interrogation action they showed would work best in a GK or Ksons army since every unit is psychic.
To be honest I thought psychic interrogation looked a bit like a new power thats going to replace smite when I looked at that...
Is there a stream for this at all like the Q&A? I seen a mention of it somewhere.
It's a secondary a psyker can cast instead of one of their other powers to gain VP as a secondary. It probably has the same limits regular psychic powers do meaning that it'll likely be limited to one psyker a turn.
That or it'll cap out at like 15 and then you can't score on it anymore.
I also think it wouldn't be impossible for them to rerelease the Custodes and Grey Knights codecies with new stormtrooper equivalents - Talons of the Emperor codex rather than Custodes codex, and back to Daemonhunters instead of Grey Knights. Seems easier than having everyone have to scramble to find the particular White Dwarf article.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: I also think it wouldn't be impossible for them to rerelease the Custodes and Grey Knights codecies with new stormtrooper equivalents - Talons of the Emperor codex rather than Custodes codex, and back to Daemonhunters instead of Grey Knights. Seems easier than having everyone have to scramble to find the particular White Dwarf article.
We know the Custodes are getting Sisters of Silence back so they'll likely go back to being the Talons of the Emperor book which will add in psychic defense and cheaper bodies into an elite army that didn't have good answers for either before.
ClockworkZion wrote: Something people are ignoring with the syphon secondary is that it's an optional secondary you can take instead of other seconrdaries. Armies like Custodes and Knights obviously would skip it, but armies with cheap troops like Cultists or Termagaunts would get use out of that secondary as a sort of hold/hold more point scoring method.
This is a good change. The ca Four Pillars mission required troops to score the objectives and was therefore extremely difficult for elite armies. I was sceptical about the use of secondaries but this is a good use of them. It gives armies alternative ways to score if their makeup leaves them at a disadvantage for the primary mission. I'm looking forward to seeing more missions, particularly for Onslaught, as I like to bring lots of toys.
The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.
There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.
Its hilatious how some players like to proclaim that 9th is broken, their army has become useless or that the sky is falling, based on incomplete intel. Maybe you want to forget your preconceptions and reserve judgement until you see the full picture, hmm?
I am cautiously optimistic about 9th because known tournament players/organizers have been playtesting the rules and points values this time around. Seems like GW has really listened to the community this time. Lets wait and see.
Arachnofiend wrote: The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.
There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.
Agreed. I like the fact you have to paint a big target on your units if you want to use the Siphon Power action, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Actions work the same way. That then gives your opponent some interesting decisions to make because they may have really wanted to kill something other than your relatively useless blob of Cultists but that unit is now worth killing. The fact you can ignore the special mission objective in favour of the regular secondaries also means armies are unlikely to be incapable of scoring well in a mission but I do hope those secondaries don't do what ITC effectively did and make some units useless.
I think people are misreading this and need to stop and actually reread the misson as the new missions are way more complex than anything GW has put out before.
How your opponents secondary missions are going will have a big swing onnhow quickly or how hard you have to go after the primary mission's objectives.
The ability to both score but only one to maximise their score along with secondarues is going to make a lot more choices meaningful in determining the winner.
Also with such huge score potentials, 120 if you max everythingthe blowout games and such will be clear in the results.
I also like that they have already insured that you can't just deepstrike onto objectives.
Also start of turn scoring explains why Recce said you would want fewer more durable units than just swarms, however I could also see them being useful
ClockworkZion wrote: Something people are ignoring with the syphon secondary is that it's an optional secondary you can take instead of other seconrdaries. Armies like Custodes and Knights obviously would skip it, but armies with cheap troops like Cultists or Termagaunts would get use out of that secondary as a sort of hold/hold more point scoring method.
Preach, people jump to conclusions. This mission's primary objectives is still the regular "capture and hold". The siphoning thing is ONE of the options for your secondaries. Players can totally dismiss this aspect entirely and focus on their own secondaries, like killing stuff, manoeuvring stuff or doing psychic powers.
It's a great change and so far looks promising for people who want to build their armies around a theme. If there's less "essential" units that we have to include in our lists and get more freedom in list building it's absolutely cool.
Tyel wrote: Bring some characters or small units as buff bots, have them power the pillars. Mono Knights are not going to work, and Custodes may have trouble, but not sure about anyone else.
The corner deployment is interesting, as it will allow someone with fast aggressive units to go claim 3 towers, and get the 15 points straight off, plus potentially another 6 if they are happy to abstain on doing anything (advance move) while your opponent sits in a non-moving castle..
Mind you this is alternative secondary. Knight can go for generic secondaries like killing stuff etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Its hilatious how some players like to proclaim that 9th is broken, their army has become useless or that the sky is falling, based on incomplete intel. Maybe you want to forget your preconceptions and reserve judgement until you see the full picture, hmm?
I am cautiously optimistic about 9th because known tournament players/organizers have been playtesting the rules and points values this time around. Seems like GW has really listened to the community this time. Lets wait and see.
Playtesters who have in 8th been making elite armies better in their tournaments than hordes. They have their own agenda to push to get game they want(elites over horde). Top of that GW isn't interested in balance.
Oh and GW had known tournament players/organizers playtest for 8th...how did that work out?
Tyel wrote: Bring some characters or small units as buff bots, have them power the pillars. Mono Knights are not going to work, and Custodes may have trouble, but not sure about anyone else.
The corner deployment is interesting, as it will allow someone with fast aggressive units to go claim 3 towers, and get the 15 points straight off, plus potentially another 6 if they are happy to abstain on doing anything (advance move) while your opponent sits in a non-moving castle..
Mind you this is alternative secondary. Knight can go for generic secondaries like killing stuff etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Its hilatious how some players like to proclaim that 9th is broken, their army has become useless or that the sky is falling, based on incomplete intel. Maybe you want to forget your preconceptions and reserve judgement until you see the full picture, hmm?
I am cautiously optimistic about 9th because known tournament players/organizers have been playtesting the rules and points values this time around. Seems like GW has really listened to the community this time. Lets wait and see.
Playtesters who have in 8th been making elite armies better in their tournaments than hordes. They have their own agenda to push to get game they want(elites over horde). Top of that GW isn't interested in balance.
Oh and GW had known tournament players/organizers playtest for 8th...how did that work out?
GW also didn't listen to the pakytesters in 8th either as they all called ironhands as broken from the day 1 codex drop.
I get the Marines are oppressive to play against, but thats true in any mission set. It also does not help mono Custodes, etc the other more elite armies who are still getting melted by hordes.
8th in it's core mechanics favours cheap troops over most others, that needed addressed. The issue is we now have marines on the low end of elite stomping all over everyone while custodes astill need buffs vrs cheap troop lists.
It's be an issue GW has always had with marine's they are so ubiquitous then when the are OP they explode and ruin the game, when they suck it makes bringing new player to the print money faction harder and starves the system of new players.
GW hasn't been able to figure out the balance poit for marines in 8th core rules, all I hopefor is that the core rules do somethingthat makes it not so binary qhen it comes to balance.
Arachnofiend wrote: The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.
There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.
Agreed. I like the fact you have to paint a big target on your units if you want to use the Siphon Power action, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Actions work the same way. That then gives your opponent some interesting decisions to make because they may have really wanted to kill something other than your relatively useless blob of Cultists but that unit is now worth killing. The fact you can ignore the special mission objective in favour of the regular secondaries also means armies are unlikely to be incapable of scoring well in a mission but I do hope those secondaries don't do what ITC effectively did and make some units useless.
Unless of course, they can kill everything they want all at once.
Arachnofiend wrote: The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.
There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.
Agreed. I like the fact you have to paint a big target on your units if you want to use the Siphon Power action, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Actions work the same way. That then gives your opponent some interesting decisions to make because they may have really wanted to kill something other than your relatively useless blob of Cultists but that unit is now worth killing. The fact you can ignore the special mission objective in favour of the regular secondaries also means armies are unlikely to be incapable of scoring well in a mission but I do hope those secondaries don't do what ITC effectively did and make some units useless.
Unless of course, they can kill everything they want all at once.
But I thought hordes were OP and unkillable, at least according to you. Or does that only hold true until you need to pointlessly complain about something else? GW have already mentioned a few times that they want to decrease lethality through better terrain rules and upping points costs to reduce the number of models on the board so there's a chance lethality, overall, will come down even with changes to how vehicles and monsters work. At any rate, what I said holds true: more options with different ways to affect the outcome of the game rather than just blindly gunning down everything in sight means the game may potentially be less shallow and better reward decision making over straight mathhammer.
PenitentJake wrote: Keep in mind that this is a single mission we've seen. Others may be more friendly to elite armies; as a matter of fact, the Psychic Interrogation action they showed would work best in a GK or Ksons army since every unit is psychic.
To be honest I thought psychic interrogation looked a bit like a new power thats going to replace smite when I looked at that...
Is there a stream for this at all like the Q&A? I seen a mention of it somewhere.
It did look like that, because it has a warp charge value, but as it is listed with other actions in a section called actions, it isn't. When you perform any action, the only other thing you get to do that turn is move; in this case, you do have to roll to manifest the action as you would for a power. Its only effect is to confer victory points; it has no impact on the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don Qui Hotep wrote: I also think it wouldn't be impossible for them to rerelease the Custodes and Grey Knights codecies with new stormtrooper equivalents - Talons of the Emperor codex rather than Custodes codex, and back to Daemonhunters instead of Grey Knights. Seems easier than having everyone have to scramble to find the particular White Dwarf article.
Giving us an Imperial Agents dex would be the most elegant solution. It solves all the Inquisition + Chamber Militant issues, not just GK. If you roll back GK to Daemon Hunters, you have to roll Deathwatch back to Alien Hunters and SoB to Witch Hunters. If you give us a good Agents dex, it allows us to use all of the Inquisition stuff with GK and DW to expand options for those armies until GW gets around to adding a few new units to those armies- another thing that should be done sooner rather than later.
An Agents dex that took it's cues from Apocalypse would also allow SoS to be more than the cheap half of Talons, without preventing them from being the cheap half of Talons for those who chose to use them that way. I find SoS fit far better with Inquisition than Custodes. Their mandate is anti-psyker. Inquisitors battle Psykers as a rule. Custodes fight everything, and sometimes that means psykers show up, but fighting psykers is not their explicitly stated purpose the way it is with some branches of the Inquisition.
Don't get me wrong- I like them as Talons, and I want them to be able to be Talons; I just like them BETTER when they work with the Inquisition, so I want them to be able to do that too.
Finally, an Agents Dex, again, following the Apocalypse model, would also ensure that Rogue Traders continue to play a part in the game. They are a vital storytelling tool, because their mandate to explore the fringes of Imperial Space makes them kinda the ultimate first contact hook if GW ever decides to add new Xenos factions. Rogue Traders in their capacity with Blackstone Fortress have already brought Ambulls and Zoats back to the game. We need them to keep the galaxy interesting.
I am a guy who believes the first choice for improvement is addition, not subtraction. For example, we have posters who dislike power armour and think the game is too marine centric. I agree, but I'd rather fix the problem by expanding all Xenos ranges, fleshing out Tau alien auxiliaries until they can figt like other small factions such as Harlequins or Custodes- you'd still see them in Tau armies far more often than you'd see them as stand alones, but it would be POSSIBLE to play them as stand alones. Then expand Ynnari, but do it by bringing in Corsair and Exodite units which could also be used as non-Ynnari if they instead join any other Aeldari faction- this way folks who like CWE and DE don't have to worry about losing their units to the Ynnari, and Corsair and Exodite fans get love too.
Oh yeah, and bring back squats; Kharadon overlords look awesome, and the Grombrindal Techmarine was awesome. Necromunda squats are excellent proof of concept for the return of the squats.
More is always better than less, because you can always choose to avoid something that exists if you don't like it; conversely, you can't choose to play something that doesn't exist, not matter how much you like it.
PenitentJake wrote: Keep in mind that this is a single mission we've seen. Others may be more friendly to elite armies; as a matter of fact, the Psychic Interrogation action they showed would work best in a GK or Ksons army since every unit is psychic.
To be honest I thought psychic interrogation looked a bit like a new power thats going to replace smite when I looked at that...
Is there a stream for this at all like the Q&A? I seen a mention of it somewhere.
It did look like that, because it has a warp charge value, but as it is listed with other actions in a section called actions, it isn't. When you perform any action, the only other thing you get to do that turn is move; in this case, you do have to roll to manifest the action as you would for a power. Its only effect is to confer victory points; it has no impact on the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don Qui Hotep wrote: I also think it wouldn't be impossible for them to rerelease the Custodes and Grey Knights codecies with new stormtrooper equivalents - Talons of the Emperor codex rather than Custodes codex, and back to Daemonhunters instead of Grey Knights. Seems easier than having everyone have to scramble to find the particular White Dwarf article.
Giving us an Imperial Agents dex would be the most elegant solution. It solves all the Inquisition + Chamber Militant issues, not just GK. If you roll back GK to Daemon Hunters, you have to roll Deathwatch back to Alien Hunters and SoB to Witch Hunters. If you give us a good Agents dex, it allows us to use all of the Inquisition stuff with GK and DW to expand options for those armies until GW gets around to adding a few new units to those armies- another thing that should be done sooner rather than later.
An Agents dex that took it's cues from Apocalypse would also allow SoS to be more than the cheap half of Talons, without preventing them from being the cheap half of Talons for those who chose to use them that way.
I find SoS fit far better with Inquisition than Custodes. Their mandate is anti-psyker. Inquisitors battle Psykers as a rule. Custodes fight everything, and sometimes that means psykers show up, but fighting psykers is not their explicitly stated purpose the way it is with some branches of the Inquisition.
Don't get me wrong- I like them as Talons, and I want them to be able to be Talons; I just like them BETTER when they work with the Inquisition, so I want them to be able to do that too.
Spoiler:
Finally, an Agents Dex, again, following the Apocalypse model, would also ensure that Rogue Traders continue to play a part in the game. They are a vital storytelling tool, because their mandate to explore the fringes of Imperial Space makes them kinda the ultimate first contact hook if GW ever decides to add new Xenos factions. Rogue Traders in their capacity with Blackstone Fortress have already brought Ambulls and Zoats back to the game. We need them to keep the galaxy interesting.
I am a guy who believes the first choice for improvement is addition, not subtraction. For example, we have posters who dislike power armour and think the game is too marine centric. I agree, but I'd rather fix the problem by expanding all Xenos ranges, fleshing out Tau alien auxiliaries until they can figt like other small factions such as Harlequins or Custodes- you'd still see them in Tau armies far more often than you'd see them as stand alones, but it would be POSSIBLE to play them as stand alones. Then expand Ynnari, but do it by bringing in Corsair and Exodite units which could also be used as non-Ynnari if they instead join any other Aeldari faction- this way folks who like CWE and DE don't have to worry about losing their units to the Ynnari, and Corsair and Exodite fans get love too.
Oh yeah, and bring back squats; Kharadon overlords look awesome, and the Grombrindal Techmarine was awesome. Necromunda squats are excellent proof of concept for the return of the squats.
More is always better than less, because you can always choose to avoid something that exists if you don't like it; conversely, you can't choose to play something that doesn't exist, not matter how much you like it.
Yeah the fluff is not very supportive of SoS having anything to do with the Inquisition as far as I can tell they like the Custodes stand outside the preview and remit of the HLoT which is predominantly from their down the Inquisitions is supposed to inquisitor.
They report to the Emperor and in some aspect to the Astra Telepathica as part of the blackship program but who the blackships report too seems deliberately not defined
Don Qui Hotep wrote: I also think it wouldn't be impossible for them to rerelease the Custodes and Grey Knights codecies with new stormtrooper equivalents - Talons of the Emperor codex rather than Custodes codex, and back to Daemonhunters instead of Grey Knights. Seems easier than having everyone have to scramble to find the particular White Dwarf article.
Giving us an Imperial Agents dex would be the most elegant solution. It solves all the Inquisition + Chamber Militant issues, not just GK. If you roll back GK to Daemon Hunters, you have to roll Deathwatch back to Alien Hunters and SoB to Witch Hunters. If you give us a good Agents dex, it allows us to use all of the Inquisition stuff with GK and DW to expand options for those armies until GW gets around to adding a few new units to those armies- another thing that should be done sooner rather than later.
An Agents dex that took it's cues from Apocalypse would also allow SoS to be more than the cheap half of Talons, without preventing them from being the cheap half of Talons for those who chose to use them that way. I find SoS fit far better with Inquisition than Custodes. Their mandate is anti-psyker. Inquisitors battle Psykers as a rule. Custodes fight everything, and sometimes that means psykers show up, but fighting psykers is not their explicitly stated purpose the way it is with some branches of the Inquisition.
Don't get me wrong- I like them as Talons, and I want them to be able to be Talons; I just like them BETTER when they work with the Inquisition, so I want them to be able to do that too.
Finally, an Agents Dex, again, following the Apocalypse model, would also ensure that Rogue Traders continue to play a part in the game. They are a vital storytelling tool, because their mandate to explore the fringes of Imperial Space makes them kinda the ultimate first contact hook if GW ever decides to add new Xenos factions. Rogue Traders in their capacity with Blackstone Fortress have already brought Ambulls and Zoats back to the game. We need them to keep the galaxy interesting.
I am a guy who believes the first choice for improvement is addition, not subtraction. For example, we have posters who dislike power armour and think the game is too marine centric. I agree, but I'd rather fix the problem by expanding all Xenos ranges, fleshing out Tau alien auxiliaries until they can figt like other small factions such as Harlequins or Custodes- you'd still see them in Tau armies far more often than you'd see them as stand alones, but it would be POSSIBLE to play them as stand alones. Then expand Ynnari, but do it by bringing in Corsair and Exodite units which could also be used as non-Ynnari if they instead join any other Aeldari faction- this way folks who like CWE and DE don't have to worry about losing their units to the Ynnari, and Corsair and Exodite fans get love too.
Oh yeah, and bring back squats; Kharadon overlords look awesome, and the Grombrindal Techmarine was awesome. Necromunda squats are excellent proof of concept for the return of the squats.
More is always better than less, because you can always choose to avoid something that exists if you don't like it; conversely, you can't choose to play something that doesn't exist, not matter how much you like it.
Those are really good points. I wouldn't want Sisters of Battle to lose what they got. Building an Inquisition-style codex that was built for allying with Grey Knights and Deathwatch is a good idea. I'd love to see more new Inquisitor models - they're some of the best models GW produces.
That said, I would worry that the word from up top is that the new edition disincentivizes allying in armies, and I understand when people complain about having to buy two or more codexes for one army. Could we get a Chambers Militant codex? Let SoB keep their own codex but have Deathwatch and Grey Knights lumped in with Inquisitorial stormtroopers and similar? Seems like it might be a happy compromise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of course everything I say in these kinds of threads is just a form of wishlisting.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: ...That said, I would worry that the word from up top is that the new edition disincentivizes allying in armies, and I understand when people complain about having to buy two or more codexes for one army. Could we get a Chambers Militant codex? Let SoB keep their own codex but have Deathwatch and Grey Knights lumped in with Inquisitorial stormtroopers and similar? Seems like it might be a happy compromise...
You could alternately keep all the Codexes separate, but then have a section in the Inquisition book letting you mix Inquisition, MT, and either Deathwatch/Sisters/GK to make an Ordo Xenos/Hereticus/Malleus detachment, and then defining a specific set of benefits you get if you do that. Let the armies have weaker versions of their special abilities (Doctrines/Acts of Faith/Tides) in a mixed detachment and then add in some stratagems for letting the elements of the detachment interact, that kind of thing.
Considering just how many imperial worlds exist, there are wayy too many damn marines in 40k. If it was up to me, I'd sack all marine codexes and force all imperial players to either take guard or SoB, and leave all power armoured weirdos to elite slots. That would immediately make the game play much more closer to the fluff than what we are seeing.
However, given how popular spess mahrenes are, there is no chance this will ever happen.
Considering just how many imperial worlds exist, there are wayy too many damn marines in 40k. If it was up to me, I'd sack all marine codexes and force all imperial players to either take guard or SoB, and leave all power armoured weirdos to elite slots. That would immediately make the game play much more closer to the fluff than what we are seeing.
However, given how popular spess mahrenes are, there is no chance this will ever happen.
Okey. But then because eldar are dieing out, and tau are a small xeno nations, I ask for 99% of all xeno players represent the real proportion of xeno to xeno army, and play tyranids. I want one tau player for 1000 xeno players and one eldar player for every 10000 xeno player. The numbers of necron players can't be set know, as we don't know how many have awakened. i think we could fix that by allowing xeno player to own a necron army, but only some could use them, depending on the continent. 3 days out of 7 could be US, 2 out of 7 could be europe and the rest could be split between the rest of the world, and other human colonies and space stations.
Considering just how many imperial worlds exist, there are wayy too many damn marines in 40k. If it was up to me, I'd sack all marine codexes and force all imperial players to either take guard or SoB, and leave all power armoured weirdos to elite slots. That would immediately make the game play much more closer to the fluff than what we are seeing.
However, given how popular spess mahrenes are, there is no chance this will ever happen.
Okey. But then because eldar are dieing out, and tau are a small xeno nations, I ask for 99% of all xeno players represent the real proportion of xeno to xeno army, and play tyranids. I want one tau player for 1000 xeno players and one eldar player for every 10000 xeno player. The numbers of necron players can't be set know, as we don't know how many have awakened. i think we could fix that by allowing xeno player to own a necron army, but only some could use them, depending on the continent. 3 days out of 7 could be US, 2 out of 7 could be europe and the rest could be split between the rest of the world, and other human colonies and space stations.
Point of order: There are a lot of individual Tyranid organisms, but very few Hive Fleets, which means in terms of quantity of individual intelligences there are probably fewer Tyranids in the galaxy than just about anything else.
Considering just how many imperial worlds exist, there are wayy too many damn marines in 40k. If it was up to me, I'd sack all marine codexes and force all imperial players to either take guard or SoB, and leave all power armoured weirdos to elite slots. That would immediately make the game play much more closer to the fluff than what we are seeing.
However, given how popular spess mahrenes are, there is no chance this will ever happen.
Okey. But then because eldar are dieing out, and tau are a small xeno nations, I ask for 99% of all xeno players represent the real proportion of xeno to xeno army, and play tyranids. I want one tau player for 1000 xeno players and one eldar player for every 10000 xeno player. The numbers of necron players can't be set know, as we don't know how many have awakened. i think we could fix that by allowing xeno player to own a necron army, but only some could use them, depending on the continent. 3 days out of 7 could be US, 2 out of 7 could be europe and the rest could be split between the rest of the world, and other human colonies and space stations.
"Dying out" There are still WAY more Eldar than marines. Orders of magnitude more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Right, most xenos players should play orks, they are the most populous race in the galaxy after all.
Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Martel, I think you're failing to understand something: the table top isn't the lore. The number of marine armies isn't reflective of the number of Marines in the setting.
Just because you're bored of something doesn't make it boring either. But then again I'm speaking with a fair bit of bias since I'm working on Black Templar Primaris (some non-Primaris too, but mostly Primaris):
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore.
This. Most of the people in my gaming group either already have one or more astartes armies or are starting one, and it's one of the armies I play against the most. My buddy finally got to start his primaris Iron Hands force right before the supplements, so the games can be fairly one-sided. But thats the army he wants to play, whether its the most common or not is irrelevant, because no matter how many times the same list gets fielded, I can always switch up my lists or my play style, hell even the missions/terrain/objectives/etc, and that changes the game enough to allow me to enjoy it and never get bored.
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting to play the exact same thing over and over, but there are so many things you can change aside from your opponents army that change up the game and break the monotony of the situation. The game is what you make of it
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
I volunteer BA for squatting.
I volunteer Martel for squatting.
I don't see why this is such a sensitive topic. It's not that I don't approve of fun. It's that one army type, power armor, is way too common.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
I volunteer BA for squatting.
I volunteer Martel for squatting.
I don't see why this is such a sensitive topic. It's not that I don't approve of fun. It's that one army type, power armor, is way too common.
Because people like things they like and you're telling everyone that they're wrong for liking those things and everyone should like less of those things.
Basically you're being toxic to the community and using the excuse of being "bored" to take shots at others.
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but could all this secondary shenanigans imply that First Strike/Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker would be secondaries that aren't standard, but something you could choose?
I mean, I can see the problem with that already (why would you not take First Strike - a point for killing something on turn one? Why not!), but it does seem like a better way than just having those be the default in basically every mission.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
I volunteer BA for squatting.
I volunteer Martel for squatting.
I don't see why this is such a sensitive topic. It's not that I don't approve of fun. It's that one army type, power armor, is way too common.
Sports are way too common, let's get rid of those.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sorry if this has been brought up before, but could all this secondary shenanigans imply that First Strike/Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker would be secondaries that aren't standard, but something you could choose?
I mean, I can see the problem with that already (why would you not take First Strike - a point for killing something on turn one? Why not!), but it does seem like a better way than just having those be the default in basically every mission.
They could be considered tertiary missions since they can only be scored once.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sorry if this has been brought up before, but could all this secondary shenanigans imply that First Strike/Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker would be secondaries that aren't standard, but something you could choose?
I mean, I can see the problem with that already (why would you not take First Strike - a point for killing something on turn one? Why not!), but it does seem like a better way than just having those be the default in basically every mission.
If it's as I suspect and a conglomerate and GW isum of competitive missions I suspect they will be grouped together into a secondary mission consisting of
Kill the warlord 5VP, first strike 5 VP and last strike (kill on last turn) 5VP for your 15 from the secondary.
But this is pure speculation.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
I volunteer BA for squatting.
I volunteer Martel for squatting.
I don't see why this is such a sensitive topic. It's not that I don't approve of fun. It's that one army type, power armor, is way too common.
Because people like things they like and you're telling everyone that they're wrong for liking those things and everyone should like less of those things.
Basically you're being toxic to the community and using the excuse of being "bored" to take shots at others.
I"m not saying people are wrong. I'm saying GW is wrong for making power armor so common and accessible. They shouldn't like them less, GW should make them less accessible.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
I volunteer BA for squatting.
I volunteer Martel for squatting.
I don't see why this is such a sensitive topic. It's not that I don't approve of fun. It's that one army type, power armor, is way too common.
Because people like things they like and you're telling everyone that they're wrong for liking those things and everyone should like less of those things.
Basically you're being toxic to the community and using the excuse of being "bored" to take shots at others.
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Martel732 wrote:Marines are still way too common and have become boring a feth.
Sorry that you don't approve of other people's fun, but that's a you problem.
If someone like XYZ faction, they have every right to play that faction, no matter how rare or uncommon it is in lore. If we were being realistic, most people would play PDF, Guardsmen, non-Chaos insurrectionists, and occasionally Orks or Renegades and Heretics.
You play Blood Angels, don't you? Rather hypocritical to complain about other people playing Space Marines, but you being a Space Marine player.
That implies people have to spam marines to have fun.
I volunteer BA for squatting.
I volunteer Martel for squatting.
I don't see why this is such a sensitive topic. It's not that I don't approve of fun. It's that one army type, power armor, is way too common.
Because people like things they like and you're telling everyone that they're wrong for liking those things and everyone should like less of those things.
Basically you're being toxic to the community and using the excuse of being "bored" to take shots at others.
I"m not saying people are wrong. I'm saying GW is wrong for making power armor so common and accessible.
It's "common and accessible" because they sell an army that wears it. An army that is the literal poster faction for the setting. OF COURSE people are going to collect the thing they see everywhere that represents 40k as a whole.
Your arguement is meaningless at best and insulting to the intelligence of humanity as a whole at worse.
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
It also makes it even more hilarious when/if the majority of those players are all playing the current best chapter. That also blows a hole in the argument that 40K is too complex to balance as opposed to GW is incompetent when it comes to designing a balanced game.
GW cannot even make armies made up of models from the exact same book balanced against each other. Those armies have access to almost the exact same units (because special characters are a thing) and GW still cannot make those armies balanced against each other
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Which also makes me wonder: Why is everything a multiple of 5?
If everything is divisible by 5, then really everything is 1, so why make it 5? Are there 1 point objectives? 3 point objectives?
I think there are secondary objectives that award points in increments of one. There was one they previewed about keeping a tally of how many models you killed. It doesnt show the whole thing but I think it could definitely be a 1VP per 10 kills up to 15max per game
Martel732 wrote:I don't see why this is such a sensitive topic. It's not that I don't approve of fun. It's that one army type, power armor, is way too common.
And? People like power armour, they think that's fun, and you're actively seeking to deprive people of that. What's your solution that doesn't involve people not getting to play the army they want?
Martel732 wrote:I"m not saying people are wrong. I'm saying GW is wrong for making power armor so common and accessible. They shouldn't like them less, GW should make them less accessible.
In what way? If Space Marines were reduced to a single Codex (not including Grey Knights, as their organisation is far different - Deathwatch *could* be hammered in to fit), people would still play Space Marines in disproportionately large numbers.
How do you make Marines less accessible without invalidating people's armies or forcing them to buy armies they had no intention of collecting?
Martel, get your bum off your head. It's not a hat.
There is no way to make any army in the game less "accessible". Marines are already being pushed to become more and more elite as the editions move on and they end up as Primaris, but that doesn't change how many people play them, it just makes the army eaiser to buy into since you can play games with smaller numbers of models.
And I like you complain about Marines but ignore that Chaos has millions of renedages and 30k era traitors running around in setting, and there are easilly millions of Sisters in the lore running around.
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
It also makes it even more hilarious when/if the majority of those players are all playing the current best chapter. That also blows a hole in the argument that 40K is too complex to balance as opposed to GW is incompetent when it comes to designing a balanced game.
GW cannot even make armies made up of models from the exact same book balanced against each other. Those armies have access to almost the exact same units (because special characters are a thing) and GW still cannot make those armies balanced against each other
I played against a lot of blue and yellow iron hands. Seriously, feth GW and the chapter system.
There is no way to make any army in the game less "accessible". Marines are already being pushed to become more and more elite as the editions move on and they end up as Primaris, but that doesn't change how many people play them, it just makes the army eaiser to buy into since you can play games with smaller numbers of models.
And I like you complain about Marines but ignore that Chaos has millions of renedages and 30k era traitors running around in setting, and there are easilly millions of Sisters in the lore running around.
All in power armour.
Those are still tiny numbers on a galactic scale. GW doesn't understand scale at all.
ClockworkZion wrote: There is no way to represent that scale in a table top warfare. We're representing individual battles and campaigns, not the entirety of the setting.
Yeah, there is. They just don't want to. Yeah, individual battles. Sure. Like I had a historical buddy that just happened to have all of very rare unit at EVERY battle. This is the same gak. Played out over and over and over.
ClockworkZion wrote: There is no way to represent that scale in a table top warfare. We're representing individual battles and campaigns, not the entirety of the setting.
Yeah, there is. They just don't want to. Yeah, individual battles. Sure. Like I had a historical buddy that just happened to have all of very rare unit at EVERY battle. This is the same gak. Played out over and over and over.
Okay genius how do you make them more rare without selling models people can't use?
Don't sell marine models. Sell other models. Of course it's bad for business. But I personally don't care about their business. I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.
Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army. Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings. Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".
I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.
If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.
I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.
Martel732 wrote:Why is that of course? That's GW making them common and accessible.
Define this - "accessible" - what do you mean by that?
How do you intend to "fix" Marines being accessible?
Marines vs marines is super lame at this point. Really, it always was.
Mate, you PLAY Marines. If you want Marine vs Marine to stop, play something else, or just don't accept games with other Marine players.
"How do you make Marines less accessible without invalidating people's armies or forcing them to buy armies they had no intention of collecting?'
Probably can't be done. GW is all about invalidating armies, though. Just saying.
Aside from Squats (decades ago), and Corsairs (Forgeworld), I'm not I remember an army being actually *invalid*. Not meta? Maybe, but being meta isn't a requirement to play.
"People like power armour, they think that's fun, and you're actively seeking to deprive people of that."
I somewhat question this. It's more like Pavlovian conditioning to me.
So, people only like it because they're conditioned?
What an utterly condescending thing to say.
What right do you have to suggest that someone's enjoyment of something is solely based on manipulation, doubly so when YOU COLLECT THAT YOURSELF.
ClockworkZion wrote:There is no way to represent that scale in a table top warfare. We're representing individual battles and campaigns, not the entirety of the setting.
Exactly. If 40k were played at the Crusade level (as in, you're commanding units across a united front of space, across multiple planets, or something like Risk), then I could see merit in being unable to have full Marine armies. However, 40k is played at the battle level, and there are plenty of cases in 40k lore of Space Marine-only battles. They aren't common, but the tabletop makes an abstraction, with your battles representing those uncommon battles.
Martel732 wrote:Yeah, there is.
And that is...?
They just don't want to. Yeah, individual battles. Sure. Like I had a historical buddy that just happened to have all of very rare unit at EVERY battle. This is the same gak. Played out over and over and over.
40k isn't a historical. It's a fictional setting, which has no "real life lore" to worry about.
Even IF 40k were a historical, there's plenty of "historical" battles where only Marines fought. Your games are just representing those occasions. And frankly, even in a historical, that's still a you problem - unless you made it explicitly clear to your opponent that you were playing *exactly* by what was present at that battle, they had every right to bring what they did.
Tabletop battles are a framework. You can drape different cloths over that frame (historically accurate, tactical gameplay, an excuse to roll dice with friends), but there's no objectively correct way.
If Marines being so common bothers you, that's still a you problem. Take it on yourself to only play against more "common" factions, and only play with your own Blood Angels every thousandth game. If you're lucky, they might get a game in twice in one year!
Martel732 wrote: Don't sell marine models. Sell other models. Of course it's bad for business. But I personally don't care about their business. I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.
Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army. Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings. Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.
And now you're ignoring every bit of lore where whole companies and chapters have deployed an masse into battle.
Not to mention you're punishing people who want to collect pure armies of only Marines. Good job.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".
I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.
If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.
I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.
I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.
Nobody’s forcing you to read/watch battle reports. I know I don’t. And if you don’t like playing against Marines, maybe stop playing against them and play against the minority of your opponents that don’t use them?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".
I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.
If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.
I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.
I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.
You don't have to watch the batreps either. Emperor's taint you are going out of your way to claim victomhood status over people playing Marines.
Martel732 wrote: Don't sell marine models. Sell other models. Of course it's bad for business. But I personally don't care about their business. I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.
Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army. Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings. Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.
And now you're ignoring every bit of lore where whole companies and chapters have deployed an masse into battle.
Not to mention you're punishing people who want to collect pure armies of only Marines. Good job.
It just doesn't happen often enough. Assuming it would actually ever happen. And, yes, I am punishing them. Just like someone who wants to field an army of all Tiger tanks and no Panzer IVs would be "punished".
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".
I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.
If you picked a different army then you’d never have to play Marine vs Marine again.
I'd still have to see the batreps. Marines would still be the majority of my opponents. I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.
I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.
You don't have to watch the batreps either. Emperor's taint you are going out of your way to claim victomhood status over people playing Marines.
Victim? Not at all. It's just dumb and boring. And I'm enjoying the crazy reactions.
"Your games are just representing those occasions."
Every single time? Really?
"They aren't common, but the tabletop makes an abstraction, with your battles representing those uncommon battles."
ClockworkZion wrote: Ah, you're trolling because you're bored. Maybe some time on 4chan would be more your speed.
No, I actually think this. But the reactions are golden. There's always the ignore button.
Well you are clearly not understanding the lore very well and confusing games for lore.
The games are personal narratives of things that could be happening. Not every game is a 1:1 recreation of a historical event. Even Horus Heresy doesn't shoot for that level of being pendantic.
And what about people who want to play Marines? What about people who just started building their army, and now can't continue, because GW stopped selling them?
Sell other models.
That doesn't stop people who want to play Marines.
"Oh, that's a cool army - Space Marines? Where can I get started on them?"
"Sorry kid, Martel said you're not allowed to play them."
"Why am I not allowed to play them but you are?"
"Martel's just gatekeeping your fun. Hope you enjoy the hobby!!"
I care about lame matchups and marine saturation.
You care about yourself at the expense of everyone else, you mean.
Limit marines to one unit per 2K points of an imperium army.
That's not lore friendly, and forces people to buy from factions they didn't want to collect.
Entire Marines armies is a feature of the lore. Not all armies are "Imperium" armies, some armies as simple as "Space Marines".
By that same token, do you expect all Tyranid armies to HAVE to have a mixed of monster sizes, Chaos Daemons to *need* mortal soldiers to summon them in, and Tau armies are be one unit large, to represent their smaller military?
Eliminate entire armies of marines. Because they just don't exist in sufficient numbers. By their own writings.
You clearly haven't been reading GW's writings, if you aren't familiar with all-Marine battles, like the World Engine, or the final battle of the Assault on Black Reach, or the last stand of the Ultramarines 1st Company.
Or, eliminate those writings and rewrite it all.
So, really, what you're saying, is your argument has no background basis, no real life basis, and is entirely built on "wahhh i wanna gatekeep people because i don't like their personal choices how dare they like the same thing as everyone else".
Do you want vanilla ice cream banned? Milk chocolate? Would you like Pikachu eradicated from the Pokedex?
Martel732 wrote:I'd still have to see the batreps.
Is someone forcing you to read them? I thought not.
If you're sick of Marine battle reports, don't read them.
Marines would still be the majority of my opponents.
Don't play them.
I'm sick of marines in general, and yes, playing them for a long time is part of that. But it also didn't use to be this bad.
I'm not giving GW that kind of money ever again.
You won't be missed? I'd like you see you actually act on it though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:It just doesn't happen often enough.
Well it's a good thing that battles on the tabletop are representing those special occasions, isn't it?
What, are you saying that, actually, the majority of 40k games shouldn't even be fought, because not every planet has a war being fought on it? Do I need to simulate the day to day lives of my models, waiting for the enemy to charge their walls, sitting in the mud and dirt of their trenches?
In a WW2 dogfighting game, do I need to simulate Bomber Command waiting for the order to scramble fighters, only for no order to come through?
And, yes, I am punishing them.
Good luck convincing anyone with that attitude.
Just like someone who wants to field an army of all Tiger tanks and no Panzer IVs would be "punished".
As someone who doesn't play Bolt Action, or any games like that, how are they *punished*? And, more importantly, is there already a significantly large audience of people who want to play only Panzer IVs?
Victim? Not at all. It's just dumb and boring. And I'm enjoying the crazy reactions.
So, you're not arguing in good faith. You're just a troll.
Hey, isn't there a rule against trolling?
"Your games are just representing those occasions."
Every single time? Really?
Yes. Next question?
"They aren't common, but the tabletop makes an abstraction, with your battles representing those uncommon battles."
Oh, but 40K makes them SO very common.
Tabletop isn't the lore. In lore? Uncommon. On tabletop - who cares how often it happens in the lore? It's a *game*.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think this really classifies as the "wrong hill to die on".
I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.
Me too. In fact I've never played my SW against any other imperium army because I've always refused to do so, even during previous editions But I do have a xeno army as an alternative, which is also my main army, and I don't do tournaments. Hard to get some games with my SW in 8th but cellphones exist and it's possible to contact a friend and organize a game before going to the store-club
Martel732 wrote: I'm not dying. It's simply my position. And I'm sick of marine vs marine.
Me too. In fact I've never played my SW against any other imperium army because I've always refused to do so, even during previous editions But I do have a xeno army as an alternative, which is also my main army, and I don't do tournaments. Hard to get some games with my SW in 8th but cellphones exist and it's possible to contact a friend and organize a game before going to the store-club
See - this is the sensible thing to do if you're sick of playing against a certain army. Take action yourself, fight games on your own terms (respectfully, I hope!), recognise that it's down to you to make sure you're only playing against the factions you want.
I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.
Martel732 wrote: I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.
Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.
Martel732 wrote: I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.
Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.
It's not shocking or sudden. I never said it was. I'm just the most sick of it at this point. The IH gak show, which was entirely preventable by the way, was a new low for GW in my book. Maybe it wasn't for most people. In fact, it probably wasn't. But it was for me.
Martel732 wrote: I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.
Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.
It's not shocking or sudden. I never said it was. I'm just the most sick of it at this point. The IH shitshow, which was entirely preventable by the way, was a new low for GW in my book. Maybe it wasn't for most people. In fact, it probably wasn't. But it was for me.
I've spent three editions stuggling by with Sisters against all sprts of nonsense so maybe my tolerance is just higher than yours at this point for the levels of broken this game has tossed around.
And I really don't get the complaints right now. I mean Necrons have one of the largest releases we've seen for a Xenos army since Dark Eldar got revamped in 5th. GW is giving support to non-Marine armies, but they operate in a cycle of yeaes so even if they know what the community wants right now it takes time to pivot their direction there.
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.
You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.
Martel732 wrote: I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.
Mattel, GW has pushed Marines at the same level they always have. The fact you act like this is such a shock or that it's suddenly outrageous is the "crazy" thing.
It's not shocking or sudden. I never said it was. I'm just the most sick of it at this point. The IH shitshow, which was entirely preventable by the way, was a new low for GW in my book. Maybe it wasn't for most people. In fact, it probably wasn't. But it was for me.
I've spent three editions stuggling by with Sisters against all sprts of nonsense so maybe my tolerance is just higher than yours at this point for the levels of broken this game has tossed around.
And I really don't get the complaints right now. I mean Necrons have one of the largest releases we've seen for a Xenos army since Dark Eldar got revamped in 5th.
Right. So. . . if major Xenos armies got hard pushes more often than once a decade the Marine-to-Xenos ratio might be a little different you think?
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.
You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.
No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.
People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.
Martel732 wrote:I honestly didn't expect this much of a crazy reaction. None of this would happen because GW is gonna GW and push the marines to the point of absurdity. Because GW. It's just what I would do. Why do you even care that much? Nothing will stand in the way of the marine fapfest. You can be assured there will be plenty of marine vs marine in 9th ed.
It's not out of any fear of losing out on that sweet Marine on Marine action.
It's you explicitly stating that you'd gatekeep and act incredibly condescending to other people in the community because they like power armoured models. You don't like seeing Marines? That's not the problem people are having. It's you saying "I'd deliberately sabotage people's enjoyment to benefit my own".
If you have a problem with playing against Marines, take a leaf out of Blackie's book, and act on it yourself, instead of demanding everyone else change to suit your whim.
Maybe we might see more Xenos armies if they had more support (at least more Craftworld armies), but in my experiance people play what they like more than they focus on playing what is the best thing in the game unless they're focused on trying to win competetive events.
More GSC support in 8th didn't result in a massive bump in GSC players for example.
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.
You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.
No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.
People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.
It was years between books, but MORE years between XENOS books. I was still using the 3.5th edition IG codex well into 5th, by which point marines had had like 3 codexes pass by.
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.
You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.
No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.
People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.
You mean 5th with the Codex Marines release, the SW Codex release, the BA Codex Release, the Grey Knights Codex release, when each of those latter codexes became full-standalone books with expanded model support? THAT 5th Edition with "years between releases"?
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.
You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.
No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.
People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.
It was years between books, but MORE years between XENOS books. I was still using the 3.5th edition IG codex well into 5th, by which point marines had had like 3 codexes pass by.
IG were one of the first books in 5th.
And yes, Codex Space Marines sees a new book every edition but for a long time they were the only ones that did.
Eldar, Orks, Tyranids and Tau all had 4th ed books, only Necrons and Dark Eldar where sitting around untouched for so long out of the Xenos.
Martel has a point though. When I walk into an FLGS and the tables are 90% marines, it's a pretty dissapointing. More support for Xenos means more Xenos players in the clubs. I want to see more Orks, Nids and Crons in the environment. Thankfully, hopefully we'll have more Crons soon.
Even when those armies have been stronger in the meta in the past, or given support, it hasn't really decreased the number of Marine players running around on the whole. Basically everyone owns at least one Marine army, if not more, so expecting their to be less Marines out there is silly. It's only the powergamers who jump armies to chase the meta that would shelf their Marine armies to play the new hotness. And they'd be right back to them when Marines got their next update.
You're basically just proving the point that lots of support for marines means lots more marine players show up at the tables. Which means the opposite is also true, less support for marines mean fewer marine armies getting fielded.
No it doesn't. Even in 5th when it was years between Marine releases Marines were still one of the most popular armies in the game.
People are going to play what they like and the vast majority of people like Marines.
You mean 5th with the Codex Marines release, the SW Codex release, the BA Codex Release, the Grey Knights Codex release, when each of those latter codexes became full-standalone books with expanded model support? THAT 5th Edition with "years between releases"?
The one that took Blood Angels out of being a PDF codex, and Grey Knights out of 3rd editon? Yeah. There were years between C:SM and those other books too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and Grey Knights dropped alongside Dark Eldar and Necons. Two xenos armies.
^Yeah, and those armies didn't need full codexes. And guess what? Giving them full codexes means you wind up seeing more of them.
More support for marines means you see more marines. That is the reality of it. More support for Xenos means you see more Xenos players.
I'm going to promote the views of BOTH Martel and Slayer-Fan in this arena. Marines are bloated, and the game would be better off if they were combined into fewer books and the chapter-alternates reined in.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Yeah, and those armies didn't need full codexes. And guess what? Giving them full codexes means you wind up seeing more of them.
More support for marines means you see more marines. That is the reality of it. More support for Xenos means you see more Xenos players.
I'm going to promote the views of BOTH Martel and Slayer-Fan in this arena. Marines are bloated, and the game would be better off if they were combined into fewer books and the chapter-alternates reined in.
I mean the new supplement system makes it so easy! Theoretical BA and DA supplements wouldn’t need to be that much larger than say the Ultramarine one to cover everything and then when GW add the next latest and greatest primaris unit it’d be automatically included with all the right rules!
Insectum7 wrote: ^Yeah, and those armies didn't need full codexes. And guess what? Giving them full codexes means you wind up seeing more of them.
More support for marines means you see more marines. That is the reality of it. More support for Xenos means you see more Xenos players.
I'm going to promote the views of BOTH Martel and Slayer-Fan in this arena. Marines are bloated, and the game would be better off if they were combined into fewer books and the chapter-alternates reined in.
I mean the new supplement system makes it so easy! Theoretical BA and DA supplements wouldn’t need to be that much larger than say the Ultramarine one to cover everything and then when GW add the next latest and greatest primaris unit it’d be automatically included with all the right rules!
Hehe, you meant the old supplement system, because that's basically how BA, SW and DA worked in 3rd. Ed. And yeah, it was a good system. I'd go further and recombine the non-BA, SW and DA chapters back into the main Marine book. Cut down all that gak.
Eldar, Orks, Tyranids and Tau all had 4th ed books, only Necrons and Dark Eldar where sitting around untouched for so long out of the Xenos.
Actually orks had a 3rd edition codex and a 5th edition one, never had a 4th edition book. Maybe you're referring to the apocalypse supplement which I don't remember if it was released during 3rd or 4th, but it still used the 3rd edition codex profiles.
Martel732 wrote: And kill off some of the snowflake chapters to make some room.
You don't have to kill 'em off. Just prune them a bit.
And GW needs to stop the habit of giving marines things that other factions started with.
I really think that some snowflakes need killed off to clear up some bloat. People can play them as other nameless, boring marines, so their models will still be usable. Get rid of three snowflake chapters and bring in three completely new armies.
Eldar, Orks, Tyranids and Tau all had 4th ed books, only Necrons and Dark Eldar where sitting around untouched for so long out of the Xenos.
Actually orks had a 3rd edition codex and a 5th edition one, never had a 4th edition book. Maybe you're referring to the apocalypse supplement which I don't remember if it was released during 3rd or 4th, but it still used the 3rd edition codex profiles.
For some reason I was remembering their 5th ed codex as a 4th ed one.
And while I agree most of the Marines should be supplements, I don't think it'll reduce their presence in the game.
Insectum7 wrote:Marines are bloated, and the game would be better off if they were combined into fewer books and the chapter-alternates reined in.
Don't get me wrong, I actually *agree* that Marines (except Grey Knights and Deathwatch, who could be rolled into one book alongside Inquisition) should be rolled into one book with supplements for extra flavour, but Martel's rhetoric and "arguments" are woeful.
Marines are bloated and get disproportionate amounts of love from GW, but calling for Marines to be made less "accessible" by wholesale stopping their sales and forcing Marine players to have to play other factions is madness.
Blood Angels not having a codex isn't going to prevent people from painting their marines red. If you want to see less marines, you gotta be the person willing to show up without marines - I have my own grudge against the protagonist faction that goes far beyond just 40k; I do not play loyalist marines, and will never make such a purchase. Chaos and Xenos only are my mandate. If you don't play marines then you'll never participate in a marine mirror ever again.
Eldar, Orks, Tyranids and Tau all had 4th ed books, only Necrons and Dark Eldar where sitting around untouched for so long out of the Xenos.
Actually orks had a 3rd edition codex and a 5th edition one, never had a 4th edition book. Maybe you're referring to the apocalypse supplement which I don't remember if it was released during 3rd or 4th, but it still used the 3rd edition codex profiles.
Orks had a 3rd, Armaggeddon supplement in 3rd, and a late 4th codex (no 5th codex): https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codices_(List)
Space Marines started off each new codex cycle for 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
Expecting them to drop their flagship or people to stop using them is silly. Sounds like a real hard case of FYIGM.
They could, and probably should put the brakes on the Primaris and produce a stack of stuff for the other armies as new releases always get sales but thats like telling Ferrari they should stop making super cars and make more grand-tourers.
Expecting them to drop their flagship or people to stop using them is silly. Sounds like a real hard case of FYIGM.
They could, and probably should put the brakes on the Primaris and produce a stack of stuff for the other armies as new releases always get sales but thats like telling Ferrari they should stop making super cars and make more grand-tourers.
Primaris has slowed a bit, but I agree it could slow further still.
Arachnofiend wrote: Blood Angels not having a codex isn't going to prevent people from painting their marines red. If you want to see less marines, you gotta be the person willing to show up without marines - I have my own grudge against the protagonist faction that goes far beyond just 40k; I do not play loyalist marines, and will never make such a purchase. Chaos and Xenos only are my mandate. If you don't play marines then you'll never participate in a marine mirror ever again.
I won't sink that kind of money into a GW product, for better or for worse. I guess I'm slowly on the way out no matter what because I won't buy any more primaris.
harlokin wrote: Releasing some more non-marine stuff would be nice though.
The new box should have been Asuryani vs Necrons.
Any army but marines vs necrons.
Marines are too large of a target audience to not be in the starter. As much as parts of the communitt will complain, Marines have always made up a majority of 40k sales and players. Not catering to them with the starters just doesn't work from a business sense.
harlokin wrote: Releasing some more non-marine stuff would be nice though.
The new box should have been Asuryani vs Necrons.
Any army but marines vs necrons.
Marines are too large of a target audience to not be in the starter. As much as parts of the communitt will complain, Marines have always made up a majority of 40k sales and players. Not catering to them with the starters just doesn't work from a business sense.
Disagree. Marines will sell regardless. So why not hook players into other armies with the starter set?
harlokin wrote: Releasing some more non-marine stuff would be nice though.
The new box should have been Asuryani vs Necrons.
Any army but marines vs necrons.
Marines are too large of a target audience to not be in the starter. As much as parts of the communitt will complain, Marines have always made up a majority of 40k sales and players. Not catering to them with the starters just doesn't work from a business sense.
Disagree. Marines will sell regardless. So why not hook players into other armies with the starter set?
They do that, which is why the other half of the starter is Necrons this time.
Marines will always be half the starter to maximize sales. The other half will appeal to a smaller niche or get Marine players to try the other army and possibly expand out.
harlokin wrote: The amazing self-fulfilling marine popularity merry-go-round.
They're designed to be iconic from the ground up and are a large part of what draws people to this game. It's like complaining about Disney using Mickey Mouse in their marketing.
If you don't want to.mirror match with Marines then don't play with Marines. It's that simple and no one will stop you.
This could have been an interesting thread about the new mission design - too bad it was derailed halfway through the first page and has never recovered.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: This could have been an interesting thread about the new mission design - too bad it was derailed halfway through the first page and has never recovered.
harlokin wrote: The amazing self-fulfilling marine popularity merry-go-round.
They're designed to be iconic from the ground up and are a large part of what draws people to this game. It's like complaining about Disney using Mickey Mouse in their marketing.
If you don't want to.mirror match with Marines then don't play with Marines. It's that simple and no one will stop you.
It's not marketing at all. It would be as if Disney made Mickey Mouse the star of all of their cartoons...because everyone loves Mickey Mouse, amirite?
I don't care about marine circle jerks, I would just like some more non-marine stuff released without it having to be mirrored by more marines.
harlokin wrote: The amazing self-fulfilling marine popularity merry-go-round.
They're designed to be iconic from the ground up and are a large part of what draws people to this game. It's like complaining about Disney using Mickey Mouse in their marketing.
If you don't want to.mirror match with Marines then don't play with Marines. It's that simple and no one will stop you.
It's not marketing at all. It would be as if Disney made Mickey Mouse the star of all of their cartoons...because everyone loves Mickey Mouse, amirite?
I don't care about marine circle jerks, I would just like some more non-marine stuff released without it having to be mirrored by more marines.
Even when we go long stretches without Marine releases all I hear is that it's never good enough. The moment Marines fet anything again suddenly all that comes out of people's mouth's is how many releases Marines got.
harlokin wrote: The amazing self-fulfilling marine popularity merry-go-round.
They're designed to be iconic from the ground up and are a large part of what draws people to this game. It's like complaining about Disney using Mickey Mouse in their marketing.
If you don't want to.mirror match with Marines then don't play with Marines. It's that simple and no one will stop you.
It's not marketing at all. It would be as if Disney made Mickey Mouse the star of all of their cartoons...because everyone loves Mickey Mouse, amirite?
I don't care about marine circle jerks, I would just like some more non-marine stuff released without it having to be mirrored by more marines.
Even when we go long stretches without Marine releases all I hear is that it's never good enough. The moment Marines fet anything again suddenly all that comes out of people's mouth's is how many releases Marines got.
I must have blinked and missed those 'long stretches', so can't comment. How much larger is the marine model range than say, any xenos faction?
harlokin wrote: Releasing some more non-marine stuff would be nice though.
The new box should have been Asuryani vs Necrons.
Any army but marines vs necrons.
Marines are too large of a target audience to not be in the starter. As much as parts of the communitt will complain, Marines have always made up a majority of 40k sales and players. Not catering to them with the starters just doesn't work from a business sense.
Disagree. Marines will sell regardless. So why not hook players into other armies with the starter set?
They do that, which is why the other half of the starter is Necrons this time.
Marines will always be half the starter to maximize sales. The other half will appeal to a smaller niche or get Marine players to try the other army and possibly expand out.
Just add some new terrain like a new building, or trenches or barriers or something in there along with some cool 40k themed dice and the rulebook. The marine players will buy the set to get that extra stuff and then some of them will also go on to start a collection of at least one of the armies from the box. Boom, you can now sell that marine player xenos models as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: You say that like there is an incentive to buy a start collecting box for its terrain. There isn't.
You mean that nobody buys start collecting sets for the terrain that isn't in there?!
Wow, shocking.
Most people don't buy terrain very often normally. Why would they go out of their way to get a start just for terrain when terrain purchases aren't that high to start with?
It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.
Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.
Stormonu wrote: It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.
Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.
Stormonu wrote: It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.
Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.
It would be an excellent solution to the growing problem of marine-on-marine violence.
Stormonu wrote: It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.
Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.
They tried this once. LotR official tournament rules said "every game must be good vs. evil, so everyone bring a good army and an evil army". Everyone hated it and didn't bother going to GW events.
Any chance we can get this thread back on the subject?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sorry if this has been brought up before, but could all this secondary shenanigans imply that First Strike/Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker would be secondaries that aren't standard, but something you could choose?
I mean, I can see the problem with that already (why would you not take First Strike - a point for killing something on turn one? Why not!), but it does seem like a better way than just having those be the default in basically every mission.
Arachnofiend wrote: The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.
There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.
This forces shooting to be directed to those units. While characters are great you won't cover the whole board well enough and you want to be casting / attacking with them.
ClockworkZion wrote: They do that, which is why the other half of the starter is Necrons this time.
Marines will always be half the starter to maximize sales. The other half will appeal to a smaller niche or get Marine players to try the other army and possibly expand out.
And as someone who does play the other faction in these starter boxes... there is clearly not an even split in what people want here. It was incredibly easy to find cheap Forgebane Necrons because everybody wanted the mini-knights for their Imperium armies and I had someone willing to split the 9th starter box with me the moment it was revealed Necrons would be in it and I'd be interested in the less desirable half.
Arachnofiend wrote: The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.
There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.
This forces shooting to be directed to those units. While characters are great you won't cover the whole board well enough and you want to be casting / attacking with them.
Not a simple solution, which is great.
Oh, I absolutely agree. My hope is that this incentivizes tough units that aren't great at killing more, but play time will be required to see if that actually works.
ClockworkZion wrote: They do that, which is why the other half of the starter is Necrons this time.
Marines will always be half the starter to maximize sales. The other half will appeal to a smaller niche or get Marine players to try the other army and possibly expand out.
And as someone who does play the other faction in these starter boxes... there is clearly not an even split in what people want here. It was incredibly easy to find cheap Forgebane Necrons because everybody wanted the mini-knights for their Imperium armies and I had someone willing to split the 9th starter box with me the moment it was revealed Necrons would be in it and I'd be interested in the less desirable half.
I agree the split isn't even, which is why I scoffed at the idea of a starter without Marines. Cutting off the largest sales target in a major release like this just seems counter-productive from a business standpoint no matter how much a vocal minority pitches a fit.
Stormonu wrote: It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.
Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.
They tried this once. LotR official tournament rules said "every game must be good vs. evil, so everyone bring a good army and an evil army". Everyone hated it and didn't bother going to GW events.
It has nothing to do with tournament rules, it's one of the base rules of the game. Because of logistical reasons some tournaments decide to house rule that away. It's one of the reasons I don't do Lotr tournaments, really.
alextroy wrote: Any chance we can get this thread back on the subject?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sorry if this has been brought up before, but could all this secondary shenanigans imply that First Strike/Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker would be secondaries that aren't standard, but something you could choose?
I mean, I can see the problem with that already (why would you not take First Strike - a point for killing something on turn one? Why not!), but it does seem like a better way than just having those be the default in basically every mission.
I expect the old objectives like slay the warlord to disappear too, but they might roll them into a different secondary objective.
Maybe something like this:
Slay the warlord could become Character hunter (progressive) Each time you kill an enemy Character, score 3 VP. If the Character is the enemy warlord score an additional 3 VP. A maximum of 15 VP can be score with this objective.
Line Breaker could be: Infiltration (progressive) score 3 VP for each of your units that is over half strength and wholly within the enemy deployment zone at the end of your turn. A maximum of 15 VP can be scored with this objective.
Alternatively, something like first strike/slay the warlord could be used as a tie-breaker (unlikely I think).
Edit:
Regarding Actions, it seems that if a unit carries out an action (siphoning one of the pillars for instance) it can't do anything else until it's next movement phase. How do you think this will interact with melee? I assume that the unit won't be able to overwatch, but do you think if it is charged it automatically stops the action and fights, or will it be a choice to continue carrying out the action and just stand there getting hit without hitting back?
Regarding Actions, it seems that if a unit carries out an action (siphoning one of the pillars for instance) it can't do anything else until it's next movement phase. How do you think this will interact with melee? I assume that the unit won't be able to overwatch, but do you think if it is charged it automatically stops the action and fights, or will it be a choice to continue carrying out the action and just stand there getting hit without hitting back?
I think that syphonic happens on your own turn. So you would be able to both overwatch and do melee on your opponent turn. If it isn't ,armies with fewer numbers, are going to be in real trouble. Because engaging an army with 4-5 units is going to be real easy.
Regarding Actions, it seems that if a unit carries out an action (siphoning one of the pillars for instance) it can't do anything else until it's next movement phase. How do you think this will interact with melee? I assume that the unit won't be able to overwatch, but do you think if it is charged it automatically stops the action and fights, or will it be a choice to continue carrying out the action and just stand there getting hit without hitting back?
I think that syphonic happens on your own turn. So you would be able to both overwatch and do melee on your opponent turn. If it isn't ,armies with fewer numbers, are going to be in real trouble. Because engaging an army with 4-5 units is going to be real easy.
It lasts for your turn and your opponent's turn:
... can start to perform this action at the end of your Movement phase.
The Action is completed at the end of your next Command phase ...
So you have to last through the opponent charging you and overwatch and melee must interact with the Action somehow.
Don't all that are objective taking require it though, including the primaris?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aash 788932 10821714 wrote:
It lasts for your turn and your opponent's turn:
... can start to perform this action at the end of your Movement phase.
The Action is completed at the end of your next Command phase ...
So you have to last through the opponent charging you and overwatch and melee must interact with the Action somehow.
I am assuming that the unit just has to stay in place and be alive, so you can't for example start syphonig, and then use gate in the psychic phase to do it in the safty of a bunker 40" way from any enemy units. If not then this helps armies with cheap chaff and cheap troops even more, then it did in 8th ed. And for elite armies it would require them to be both invunerable, don't care about their own offensive ability, but still be able to win and the opposing army being unable to engage stuff in melee, which IMO with charges coming out of reserves is not going to be possible .
What I can imagine is horde armies with interlocking circles of units protecting each other, from melee while units inside the circles channel and pray they are out of LoS or numerous enough to not get wiped out with shoting.
Aash wrote: Slay the warlord could become
Character hunter (progressive) Each time you kill an enemy Character, score 3 VP. If the Character is the enemy warlord score an additional 3 VP. A maximum of 15 VP can be score with this objective.
Line Breaker could be:
Infiltration (progressive) score 3 VP for each of your units that is over half strength and wholly within the enemy deployment zone at the end of your turn. A maximum of 15 VP can be scored with this objective.
I like that interpretation. That would be an interesting way of doing that.
I'd expect an mirror objective for Line Breaker as well, 'Hold the Line' or something similar.
With board sizes being recommended at a smaller size than many folks currently play, army point values increasing, and missions becoming more in depth (for those who never played NOVA or ITC styled missions), this edition (to me) appears to become very different from 8th edition.
This mission remind me more of older NOVA missions than ITC designed. While I enjoyed both designs, it took me awhile to get used to them and army design and gameplay is different if someone is accustomed to playing GW published missions.
In addition, a unit spending an action to garner VP (siphoning power in this mission example) will likely add a whole new dimension to the game. I assume this means they can't shoot, use a psychic power, or charge; I don't think this has been released/explained by GW.
Slay the warlord could become
Character hunter (progressive) Each time you kill an enemy Character, score 3 VP. If the Character is the enemy warlord score an additional 3 VP. A maximum of 15 VP can be score with this objective.
Line Breaker could be:
Infiltration (progressive) score 3 VP for each of your units that is over half strength and wholly within the enemy deployment zone at the end of your turn. A maximum of 15 VP can be scored with this objective.
You don't need to keep adding the last line, the max 15 points is already baked into the rules for secondaries.
Also, they showed us the Kill Characters Secondary already.
Sarigar wrote: I assume this means they can't shoot, use a psychic power, or charge; I don't think this has been released/explained by GW.
This is confirmed.
I re-reviewed the June 3rd GW article regarding this topic and it indicates no shooting/punching. There are hints at actions, but it did not address psychic powers. Is there another area where actions are explained in more detail?
Not much more details available. They did talk about them a bit on Warhammer 40,000 Daily, but I wouldn't use those for hard and fast rules. They are more for design insight and overview with the occasional info nugget tossed in.
I'm fairly intrigued by the change in missions. This has been probably the biggest change in 40K m missions since the transition from Rogue Trader to 2nd edition ( no real missions to the 6 cards to draw from for missions).
Very much looking forward to actually playing these.
Stormonu wrote: It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.
Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.
) rather than strictly an 'army'? I had to get Techpriest Dominii, Enginseers, and soon Manipulii for running my army the same way I ran it before.
