35086
Post by: Daedalus81
The next Chapter Approved has free points!
But that's not the important part.
Secondaries are all getting consolidated and redone, which means armies like DE with easy secondaries will hopefully have a harder time scoring them, which can take their win rates down. And if they make useful secondaries out of some of the stinkers other armies could see improvements.
We also get half CP to start, but extra CP per turn ( I imagine 2 instead of 1 ). This makes it a lot harder to stack on all the relics, traits, and pre-game buffs and then also launch a full strength battery of strats.
I know that this functionally limits me to only so many relics and no extra detachments. If I have a squad of 10 terminators I NEED 3CP to start the game - especially if I don't go first. How does your army change with this consideration?
I'm quite looking forward to this next season.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Good change IMO, getting ever closer to the complete removal of Stratagems
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yes it is.
Proves that if you hit GW over the head with something for long enough they will make changes for the good. First the Autarch, now this.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
I do like lower strat use. I expect that people will have a very hard time giving up their options and so most armies will start with very few CP.
77970
Post by: Arcanis161
Have to wait to see how Guard does. We tend to blow through our CP rather fast. However, there's a chance it might hurt our opponents more than us.
121131
Post by: Catulle
Link, man, link! I had to go look for myself and that's just cruel!
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Arcanis161 wrote:Have to wait to see how Guard does. We tend to blow through our CP rather fast. However, there's a chance it might hurt our opponents more than us.
Hopefully their CP dependence changes with the new codex.
120227
Post by: Karol
Never took GK relics and I only run one detachment. Less CP is not fun, harder to do secondaries will have to be looked. If they are just a bit harder, meh doesn't matter, if suddenly GK psychic objective are as good as they were before the codex, and everyone else doesn't get nerfed just as hard, it maybe a problem for me. For GK of the not my type it doesn't seem that bad.
In the end it depends a lot on how hard other armies will be hit, and what will be done to armies that can soup up or dual detachment without losing any rules.
113031
Post by: Voss
Catulle wrote:Link, man, link! I had to go look for myself and that's just cruel!
If it helps:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/05/04/revealed-chapter-approved-kicks-off-a-new-season-of-warhammer-40000/
Its a bizarrely informative WarCom article, to be honest. High info, little wibbling.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
hard disagree, just like playing at a lower pts level, it means you can't just take everything you want and still have all your powerful stratagem combos
120227
Post by: Karol
Yeah, when my special ammo, shields from having nemezis staffs etc stop being "on stratagem activiation" I can talk about that.
In case of my dudes, stratagems are not "taking everything" it is using stuff other armies have as a basic rule build in to their units or straight up gear.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
While I agree generally I think it is less fun for your opponent to front load their CP on you especially if they have a better book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes it is.
Proves that if you hit GW over the head with something for long enough they will make changes for the good. First the Autarch, now this.
Well, yes, I agree. I was just being slightly silly.
121131
Post by: Catulle
What worries me is the "...on the app" caging. I want to believe they'll put in into book errata, but...
100848
Post by: tneva82
Points also in whc site(says so right there). Rest(cp etc) in book
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
VladimirHerzog wrote:
hard disagree, just like playing at a lower pts level, it means you can't just take everything you want and still have all your powerful stratagem combos
Mostly agree. Kinda sucks when most of your vehicles cost CP.
120227
Post by: Karol
Daedalus81 wrote:
While I agree generally I think it is less fun for your opponent to front load their CP on you especially if they have a better book.
When doing cool or even basic stuff for units in my army is linked to stratagems and other people get theirs just as a gear or a unit special rule? If I remove stratagems from my book, and secondaries are harder to do, which are already a problem for a termintor army. Then the free points for GK better be big, like at least enough for me to take one extra 5 man termintor unit.
The problem with "front loading" is not how it is done, but the fact that it is being done. It is suddenly fun to be hit with 5-7 void weavers and lose 3 squads of termintors, just because the opponent didn't use any stratagems to do it.
That’s because points updates will be free as of this new season of Warhammer 40,000! You’ll be able to get them in Warhammer 40,000: The App and right here on the Warhammer Community website.
Wait a minute. Is the app free ?
121131
Post by: Catulle
tneva82 wrote:Points also in whc site(says so right there). Rest( cp etc) in book
Well, phew.
I was dead wrong in the belief that they'd rejected charging for points due to the errata process, so that's a relief.
Also, if you're the guy I offered an Avatar bet to on that front... I *was* wrong and thereby offer you to set me the Avatar of your choice for six weeks
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
Also really appreciated in the live stream Eddie's emphasis that this is a matched play campaign rule for that season.
I think I kinda like it even though I'm a Crusader- like so much else, it depends on the execution. At 25PL, you only get 3 starting CP anyway, right?
Being a GT MP, this book will focus exclusively on Incursion and Strike Force missions, so the 25PL game wouldn't be a consideration anyway.
121131
Post by: Catulle
Not the whole experience, I'm more bothered about it being gak. Automatically Appended Next Post: PenitentJake wrote:Also really appreciated in the live stream Eddie's emphasis that this is a matched play campaign rule for that season.
I think I kinda like it even though I'm a Crusader- like so much else, it depends on the execution. At 25PL, you only get 3 starting CP anyway, right?
Being a GT MP, this book will focus exclusively on Incursion and Strike Force missions, so the 25PL game wouldn't be a consideration anyway.
The very first houserule in any game I play does tend to be "here we round like math"
101163
Post by: Tyel
In danger of white knighting, but it all sounds quite good to me.
I'm concerned more limited CP will mean you always use the same stratagems - but that's basically where we are now. (You'll use A+B rather than A+B+C+D) It should hopefully reduce turn 1/2 blowouts by a bit - although it depends where you are on turn 2 relatively speaking and some stratagems are more impactful than others.
Equally, balancing secondaries = good. GW's historic record on balance... not so great. So we'll see. It should hopefully be more reasonable if it has all been conceived of together.
Free points is obviously excellent. Hope there will be a few sensible adjustments too.
120227
Post by: Karol
LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Catulle wrote:tneva82 wrote:Points also in whc site(says so right there). Rest( cp etc) in book
Well, phew.
I was dead wrong in the belief that they'd rejected charging for points due to the errata process, so that's a relief.
Also, if you're the guy I offered an Avatar bet to on that front... I *was* wrong and thereby offer you to set me the Avatar of your choice for six weeks
Nope no idea what bet you are talking about def not me
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Karol wrote:LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
The app is free, you register your codex in it and get free points update for life, they already do that.
They're also going to be free on the site in a document. Please read before going anti gw police on it.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Basic features yes. Incidently points been there for free for a while anyway. But to get special rules etc need to insert code of book(but no need to sub). Subscribers gets army builder and 8e books fully.
Aos works better. 40k the gazillion supplement system hurts and more model specific upgrades in unit makes army builder clumsier. Aos ab works treat now that list output is fixed. Now if bcp would understand it...
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
yay free points, though with how GW has been doing things I expect an across the board increase in ork points because they still sometimes make it to a top 16 or in rare cases top 8 tables of a major tournament and need more nerfs.
113031
Post by: Voss
G00fySmiley wrote:yay free points, though with how GW has been doing things I expect an across the board increase in ork points because they still sometimes make it to a top 16 or in rare cases top 8 tables of a major tournament and need more nerfs.
Yeah, no promises that they'll do a better job on points than the last couple rounds of random flailing, just that they'll be free on the website.
120227
Post by: Karol
Maybe the free points are just for armies that do really bad. Like your play demons or IG you get X extra points for free.
121430
Post by: ccs
Daedalus81 wrote:The next Chapter Approved has free points!
But that's not the important part.
Secondaries are all getting consolidated and redone, which means armies like DE with easy secondaries will hopefully have a harder time scoring them, which can take their win rates down. And if they make useful secondaries out of some of the stinkers other armies could see improvements.
We also get half CP to start, but extra CP per turn ( I imagine 2 instead of 1 ). This makes it a lot harder to stack on all the relics, traits, and pre-game buffs and then also launch a full strength battery of strats.
I know that this functionally limits me to only so many relics and no extra detachments. If I have a squad of 10 terminators I NEED 3CP to start the game - especially if I don't go first. How does your army change with this consideration?
I'm quite looking forward to this next season.
Other than the free pts adjustments for those times I play casual matched, it won't change my armies at all because like Naschmund I won't play it. They're products aimed at tourney dwellers - of wich I'm not.
I won't even buy/pirate/read it as it's a waste of my time. Unless I decide to pull out the Guard or demons.....
Now if an opponent wants to use their altered (or shiny new for IG/Demons/?) secondaries? That's cool, I don't mind. Afterall it's a casual game.
120227
Post by: Karol
Dudeface wrote:Karol wrote:LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
The app is free, you register your codex in it and get free points update for life, they already do that.
They're also going to be free on the site in a document. Please read before going anti gw police on it.
The article didn't say it will be free on the site. And when I click the app I don't get an option to download, just an option to pick a 1 month or 12 month subscription. I guess I did a bad one selling my codex code, then. Well more AoS in the future for me then. Automatically Appended Next Post: ccs 804923 11358040 wrote:
Other than the free pts adjustments for those times I play casual matched, it won't change my armies at all because like Naschmund I won't play it. They're products aimed at tourney dwellers - of wich I'm not.
I won't even buy/pirate/read it as it's a waste of my time. Unless I decide to pull out the Guard or demons.....
Now if an opponent wants to use their altered (or shiny new for IG/Demons/?) secondaries? That's cool, I don't mind. Afterall it's a casual game.
Wouldn't it be kind of a problem, if you stilled used out dated and illegal rules for your secondaries though, or the CP limits etc
102719
Post by: Gert
Karol wrote:Wouldn't it be kind of a problem, if you stilled used out dated and illegal rules for your secondaries though, or the CP limits etc
Anything not in the core rulebook is optional, so no.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Karol wrote:Dudeface wrote:Karol wrote:LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
The app is free, you register your codex in it and get free points update for life, they already do that.
They're also going to be free on the site in a document. Please read before going anti gw police on it.
The article didn't say it will be free on the site. And when I click the app I don't get an option to download, just an option to pick a 1 month or 12 month subscription. I guess I did a bad one selling my codex code, then. Well more AoS in the future for me then.
it literally says the points updates are free, multiple times. one time in a big fat quote block.
"points updates will be free as of this new season of Warhammer 40,000”
"That’s because points updates will be free as of this new season of Warhammer 40,000! You’ll be able to get them in Warhammer 40,000: The App and right here on the Warhammer Community website."
"free" "on the website".
And the new CP rules only apply to the missions in the new CA. If you play other missions, you get your CP just like before. Same with secondaries, they're tied to the mission pack.
*edit*
I mean, I could be completely wrong considering your local area, from what I've read so far from you it's probably a requirement to sacrifice your firstborn and purchase any and all GW publications to participate in a casual game, and if you want to avoid a beating you'll also have to sub to the 40k app. And all of that is GWs fault.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Karol wrote:Dudeface wrote:Karol wrote:LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
The app is free, you register your codex in it and get free points update for life, they already do that.
They're also going to be free on the site in a document. Please read before going anti gw police on it.
The article didn't say it will be free on the site. And when I click the app I don't get an option to download, just an option to pick a 1 month or 12 month subscription. I guess I did a bad one selling my codex code, then. Well more AoS in the future for me then.
Well, again, if you read the article rather than spouting gak:
That’s because points updates will be free as of this new season of Warhammer 40,000! You’ll be able to get them in Warhammer 40,000: The App and right here on the Warhammer Community website.
You do realise the codes in the books for sigmar are the same right? Or did you sell those too?
100848
Post by: tneva82
Karol wrote:Dudeface wrote:Karol wrote:LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
The app is free, you register your codex in it and get free points update for life, they already do that.
They're also going to be free on the site in a document. Please read before going anti gw police on it.
The article didn't say it will be free on the site. And when I click the app I don't get an option to download, just an option to pick a 1 month or 12 month subscription. I guess I did a bad one selling my codex code, then. Well more AoS in the future for me then.
You’ll be able to get them in Warhammer 40,000: The App and right here on the Warhammer Community website
Yes they said. Read above phrase(straight from gw) again. If still don't see read it again. If still no luck go to nearest school and ask help from english teacher.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Smaller CP pools are good in general, even if it exacerbates the silliness of Martial Legacy (sigh...). I'll take that, even if it's still just baby steps towards a good system that would encourage steady use of tricks chosen before the game instead of stacked alpha striking.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Sherrypie wrote:Smaller CP pools are good in general, even if it exacerbates the silliness of Martial Legacy (sigh...). I'll take that, even if it's still just baby steps towards a good system that would encourage steady use of tricks chosen before the game instead of stacked alpha striking.
Yeah, ML needs to go. It's mostly a tax on units that don't need extra taxes in the first place. Maybe turn it into a "this datasheet must be unique" kinda thing, or "no more than X units/ models of this type per X points/ PL"
43573
Post by: vict0988
Tyel wrote:In danger of white knighting, but it all sounds quite good to me.
I'm concerned more limited CP will mean you always use the same stratagems - but that's basically where we are now. (You'll use A+B rather than A+B+C+D) It should hopefully reduce turn 1/2 blowouts by a bit - although it depends where you are on turn 2 relatively speaking and some stratagems are more impactful than others.
Equally, balancing secondaries = good. GW's historic record on balance... not so great. So we'll see. It should hopefully be more reasonable if it has all been conceived of together.
Free points is obviously excellent. Hope there will be a few sensible adjustments too.
White knighting is making excuses for flaws like when someone says "balance is gak" and then saying "most people have more than one army so who cares if there are factions which are basically unplayable?" Even if it is true that most people have multiple armies GW should still make every army balanced and be criticized when they fail to do so. Praising GW for good practices and design decisions is not white knighting. At least we can be happy when GW fail at balancing the game that they aren't engineers building bridges, it's just a game and I can just take my business elsewhere, novels are good this time of year.
To balance the game you need rules set in stone, then create missions and any faction secondaries and finally playtest to see where pts should be. When GW redoes secondaries they will not know the impact it will have on pts-effectiveness when combined with the patch and what changes need to be made based on the combination of those effects.
I just really hope GW gets rid of Armour of Gak and Hammer of Gak. I don't care if we go back to Guard or SM being undercosted and overpowered, it just really irks me and makes me not want to play the game that Space Marines can ignore the AP on my gauss flayers.
G00fySmiley wrote:yay free points, though with how GW has been doing things I expect an across the board increase in ork points because they still sometimes make it to a top 16 or in rare cases top 8 tables of a major tournament and need more nerfs.
No, clearly it is the foul Ogryn that need nerfs.
126382
Post by: EightFoldPath
I'm optimistic based on this.
Free points on the website - really good, not because of the free-ness, but because by taking them out of printed books, they no longer need to be 3~6 months out of date when they arrive.
CP changes - bit of a wash if they change it to 6 CP to start but 10 CP gained during the game. Loses 1 CP overall and mainly helps players who can't resist spending their last CP rather than waiting so they can use a 2 CP strat in their next turn.
Secondary changes - good news, we've been waiting for this for a long time, some really weak secondaries need improvements.
Overall, I'm not too bothered to spend the same £s on this new CA as I spent on the last CA+MFM, as the MFM was a waste of ink and I'm expecting this to be a bit thicker than the last pamphlet sized Nachmund CA.
I do agree with some other commenters here and on reddit, we need to keep asking for the latest base rules (with errata) to be included in each new CA. So that briefly (until they need to FAQ something) you can have an up to date set of rules in a single book.
121430
Post by: ccs
Karol wrote:Dudeface wrote:Karol wrote:LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
The app is free, you register your codex in it and get free points update for life, they already do that.
They're also going to be free on the site in a document. Please read before going anti gw police on it.
The article didn't say it will be free on the site. And when I click the app I don't get an option to download, just an option to pick a 1 month or 12 month subscription. I guess I did a bad one selling my codex code, then. Well more AoS in the future for me then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 804923 11358040 wrote:
Other than the free pts adjustments for those times I play casual matched, it won't change my armies at all because like Naschmund I won't play it. They're products aimed at tourney dwellers - of wich I'm not.
I won't even buy/pirate/read it as it's a waste of my time. Unless I decide to pull out the Guard or demons.....
Now if an opponent wants to use their altered (or shiny new for IG/Demons/?) secondaries? That's cool, I don't mind. Afterall it's a casual game.
Wouldn't it be kind of a problem, if you stilled used out dated and illegal rules for your secondaries though, or the CP limits etc
Nope, no problems. They won't be outdated. Or illegal. Because this stuff is specific to one particular season of Tournament Matched Play. Wich is but one way to play this game. A way in wich I decline to play.
So any Matched Play game I'm in will default to the standard CP, etc. And no, Matched Play =/= Tournament Matched Play.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Karol wrote:Yeah, when my special ammo, shields from having nemezis staffs etc stop being "on stratagem activiation" I can talk about that.
In case of my dudes, stratagems are not "taking everything" it is using stuff other armies have as a basic rule build in to their units or straight up gear.
Have to agree with Karol. When certain factions core gameplay mechanics and abilities are paywalled behind CP via Strategem, this sort of change can have a pretty severe impact on how your faction plays, as well as the general flavor of the army. This will hurt some of the more recent factions in particular (like Tyranids, Aeldari, and the upcoming CSM book) where wargear is tied to keywords which are used to trigger specific strategems - this will have a huge impact on the value of that wargear by constricting your ability to actually make use of it.
94850
Post by: nekooni
ccs wrote:
Nope, no problems. They won't be outdated. Or illegal. Because this stuff is specific to one particular season of Tournament Matched Play. Wich is but one way to play this game. A way in wich I decline to play.
So any Matched Play game I'm in will default to the standard CP, etc. And no, Matched Play =/= Tournament Matched Play.
Technically, I believe the CP rules etc are simply relevant for that Mission Pack. So when you play a mission from the new CA mission pack as a casual matched play game, you would use the new objectives etc, but if you play e.g. a Nachmund mission, you would use the rules and objectives found in Nachmund.
Or you just do whatever you agree with the other player on, of course - which is probably how this is going to work for most casual games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: chaos0xomega wrote:Karol wrote:Yeah, when my special ammo, shields from having nemezis staffs etc stop being "on stratagem activiation" I can talk about that.
In case of my dudes, stratagems are not "taking everything" it is using stuff other armies have as a basic rule build in to their units or straight up gear.
Have to agree with Karol. When certain factions core gameplay mechanics and abilities are paywalled behind CP via Strategem, this sort of change can have a pretty severe impact on how your faction plays, as well as the general flavor of the army. This will hurt some of the more recent factions in particular (like Tyranids, Aeldari, and the upcoming CSM book) where wargear is tied to keywords which are used to trigger specific strategems - this will have a huge impact on the value of that wargear by constricting your ability to actually make use of it.
You're probably still getting the same amount of CP over 5 rounds. It's taking away from the T1/T2 CP dump strats, and that's always a good think as it reduced the alpha strike. But yes, factions that needed these T1 CP dumps to be competitive will have to be compensated.
BTW this isn't anything new with the recent factions. the first codex of 9th had this kind of strats already, e.g. smoke launchers.
121430
Post by: ccs
nekooni wrote:ccs wrote:
Nope, no problems. They won't be outdated. Or illegal. Because this stuff is specific to one particular season of Tournament Matched Play. Wich is but one way to play this game. A way in wich I decline to play.
So any Matched Play game I'm in will default to the standard CP, etc. And no, Matched Play =/= Tournament Matched Play.
Technically, I believe the CP rules etc are simply relevant for that Mission Pack. So when you play a mission from the new CA mission pack as a casual matched play game, you would use the new objectives etc, but if you play e.g. a Nachmund mission, you would use the rules and objectives found in Nachmund.
Well, I doubt you have any greater insight than I do on it & I inferred from both the article & video that the objectives are tied to the mission pack. One of us will turn out to be wrong in a couple of months.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
Daedalus81 wrote:The next Chapter Approved has free points! But that's not the important part. Secondaries are all getting consolidated and redone, which means armies like DE with easy secondaries will hopefully have a harder time scoring them, which can take their win rates down. And if they make useful secondaries out of some of the stinkers other armies could see improvements. We also get half CP to start, but extra CP per turn ( I imagine 2 instead of 1 ). This makes it a lot harder to stack on all the relics, traits, and pre-game buffs and then also launch a full strength battery of strats. I know that this functionally limits me to only so many relics and no extra detachments. If I have a squad of 10 terminators I NEED 3CP to start the game - especially if I don't go first. How does your army change with this consideration? I'm quite looking forward to this next season. RIP leap of faith. Automatically Appended Next Post: VladimirHerzog wrote: hard disagree, just like playing at a lower pts level, it means you can't just take everything you want and still have all your powerful stratagem combos What powerful stratagem combos? My 2CP to add +1 to charge for 1 unit of repentia? Automatically Appended Next Post: Gert wrote:Karol wrote:Wouldn't it be kind of a problem, if you stilled used out dated and illegal rules for your secondaries though, or the CP limits etc
Anything not in the core rulebook is optional, so no. Technically, the core book is optional too. Open play is very broad. Automatically Appended Next Post: chaos0xomega wrote:Karol wrote:Yeah, when my special ammo, shields from having nemezis staffs etc stop being "on stratagem activiation" I can talk about that. In case of my dudes, stratagems are not "taking everything" it is using stuff other armies have as a basic rule build in to their units or straight up gear. Have to agree with Karol. When certain factions core gameplay mechanics and abilities are paywalled behind CP via Strategem, this sort of change can have a pretty severe impact on how your faction plays, as well as the general flavor of the army. This will hurt some of the more recent factions in particular (like Tyranids, Aeldari, and the upcoming CSM book) where wargear is tied to keywords which are used to trigger specific strategems - this will have a huge impact on the value of that wargear by constricting your ability to actually make use of it. The biggest problem is if they put the new increased CP during player turns, rather than battle rounds. If you get something like 2CP at the start of your turn, that essentially means the player going first starts with 8CP and the player going second starts with 6.
61286
Post by: drbored
Free points, at long last.
Hoping for a big shake-up honestly. The Balance Dataslate left a lot to be desired, and the benefit that Thousand Sons get out of it is far more than what Sisters of Battle get out of it.
121131
Post by: Catulle
ERJAK wrote:Technically, the core book is optional too. Open play is very broad.
Can you try to do even a little thinking before posting? One day?
Oh, nevermind, then.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
Karol wrote:Maybe the free points are just for armies that do really bad. Like your play demons or IG you get X extra points for free.
I want to clear this up for Karol. The "free points" aren't referring to extra points. It's referring to the point values for units/models/wargear being available for free.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
chaos0xomega wrote:Karol wrote:Yeah, when my special ammo, shields from having nemezis staffs etc stop being "on stratagem activiation" I can talk about that.
In case of my dudes, stratagems are not "taking everything" it is using stuff other armies have as a basic rule build in to their units or straight up gear.
Have to agree with Karol. When certain factions core gameplay mechanics and abilities are paywalled behind CP via Strategem, this sort of change can have a pretty severe impact on how your faction plays, as well as the general flavor of the army. This will hurt some of the more recent factions in particular (like Tyranids, Aeldari, and the upcoming CSM book) where wargear is tied to keywords which are used to trigger specific strategems - this will have a huge impact on the value of that wargear by constricting your ability to actually make use of it.
I don't think it turns it on it's head. You just can't "have it all" all at once. You can sacrifice traits and relics if you really need to be pumping stuff out of the gate.
For me it seems as though I want to make sure I have 4CP at game start, so, if I go second and I spend 3CP to do -1D then on my turn I'll be back to 3CP. But then do I push that CP to take an opportunity to hit back or save it for the next barrage.
To me that seems like difficult choices and difficult choices are good for the game.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Daedalus81 wrote:The next Chapter Approved has free points!
But that's not the important part.
Secondaries are all getting consolidated and redone, which means armies like DE with easy secondaries will hopefully have a harder time scoring them, which can take their win rates down. And if they make useful secondaries out of some of the stinkers other armies could see improvements.
We also get half CP to start, but extra CP per turn ( I imagine 2 instead of 1 ). This makes it a lot harder to stack on all the relics, traits, and pre-game buffs and then also launch a full strength battery of strats.
I know that this functionally limits me to only so many relics and no extra detachments. If I have a squad of 10 terminators I NEED 3CP to start the game - especially if I don't go first. How does your army change with this consideration?
I'm quite looking forward to this next season.
You can remove herd and it wouldn't effect DE bc we have Engage of Fronts. Heck I don't even take Herd sometimes bc Engage is better vs certain armies.
All secondaries are too easy not just "Armies like DE" Look at CWE, Quins, marines, etc... basically just skewed armies like Knights have bad picks.
over all IMO every secondaries needs to be harder to get.. But if you make them too hard then it becomes skewed as well, O
95410
Post by: ERJAK
Catulle wrote:ERJAK wrote:Technically, the core book is optional too. Open play is very broad. Can you try to do even a little thinking before posting? One day? Oh, nevermind, then. Dude, it's not my fault you don't understand the implications of the 'most important rule' being 'if your opponent agrees'. If your opponent agrees, you can throw out any and all rules you want. Even the rule about your opponent agreeing. Thus is the paradox of the most important rule. It's also not my fault you have the imagination of an old sponge.
121131
Post by: Catulle
ERJAK wrote:Catulle wrote:ERJAK wrote:Technically, the core book is optional too. Open play is very broad.
Can you try to do even a little thinking before posting? One day?
Oh, nevermind, then.
Dude, it's not my fault you don't understand the implications of the 'most important rule' being 'if your opponent agrees'.
If your opponent agrees, you can throw out any and all rules you want. Even the rule about your opponent agreeing. Thus is the paradox of the most important rule.
It's also not my fault you have the imagination of an old sponge.
I guess that just fell, fully formed, from the head of Zeus, too.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Amishprn86 wrote:You can remove herd and it wouldn't effect DE bc we have Engage of Fronts. Heck I don't even take Herd sometimes bc Engage is better vs certain armies.
All secondaries are too easy not just "Armies like DE" Look at CWE, Quins, marines, etc... basically just skewed armies like Knights have bad picks.
over all IMO every secondaries needs to be harder to get.. But if you make them too hard then it becomes skewed as well, O
There shouldn't be much that reliably scores 15. If it does - it should be hard to achieve. The outcome will certainly be something to watch, because there's quite a few books that still have to lean on standard secondaries and have few options against stuff like Custodes or Harlies.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Sherrypie wrote:Smaller CP pools are good in general, even if it exacerbates the silliness of Martial Legacy (sigh...). I'll take that, even if it's still just baby steps towards a good system that would encourage steady use of tricks chosen before the game instead of stacked alpha striking.
Well, we have to be penalized for liking the "wrong models" somehow, don't we?
nekooni wrote:Yeah, ML needs to go. It's mostly a tax on units that don't need extra taxes in the first place. Maybe turn it into a "this datasheet must be unique" kinda thing, or "no more than X units/ models of this type per X points/PL"
That would certainly be a better way to show that they were "rare". The current rules just show that they "cost CP".
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Karol wrote:Yeah, when my special ammo, shields from having nemezis staffs etc stop being "on stratagem activiation" I can talk about that.
those should never have been gated behind strats
Automatically Appended Next Post:
you still use that dumbass rule?
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Well, yes, because everyone else does (or expects others to). Because it's "balanced". Otherwise " Gw wouldn't have put it in there". You can't just force your own opinions on others. It's a two player game, after all.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Gert wrote:Anything not in the core rulebook is optional, so no.
And yet people keep reminding you that that tends to not be how people play. People tend to play with whatever the latest update is.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
GW got a big hole to dig itself out of. I don't think this'll do it.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Insectum7 wrote:GW got a big hole to dig itself out of. I don't think this'll do it.
wAiT aNd SeE!!!
I mean, at least the points are free. At least people can just play with their updated armies without having to wait for an expensive book to arrive.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Insectum7 wrote:GW got a big hole to dig itself out of. I don't think this'll do it.
I can't see how restricting the flow of CP and level setting secondaries would make things worse. And as mentioned by others - not having to print points makes them a lot more flexible.
As for the size of the hole - it isn't quite that large right now. Knights and CSM don't seem poised to upset things, either ( yet ).
102719
Post by: Gert
H.B.M.C. wrote:And yet people keep reminding you that that tends to not be how people play. People tend to play with whatever the latest update is.
And people keep thinking the only way to play is with the latest GT mission pack because people keep perpetuating the narrative. So how do you suppose we break that narrative hm?
120625
Post by: The Newman
EightFoldPath wrote:CP changes - bit of a wash if they change it to 6 CP to start but 10 CP gained during the game. Loses 1 CP overall and mainly helps players who can't resist spending their last CP rather than waiting so they can use a 2 CP strat in their next turn.
Someone else said this but it's worth repeating, this makes strats to buy extra warlord traits and relics a lot less appealing. It also reigns in some of the pre-game movement and reserve deploy shenanigans. I know I'm going to be thinking a lot harder about buying those upgrades.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
I'm a Crusader, but I might try out the new CP rules just to shake up the game if I ever get a Crusade up to 50PL.
As a GT rule, it will have been designed to only work Incursion and Strike Force games... It could theoretically scale up to Onslaught, but it doesn't really scale down to Combat Patrol, where your starting CP is 3.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Daedalus81 wrote: Insectum7 wrote:GW got a big hole to dig itself out of. I don't think this'll do it.
I can't see how restricting the flow of CP and level setting secondaries would make things worse. And as mentioned by others - not having to print points makes them a lot more flexible.
As for the size of the hole - it isn't quite that large right now. Knights and CSM don't seem poised to upset things, either ( yet ).
They're potentially good steps, but GW is in a hole even if you're not seeing it.
107700
Post by: alextroy
This new CP Thing can be very interesting if it really is 1/2 Starting CP with +2 per Turn.
That changes Strike Force games from 12 + 5 = 17 CP to 6 + 10 = 16 CP, while Incursion changes from 6 + 5 = 11 CP to 3 + 10 = 13 CP. That a modest change of -1 CP over a Strike Force and +2 CP over an Incursion game.
More important then the modest change in overall CP is the massive impact this has on the amount of CP you have available during army construction. In both game sizes, purchasing additional detachments or taking only a non-CP refunding detachment will seriously reduce the amount of CP you have available for additional Relics, Warlord Traits, Strategic Reserves and start of game stratagems.
94850
Post by: nekooni
ccs wrote:nekooni wrote:
Technically, I believe the CP rules etc are simply relevant for that Mission Pack. So when you play a mission from the new CA mission pack as a casual matched play game, you would use the new objectives etc, but if you play e.g. a Nachmund mission, you would use the rules and objectives found in Nachmund.
Well, I doubt you have any greater insight than I do on it & I inferred from both the article & video that the objectives are tied to the mission pack. One of us will turn out to be wrong in a couple of months.
Isnt that exactly what i wrote?
119380
Post by: Blndmage
alextroy wrote:This new CP Thing can be very interesting if it really is 1/2 Starting CP with +2 per Turn.
That changes Strike Force games from 12 + 5 = 17 CP to 6 + 10 = 16 CP, while Incursion changes from 6 + 5 = 11 CP to 3 + 10 = 13 CP. That a modest change of -1 CP over a Strike Force and +2 CP over an Incursion game.
More important then the modest change in overall CP is the massive impact this has on the amount of CP you have available during army construction. In both game sizes, purchasing additional detachments or taking only a non- CP refunding detachment will seriously reduce the amount of CP you have available for additional Relics, Warlord Traits, Strategic Reserves and start of game stratagems.
Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!
Maybe this is their attempt to bring folks to lower sized games.
129388
Post by: Jarms48
The whole half CP at the start double CP during the game really hurts the only viable list Guard have right now. If I now want to take pure infantry Guard that’s all my CP gone.
64268
Post by: Aenar
Gert wrote:Karol wrote:Wouldn't it be kind of a problem, if you stilled used out dated and illegal rules for your secondaries though, or the CP limits etc
Anything not in the most recent GT mission pack is optional, so no.
ftfy
Anyway, they mentioned free points on the website as well and they've done it in the past already.
They'll just upload a pdf with all the updated point costs.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.
108848
Post by: Blackie
I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.
I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Hopefully now that points are free they'll actually feel more comforable updating them alongside the Balance Dataslate instead of just throwing more and more rules bloat about.
A man can dream...
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Sim-Life wrote:Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.
I think it was both. It's not that uncommon for armies to spend 3-5 CP prior to the game on extra relics, WLT etc, then spend another 4-6 in the first turn to increase damage output or pre-game move. For some armies ending Battle Round 1 on 2-3CP is fairly common.
It's true that a big part of this problem is the number of strats as well. If there were fewer strats in general, we'd see lower CP usage per turn/round. Nowadays it seems like almost every time a unit worth more tan 120 points shoots or gets shot there's a pause while one player or another decides which strat to use.
101163
Post by: Tyel
I kind of liked giving characters WLT/Relics. I guess you can say this should be covered by points - and maybe it will in 10th - but still.
I guess yesterday I'd been sort of taking the statement literally. I.E. "okay, I start with 12, I've used 6 pre-game, so I half what I have left for 3 and get 2 a turn". That's a bit different to "okay you start with zero."
117719
Post by: Sunny Side Up
Slipspace wrote: Sim-Life wrote:Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.
I think it was both. It's not that uncommon for armies to spend 3-5 CP prior to the game on extra relics, WLT etc, then spend another 4-6 in the first turn to increase damage output or pre-game move. For some armies ending Battle Round 1 on 2-3CP is fairly common.
It's true that a big part of this problem is the number of strats as well. If there were fewer strats in general, we'd see lower CP usage per turn/round. Nowadays it seems like almost every time a unit worth more tan 120 points shoots or gets shot there's a pause while one player or another decides which strat to use.
Sure. But the entire point of a resource such as CP being available for spending is the option to burn it ... um ... non-linear, I guess. Load up a particular key turn. Etc..
If it's supposed to be 2-3 things that essentially just happen every turn/battle round (e.g. stuff like rotate ion shields, pre-nerf Custodes no-rerolls, LFR for Eldar, etc..), it doesn't really need to be tied to a "currency"-style resource like CP. Just make it an army/datasheet/command phase ability that is available for use every turn.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Sunny Side Up wrote:Slipspace wrote: Sim-Life wrote:Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.
I think it was both. It's not that uncommon for armies to spend 3-5 CP prior to the game on extra relics, WLT etc, then spend another 4-6 in the first turn to increase damage output or pre-game move. For some armies ending Battle Round 1 on 2-3CP is fairly common.
It's true that a big part of this problem is the number of strats as well. If there were fewer strats in general, we'd see lower CP usage per turn/round. Nowadays it seems like almost every time a unit worth more tan 120 points shoots or gets shot there's a pause while one player or another decides which strat to use.
Sure. But the entire point of a resource such as CP being available for spending is the option to burn it ... um ... non-linear, I guess. Load up a particular key turn. Etc..
You can still do that. The total spent will be lower but you're still burning all of it on turn 1 if you want, just achieving less. It's perfectly acceptable to rebalance a mechanic that wasn't working as intended and it may well be that GW didn't think people would so freely spend their CP early. This is the same company that seems genuinely shocked when people see a good unit in a Codex and immediately spam the maximum number, or who were surprised to find SM players in 8th not advancing out of Devastator doctrine. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn this is more in line with how they intended CPs to be used in the first place.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well, yes, because everyone else does (or expects others to). Because it's "balanced". Otherwise " Gw wouldn't have put it in there". You can't just force your own opinions on others. It's a two player game, after all.
i'm not forcing it on anyone, i'm just lucky that my playgroup's reaction to learning why i was always starting with less CP because of my Levi was "lolwut, its worse than a redemtor" Automatically Appended Next Post: Jarms48 wrote:The whole half CP at the start double CP during the game really hurts the only viable list Guard have right now. If I now want to take pure infantry Guard that’s all my CP gone.
I know this is gonna suck but :
Guard isn't a real codex right now, theyre on life support. Once they get their 9th codex, you'll be free to bitch about these things.
43573
Post by: vict0988
VladimirHerzog wrote:Jarms48 wrote:The whole half CP at the start double CP during the game really hurts the only viable list Guard have right now. If I now want to take pure infantry Guard that’s all my CP gone.
I know this is gonna suck but :
Guard isn't a real codex right now, theyre on life support. Once they get their 9th codex, you'll be free to bitch about these things.
Should be free to bitch right now. It's GW's fault.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
VladimirHerzog wrote: Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well, yes, because everyone else does (or expects others to). Because it's "balanced". Otherwise " Gw wouldn't have put it in there". You can't just force your own opinions on others. It's a two player game, after all.
i'm not forcing it on anyone, i'm just lucky that my playgroup's reaction to learning why i was always starting with less CP because of my Levi was "lolwut, its worse than a redemtor"
Well, good for you, I guess? Meanwhile, many of us still have to play by the rule, which is why it needs to be changed to something more sensible, like a 0-1 limit per datasheet, especially in light of this change.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well, good for you, I guess? Meanwhile, many of us still have to play by the rule, which is why it needs to be changed to something more sensible, like a 0-1 limit per datasheet, especially in light of this change.
Oh it absolutely needs to be changed, but its FW stuff so GW keeps forgetting these exist
39309
Post by: Jidmah
PenitentJake wrote:
This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.
It's probably fairly easy to extrapolate the values for 25 and 100 PL.
19296
Post by: Da-Rock
Karol wrote:LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.
App or website.
752
Post by: Polonius
Jidmah wrote:PenitentJake wrote:
This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.
It's probably fairly easy to extrapolate the values for 25 and 100 PL.
Combat patrol is fine stating at 3cp, unless somebody really decides to juice up their army with upgrades or something. And bumping Combat patrol to 2cp a turn would be bonkers.
Onslaught runs into a bigger problem of not being able to duplicate the best strats, so I think it's okay, although you could sell me on starting with only 6 CP but generating 3CP a turn.
7680
Post by: oni
I am deeply saddened that GW kept the current, absolute gak mission design. So unfortunate. Sticking with the current mission design and repeatable secondary objectives = Massive FAIL. Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward. That said, at least GW acknowledges that stratagems are a problem. We'll see how this works out. I'm cautiously optimistic.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?
73016
Post by: auticus
Mike Brandt is the head of the events team or at least thats what he is listed as.
He may have the developers' ears but I'm not sure that he's the one penning the rules.
129552
Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim
Repeatable missions are sort of the thing plaguing 40k atm for me. I’m not saying maelstrom of war but a big table of missions requiring different elements would be interesting, as well as decreasing secondaries. I think a lot of meta lists would struggle for points in this type of thing.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Tyel wrote:I guess yesterday I'd been sort of taking the statement literally. I.E. "okay, I start with 12, I've used 6 pre-game, so I half what I have left for 3 and get 2 a turn". That's a bit different to "okay you start with zero."
I'm betting you start with 6 so if you spend 6 pre-game you're going to start with 0.
7680
Post by: oni
Sim-Life wrote: You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy? Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Repeatable missions are sort of the thing plaguing 40k atm for me. I’m not saying maelstrom of war but a big table of missions requiring different elements would be interesting, as well as decreasing secondaries. I think a lot of meta lists would struggle for points in this type of thing.
Well wouldn't help in tournaments at least. They would just pick same few all the time like tournaments in aos.
116670
Post by: Ordana
oni wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?
Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.
As opposed to random objective placement where 1 player may be favoured over another and people using gakky terrain layouts then wondering how they lost as an CC army with no where to hide on their approach?
I'm not saying all that stuff is perfect, its not. But it all atleast attempts to address issues that people suffer from.
Stuff like the terrain layouts are clearly a response to tournaments having completely garbage tables.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Ordana wrote:As opposed to random objective placement where 1 player may be favoured over another and people using gakky terrain layouts then wondering how they lost as an CC army with no where to hide on their approach?
I'm not saying all that stuff is perfect, its not. But it all atleast attempts to address issues that people suffer from.
Stuff like the terrain layouts are clearly a response to tournaments having completely garbage tables.
And missions that aren't just KiLl PoInTs.
73016
Post by: auticus
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Repeatable missions are sort of the thing plaguing 40k atm for me. I’m not saying maelstrom of war but a big table of missions requiring different elements would be interesting, as well as decreasing secondaries. I think a lot of meta lists would struggle for points in this type of thing.
This is where I prefer as well - doing the same mission over and over quite frankly sucks. It is also easy to game.
However meta lists will just evolve to be whatever is best at everything in the most mathematical possible. They will be more generalized... which means not as overbearing, but the meta will as always adapt to whatever the powergaming paradigm is based on the static parameters given. (granted if you have a list of missions that are all different and there are enough of them it becomes VERY difficult to make a list good at them all, which is where sideboarding will be strongly desired so that you can sideboard and stay optimal)
7680
Post by: oni
When elements of a system become predictable it becomes easier to exploit those elements.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
PenitentJake wrote:
This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.
You do know that the base Eternal War Mission Pack has 3 Combat Patrol missions with differing deployment zones and primary/secondary objective rules, right?
Combat Patrol is a valid way to play and is a valid Matched Play option.
Now, the Grand Tournament books are only Strike Force and Incursion specific because those are the two competitive circuits, although, everyone ignores Incursion anyway.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
oni wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?
Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.
Of that list he's only responsible for the fixed terrain layouts. While I'm not a fan of those I can at least understand the desire to have a standardised set of terrain for the official GW tournaments.
The other things you list are much more inspired by ITC rules, which he had no hand in at all. In fact, the NOVA Open, which he ran, was notable for being one of the biggest tournaments that didn't use the standard ITC mission pack when almost everyone else was running it.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
oni wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?
Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.
Okay but Matt Ward was disliked by some because his rule were borne of over-enthusiasm. They were dynamic, fun and imaginative and the problem was he often took things too far and made stuff over-powered conpared to other authors efforts at the time. Its seems like your problem with Brandt is that he makes everything samey and stagnant. Also if he only works on scenarios and tournament stuff how does that effect the balance of armies?
64268
Post by: Aenar
I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them
90464
Post by: Umbros
Aenar wrote:I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them
Whilst I do think there are valid complaints to be made about the missions, you are definitely on the money here.
Auticus doesn't even play the game!
120227
Post by: Karol
Sim-Life wrote:
Okay but Matt Ward was disliked by some because his rule were borne of over-enthusiasm. They were dynamic, fun and imaginative and the problem was he often took things too far and made stuff over-powered conpared to other authors efforts at the time. Its seems like your problem with Brandt is that he makes everything samey and stagnant. Also if he only works on scenarios and tournament stuff how does that effect the balance of armies?
Doesn't that just mean that Ward wrote fun books to play, but because he didn't write 100% of them, those that got to enjoy those writen by other designers had to both play vs stuff which was good and fun, while playing with something that was the opposite?
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Sim-Life wrote: oni wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?
Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.
Okay but Matt Ward was disliked by some because his rule were borne of over-enthusiasm. They were dynamic, fun and imaginative and the problem was he often took things too far and made stuff over-powered conpared to other authors efforts at the time. Its seems like your problem with Brandt is that he makes everything samey and stagnant. Also if he only works on scenarios and tournament stuff how does that effect the balance of armies?
Because they're basing the balancing and design of the armies around Mike's mission packets. Note i don't play in tournaments nor use the torunament mission packs but to pinch some of the rules for casual games, but I also understand and appreciate that to get balance he's trying to create missions that suit different forms of play and maps/objective layouts that aren't immediately wonky throwfests. If your missions are stable and consistent then to a degree it makes the variance in army performances easier to narrow down.
129388
Post by: Jarms48
Blackie wrote:I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.
I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.
It just kills multiple detachment armies. It’s not a nerf to stratagems it’s crippling to army construction.
108848
Post by: Blackie
Jarms48 wrote: Blackie wrote:I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.
I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.
It just kills multiple detachment armies. It’s not a nerf to stratagems it’s crippling to army construction.
No, it just cripples them as it should be. At the moment there's little disadvantage in taking multiple detachments, it's mostly just benefits.
I play two detachments for -3CPs and I praise the change.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Aenar wrote:I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them
My LGS has a weekly game night post-hours and we used to follow the GT missions, we recently realised that most of our complaints were based on the missions all being the same and we've gone back to playing goofy fun missions instead (still waiting on a second shipment of tempest of war to use).
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?
120227
Post by: Karol
Blackie wrote:
No, it just cripples them as it should be. At the moment there's little disadvantage in taking multiple detachments, it's mostly just benefits.
I play two detachments for -3CPs and I praise the change.
When an army was designed and advertised as to be played with a mix of detachments, and then the option gets taken away, then it affect armies who were not designed with such a need in mind much different.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Jarms48 wrote: Blackie wrote:I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.
I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.
It just kills multiple detachment armies. It’s not a nerf to stratagems it’s crippling to army construction.
And also, again, any Heretic Astartes/Loyalist Scum armies using the "wrong models". This makes the Martial Legacy nerf hit all the harder.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Dudeface wrote:Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?
Not yet - maybe that contingent is taking a couple of days off...
100848
Post by: tneva82
Well those are resin models. It's feature. Not bug. Gw doesn't want you to buy resin if you want power when plastic is out there.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.
129552
Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim
Dysartes wrote:Dudeface wrote:Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?
Not yet - maybe that contingent is taking a couple of days off...
I mean we have blood axes to kinda try and mitigate it, it’s going to spell doom for Goff lists imo.
120227
Post by: Karol
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.
People in general don't care much about armies they don't play or own. It really has to be some special instance for it to be a thing.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Karol wrote:FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.
People in general don't care much about armies they don't play or own. It really has to be some special instance for it to be a thing.
I care about the overall game more than a specific army
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
VladimirHerzog wrote:Karol wrote:FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.
People in general don't care much about armies they don't play or own. It really has to be some special instance for it to be a thing.
I care about the overall game more than a specific army
And if the overall game requires someone else's army to be deleted or nerfed into unusability, so be it!
120227
Post by: Karol
I think that would either would require the ownership of most w40k faction or being forced to play against friends or family, whose armies combined are a spread over all w40k factions.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Gert wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:And yet people keep reminding you that that tends to not be how people play. People tend to play with whatever the latest update is.
And people keep thinking the only way to play is with the latest GT mission pack because people keep perpetuating the narrative. So how do you suppose we break that narrative hm?
Find people who want to play the same way as you. If everyone in your local meta wants to play with the latest GT mission pack, I don't think an organized propaganda campaign to show them the error of their ways is the appropriate response. Automatically Appended Next Post: Blndmage wrote:
Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!
Maybe this is their attempt to bring folks to lower sized games.
The game doesn't work very well at low points and isn't really designed to. They have Kill Team, Warcry, Underworlds, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Titanicus and Aeronautica Imperialis for that. 40k is a mass battle game about HQs, troops, elites, heavy support, and fast attack units working together to accomplish multiple objectives. That doesn't play well at 500 pts because you basically get an HQ, a troop or two, and one big model or powerful unit.
102719
Post by: Gert
Toofast wrote:Find people who want to play the same way as you. If everyone in your local meta wants to play with the latest GT mission pack, I don't think an organized propaganda campaign to show them the error of their ways is the appropriate response.
As we've already seen the internet has a massive pull on what is and is not the "right" way to play 40k. I simply suggest that people mention that rules are part of optional mission packs instead of implying they are core rules. It's hardly a propaganda campaign when it's just telling people the truth. I'd argue the effort to make comp 40k rules seem like the core 40k rules is more in line with that idea.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Slipspace wrote:
The other things you list are much more inspired by ITC rules, which he had no hand in at all. In fact, the NOVA Open, which he ran, was notable for being one of the biggest tournaments that didn't use the standard ITC mission pack when almost everyone else was running it.
My local group was playing the nova mission pack a lot during 7th. The BRB missions were too stale and static, maelstrom was just crazy random even with the universal house rule. Nova missions were a great balance, dynamic objectives that made you think ahead but you could still plan for. Not just "oh I drew 'kill a psyker' and my enemy doesn't have them, guess i don't score this turn."
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
AnomanderRake wrote:
And if the overall game requires someone else's army to be deleted or nerfed into unusability, so be it!
More like : If the overall game requires someone's army to need to be reworked so it functions better, so be it!
I play thousand sons, the removal of monofaction souping affected me but i realised it was a better change for the overall game.
If a faction becomes truly unplayable with changes, then GW needs to go back to it and fix the specific problems with that faction instead of sacrificing the whole game.
73016
Post by: auticus
Umbros wrote: Aenar wrote:I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them
Whilst I do think there are valid complaints to be made about the missions, you are definitely on the money here.
Auticus doesn't even play the game!
Auticus played the game for over 20 years and had to play in an environment that was only matched / tournament scenarios day in day out.
I highly doubt that the game and matched play conditions in those regards changed drastically in the 3 years that I stepped out or if the missions somehow since 2019 that these missions become these dynamic ever changing things, especially since I can go read them with my own eyes and see what the state of the game is myself.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Gert wrote:Toofast wrote:Find people who want to play the same way as you. If everyone in your local meta wants to play with the latest GT mission pack, I don't think an organized propaganda campaign to show them the error of their ways is the appropriate response.
As we've already seen the internet has a massive pull on what is and is not the "right" way to play 40k. I simply suggest that people mention that rules are part of optional mission packs instead of implying they are core rules. It's hardly a propaganda campaign when it's just telling people the truth. I'd argue the effort to make comp 40k rules seem like the core 40k rules is more in line with that idea.
We need to remember to confiscate the shirts from such people, issue them with MC Hammer trousers and masks, and remind them that branding is optional, but recommended.
After all, need to make sure these Cultists are WYSIWYG...
120227
Post by: Karol
VladimirHerzog wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:
And if the overall game requires someone else's army to be deleted or nerfed into unusability, so be it!
More like : If the overall game requires someone's army to need to be reworked so it functions better, so be it!
I play thousand sons, the removal of monofaction souping affected me but i realised it was a better change for the overall game.
If a faction becomes truly unplayable with changes, then GW needs to go back to it and fix the specific problems with that faction instead of sacrificing the whole game.
But GW doesn't do that. They maybe do it for marines, but even then 2.0 marines are often very different from what prior marine armies were.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
auticus wrote:
Auticus played the game for over 20 years and had to play in an environment that was only matched / tournament scenarios day in day out.
I highly doubt that the game and matched play conditions in those regards changed drastically in the 3 years that I stepped out or if the missions somehow since 2019 that these missions become these dynamic ever changing things, especially since I can go read them with my own eyes and see what the state of the game is myself.
The mission changes from 8th to 9th were pretty significant.
I guess I'm not sure what others are defining as "whacky" missions. Do they mean where stuff randomly blows up like that daemon-forsaken table in 7th?
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Karol wrote: VladimirHerzog wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:
And if the overall game requires someone else's army to be deleted or nerfed into unusability, so be it!
More like : If the overall game requires someone's army to need to be reworked so it functions better, so be it!
I play thousand sons, the removal of monofaction souping affected me but i realised it was a better change for the overall game.
If a faction becomes truly unplayable with changes, then GW needs to go back to it and fix the specific problems with that faction instead of sacrificing the whole game.
But GW doesn't do that. They maybe do it for marines, but even then 2.0 marines are often very different from what prior marine armies were.
i'm saying they should, if they were good designers
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Toofast 804923 11359456 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote:
Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!
Maybe this is their attempt to bring folks to lower sized games.
The game doesn't work very well at low points and isn't really designed to. They have Kill Team, Warcry, Underworlds, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Titanicus and Aeronautica Imperialis for that. 40k is a mass battle game about HQs, troops, elites, heavy support, and fast attack units working together to accomplish multiple objectives. That doesn't play well at 500 pts because you basically get an HQ, a troop or two, and one big model or powerful unit.
But I don't want to play titanicus, or kill team. I want to play 40k, using the supported Combat Patrol content. I *really* wish we got Matched Play Combat Patrol love, but since the tournament scene barely recognizes Incursion, I see why we get forgotten. But, because Combat Patrol outside of Crusade (a whole different thing I don't wanna get into) gets basically laughed and and kicked out of the game by the players, we never get any support from GW. My local scene is actually considering moving to 501 as the smallest (outside of fun one offs), as then it counts as Incursion, and we get support.
But the game, as written lists 0-500 points as 1/4 of the different game sizes (not counting Open/Narrative/Matched), and should be valid, not ignored and mocked.
Also re the "but I only get an HQ, and 2 Troops" thing:
I've played Necrons at the 500-750ish points level since 3rd. Trust me I get it, but it teaches you to learn your units.
You're only required 1 HQ and 1 troop now.
It's supposed to be a patrol, if you want to run a Monolith vs kroot (a commonly done thing for us), that's what Open play is for. There's actually a mission pack and rules!
"But the game is totally different and my normal (2k GT) tricks don't work!"
No freaking kidding! It's a totally different level of game. It's a different meta, a different mindset, you can still run really thematic armies.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
I'm with you- I love small forces, and combining them in multidetachment armies. This is a little easier in Crusade than matched- faction restrictions aren't as tight.
Really excited that both Cultists and Traitor Guard have HQs and Troops so they can be taken as independent patrols.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
And, a 500 or under point force can be super fun to collect and model!
Honestly, if I wasn't stuck to solo games, due to being too disabled to play at the local stores, I'd work out what that minimum points each faction has as a playable Combat Patrol, then take the highest, add a % decided by the community, and set that as the lowest points playable locally, and would work to build a Combat Patrol community.
43573
Post by: vict0988
Daedalus81 wrote: auticus wrote:
Auticus played the game for over 20 years and had to play in an environment that was only matched / tournament scenarios day in day out.
I highly doubt that the game and matched play conditions in those regards changed drastically in the 3 years that I stepped out or if the missions somehow since 2019 that these missions become these dynamic ever changing things, especially since I can go read them with my own eyes and see what the state of the game is myself.
The mission changes from 8th to 9th were pretty significant.
I guess I'm not sure what others are defining as "whacky" missions. Do they mean where stuff randomly blows up like that daemon-forsaken table in 7th?
If you don't sometimes win because your opponent suffered a freak virus bombing attack are you even wargaming /sarcasm?
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Dudeface wrote:Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?
I'm not aware of anything that would make the current situation any worse.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
vict0988 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote: auticus wrote:
Auticus played the game for over 20 years and had to play in an environment that was only matched / tournament scenarios day in day out.
I highly doubt that the game and matched play conditions in those regards changed drastically in the 3 years that I stepped out or if the missions somehow since 2019 that these missions become these dynamic ever changing things, especially since I can go read them with my own eyes and see what the state of the game is myself.
The mission changes from 8th to 9th were pretty significant.
I guess I'm not sure what others are defining as "whacky" missions. Do they mean where stuff randomly blows up like that daemon-forsaken table in 7th?
If you don't sometimes win because your opponent suffered a freak virus bombing attack are you even wargaming /sarcasm?
Age of Sigmar had that with the realm of battle rules.
They dropped them.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Jidmah wrote:Dudeface wrote:Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?
I'm not aware of anything that would make the current situation any worse.
A lot of lists seem to like running multiple detachments, none of which are patrols/battalions, so 6cp won't get you far.
108848
Post by: Blackie
Dudeface wrote: Jidmah wrote:Dudeface wrote:Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?
I'm not aware of anything that would make the current situation any worse.
A lot of lists seem to like running multiple detachments, none of which are patrols/battalions, so 6cp won't get you far.
Typically there's already a patrol to mitigate the loss of CPs. Multiple detachments for orks are something like patrol + outrider/spearhead or patrol + patrol (+ patrol).
Orks don't really need tons of CPs though, a large chunk of them are burned pre-game. With -6CPs from the starting pool I think they'll manage. I know I'll manage.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Dudeface wrote: Jidmah wrote:Dudeface wrote:Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?
I'm not aware of anything that would make the current situation any worse.
A lot of lists seem to like running multiple detachments, none of which are patrols/battalions, so 6cp won't get you far.
Kult of speed is relying on an unfaq'ed stratagem to get gak done and has bee fairly dead in the water due to AoC, the complete obliteration of squig buggies and nids.
Goff list can run beast snagga boyz to pay for the tax, and with no valuable stratagems to speak of they just drop 4CP into a patrol to have another warboss with relic and trait.
The prospect of finally getting a secondary that isn't squig gak and others not being able to leverage their stacking stratagems on us is totally worth losing the trade.
Worst case, orks just remain the weakest army.
87012
Post by: Toofast
I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
108848
Post by: Blackie
Most people don't buy an army according to tournament stats. They start an army considering the models aesthetics, their lore and their style of playing. So to me it's perfectly fine to complain if that army is constantly left behind or take unnecessary massive nerfs the very moment they aren't gak tier, and we're talking about years if not decades. Not just the moment. SM player typically start complaining as soon as their army is not in top 3.
On the other hand orks are an army with a massive roster and that relies on the numbers (aka multiples of the same boxes), so from my perpsective it's hard to feel sympathy for those ork players who get 2000-2500 points of miniatures and expect to be good with that lot for a long time. Orks are for players who aim at very large collections and/or people who love kitbashing or converting lots of stuff, not just those who aim at getting the bare minimum to play the game, let alone the competitive meta. Get eldar/tau/SM if that's what you want.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
Another popular way to build an army is using box sets as cores in order to take advantage of discounts. This is how I tend to buy mine.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Toofast wrote:I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
Orks had no troubles competing in tournaments till the car company came over, stabbed all four tires and the spare wheel (for consistency) of your pickup, shot your engine twice and then set fire to your other car just to make sure that you won't tow anything ever again.
Meanwhile, the drukhari BMW X7 got a sticker slapped on it's rear which says "drive carefully".
87012
Post by: Toofast
Jidmah wrote:Toofast wrote:I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
Orks had no troubles competing in tournaments till the car company came over, stabbed all four tires and the spare wheel (for consistency) of your pickup, shot your engine twice and then set fire to your other car just to make sure that you won't tow anything ever again.
Meanwhile, the drukhari BMW X7 got a sticker slapped on it's rear which says "drive carefully".
So for a whole 2 months out of the last 25 years, Orks were top tier. Wow!
39309
Post by: Jidmah
So, I understand that you do support GW's stance of actively preventing ork armies from ever being decent and were just lying about they part where you believe that all factions should be viable?
128453
Post by: BlackoCatto
I can't wait for Guard to receive another patch after patch after patch patch patch.
43573
Post by: vict0988
BlackoCatto wrote:I can't wait for Guard to receive another patch after patch after patch patch patch.
They need a 2+ Sv so like Custodes.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Toofast wrote:I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
You should blame GW, not the people who like Orks.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Toofast wrote:I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen to defend GW. Did you even apply an ounce of criticism your own post before you hit "Submit"?
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
At this stage in regards to orks, in older editions atleast i could strap my warboss ontop of a warbike.... A far superior state of affairs rather then what we got instead for it, aka a bunch of snakebites with bionics.
101163
Post by: Tyel
YMMV may massively vary (Jidmah/Semper: no.) but I think Orks are probably in a better spot competitively than they are as a casual player. We are seeing Orks popping up at GTs.
The issue is that lists tend to be quite... precise.
By contrast ye casual player could very easily have say, a few characters, a bunch of boyz and grots, some meganobz, some storm boyz, some bikes and a buggy or two, a deffdread, some killa kans, flash gitz, lootas and a trukk or three. I.E. what you'd have picked up walking into a store over the last decade or so. But the way the army's rules go, the list doesn't synergize. Its just a random collection of things, about half of which is mathematically bad.
And while you can argue there are winners and losers across any codex, its rarely this extreme.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
That's essentially what blackie is saying though - you need to build somewhat of a competitive army to fight a casual list from one of the better codices on equal footing. You can trade down optimal choices for less optimal ones, but that's about it. It's also worth noting that playing to win a game from the Nachtmund season is a very different game from playing to win a BRB matched play, tempest of war mission or crusade mission. Hiding most of your army behind obscuring terrain and minimizing casualties to maximize VP is not how most casual players would go about playing orks.
102719
Post by: Gert
Orks should legally not be allowed to win. Sorry, that's just how it is. James Workshop said so.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Aaaaaand there goes Orks to top 4 at the Seattle open
108848
Post by: Blackie
Gert wrote:Orks should legally not be allowed to win. Sorry, that's just how it is. James Workshop said so.
No, you're talking about SM. SM sell regardless and considering how popular and common they are whenever they get in the top 3 the game turns into 30k . Play 30k if you want powerful marines .
101163
Post by: Tyel
Jidmah wrote:That's essentially what blackie is saying though - you need to build somewhat of a competitive army to fight a casual list from one of the better codices on equal footing.
I was more criticizing Toofast's idea that "players should just recognise Orks as the Bloodbowl halflings of 40k, and its not surprising they can't win tournaments."
To my mind (and this may be somewhat exaggerated as I'm not checking actual stats) - Orks have had counter-meta play for a decent proportion of 8th and 9th - and got tournament placings to show for it.
If winning tournaments is all you want, I kind of feel they've been in a healthier spot than say Necrons these last 5 years.
But if two casual players threw down a random grab bag of units, I think I'd favour the Necron player's chances because there's fewer traps to list building. (Although all the characters and 30 Praetorians would kind of suck.)
120227
Post by: Karol
That largely depends on what is in the patrol box for a given faction. 2xDE patrol box gives a much better army, then someone picking up any other of the patrol boxs twice.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
Toofast wrote:I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
so to be clear... orks should be bad because they have always been bad and should continue to be bad? This is the "you play an NPC faction" argument, sadly GW seems to agree as orks are the only army to in my recollection have a model nerfed before release because non-ork players were complaining about how powerful it was going to be. orks had one powerful freebootaz list that was too strong and took a baseball bat to the codex nerf after dark eldar and mechanicus were broken for 6 months and got another light touch nerf.
To be fair my answer has basically been work with it but realize as I have since 4th edition, GW has nobody on the rules team that play, advocates for, or even likes to orks, they just like that the models sell well as people are loyal to the faction. realizing this by the middle of 5th that is unlikely to change. That said I do not think its a case of "well orks deserve to always be bad" as you imply instead its a GW problem and people should stop buying ork models until they get a proper fix.
120227
Post by: Karol
Unless something drops below GW sells expectations, or drives them in to red, the chance of them reacting to anything is rather low.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
G00fySmiley wrote:Toofast wrote:I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
so to be clear... orks should be bad because they have always been bad and should continue to be bad? This is the "you play an NPC faction" argument, sadly GW seems to agree as orks are the only army to in my recollection have a model nerfed before release because non-ork players were complaining about how powerful it was going to be. orks had one powerful freebootaz list that was too strong and took a baseball bat to the codex nerf after dark eldar and mechanicus were broken for 6 months and got another light touch nerf.
To be fair my answer has basically been work with it but realize as I have since 4th edition, GW has nobody on the rules team that play, advocates for, or even likes to orks, they just like that the models sell well as people are loyal to the faction. realizing this by the middle of 5th that is unlikely to change. That said I do not think its a case of "well orks deserve to always be bad" as you imply instead its a GW problem and people should stop buying ork models until they get a proper fix.
Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.
Maybe not, got 2 places telling me different info.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
No alternative facts, please. He placed 10th with 6-2 and was the only ork list showing up anywhere near a podium. Top 5 were exclusively reserved for nids.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
Dudeface wrote: G00fySmiley wrote:Toofast wrote:I've been playing since 3rd and Orks have consistently been towards the bottom of the tier list. While I think all factions should be viable competitively, it's hard to feel sympathy for people who buy Orks and then complain they can't win tournaments. It's like buying a compact pickup and complaining it won't tow your 59' Sea Ray. You knew before you bought Orks that you probably weren't going to win LVO with them. If that's what you want, play Eldar/Tau/Marines who seem to hit S tier at least some point during every edition. Again, I don't want this to be the case but that's reality.
so to be clear... orks should be bad because they have always been bad and should continue to be bad? This is the "you play an NPC faction" argument, sadly GW seems to agree as orks are the only army to in my recollection have a model nerfed before release because non-ork players were complaining about how powerful it was going to be. orks had one powerful freebootaz list that was too strong and took a baseball bat to the codex nerf after dark eldar and mechanicus were broken for 6 months and got another light touch nerf.
To be fair my answer has basically been work with it but realize as I have since 4th edition, GW has nobody on the rules team that play, advocates for, or even likes to orks, they just like that the models sell well as people are loyal to the faction. realizing this by the middle of 5th that is unlikely to change. That said I do not think its a case of "well orks deserve to always be bad" as you imply instead its a GW problem and people should stop buying ork models until they get a proper fix.
Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.
i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there. at work and most sites are blocked, strangely dakka is not. the one statsite i can use only has up to 5/1 where orks had a 38% win rate. when 5/8 lists for this weekend post on cliff thomas's 40k fight club stats we can see the whole weekend.
Of note here though one placing does nto make an army necessarily strong, it means somebody is playing it very well if they do it consistently. an example was when Richard Siegler was taking a bottom tier Tau codex and winning event by playing to the missions and never making any mistakes.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
G00fySmiley wrote:i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there.
Yep, it was bloodaxe MW spam, exploiting bomb squigs to snipe characters and "shoot" unhindered at targets without LoS.
Who is taking bets on what is getting nerfed in the next update?
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
Jidmah wrote: G00fySmiley wrote:i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there.
Yep, it was bloodaxe MW spam, exploiting bomb squigs to snipe characters and "shoot" unhindered at targets without LoS.
Who is taking bets on what is getting nerfed in the next update?
probably, my issue with the list though is once ready for it a good player will be countering it without much change, keeping more out of range, eliminating units with squigs as priority etc. I hope i am wrong but I think its going to be a few adjustments to play by top players to keep it as a gatekeeper you have to prepare for moreso than ever going to win a major.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Jidmah wrote:
No alternative facts, please. He placed 10th with 6-2 and was the only ork list showing up anywhere near a podium.
Top 5 were exclusively reserved for nids.
Sorry I got an excited message with a list from my brother who omitted the "going into the last day" part.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Jidmah wrote:
No alternative facts, please. He placed 10th with 6-2 and was the only ork list showing up anywhere near a podium.
Top 5 were exclusively reserved for nids.
It looks like Tyranids finally asserted their dominance this past weekend. I don't think anyone is beating them. Harlies also had a decent jump back up.
101163
Post by: Tyel
Daedalus81 wrote:It looks like Tyranids finally asserted their dominance this past weekend. I don't think anyone is beating them. Harlies also had a decent jump back up.
Still don't think they are "more broken than Harlequins" - but yes. If this week is any indication, that win percentage is bad and getting worse. Suspect there may be more winnowing down to "the best Nid list" - although I've not gone through them all. (I'm sure Goonhammer etc can do that for me.) Don't know if Knights will change things up.
Harlequins frankly could do with some more nerfs as well - but its probably not as big a deal.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Dudeface wrote:
Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.
Maybe not, got 2 places telling me different info.
They were in top 4 going into day 2.
They did not end in the top 4 at the end. Plus, the list was just spamming bomb squigs; the core functionality of orks is terrible because GW's rules team won't put effort into orks. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jidmah wrote: G00fySmiley wrote:i am looking forward to seeing the list. I suspect its the mortal wound theory list or a variant but i could be wrong there.
Yep, it was bloodaxe MW spam, exploiting bomb squigs to snipe characters and "shoot" unhindered at targets without LoS.
Who is taking bets on what is getting nerfed in the next update?
There's a fething alarm klaxon at GW that goes off every time an ork list does well in comp play that tells them to nerf everything lol
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Hecaton wrote:Dudeface wrote:
Again, they just landed top 4 with 3 nids players in the GW Open, apparently Orks aren't that bad.
Maybe not, got 2 places telling me different info.
They were in top 4 going into day 2.
They did not end in the top 4 at the end. Plus, the list was just spamming bomb squigs; the core functionality of orks is terrible because GW's rules team won't put effort into orks.
His list is a tad bit more nuanced than that, but the core tactic is cleary hiding everything and throwing squigs over walls, while avoiding fighting or shooting with most parts of the army because orks lose to everything in a direct fight. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hecaton wrote:There's a fething alarm klaxon at GW that goes off every time an ork list does well in comp play that tells them to nerf everything lol
It would be funny if it weren't true. GW is still layering on more nerfs on nob bikers with every iteration of their rules. At least no one at GW seems to remember that kanz were good in 5th, so they finally got back to not being total garbage.
120227
Post by: Karol
Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?
120227
Post by: Karol
Tyel 804923 11361145 wrote:
Still don't think they are "more broken than Harlequins" - but yes. If this week is any indication, that win percentage is bad and getting worse. Suspect there may be more winnowing down to "the best Nid list" - although I've not gone through them all.
The tyranids, no matter what kind of an army people play have this distinct DE feel to it, of being undercosted. They plop down an army on the table, you think it is going to be a tough match, and then they inform you they have multiple stuff in reservs. And with all things over all good or overpriced the impact is felt more, the lower down the skill and army optimisation one goes.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Karol wrote:Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?
4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I stand corrected then?
120227
Post by: Karol
hmm, maybe they have something against 5th armies that were good. Were necron or csm good in 5th ed? Of course in relative terms, something had to be "the best".
4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised.
So it was like GK. 10 paladins each one with a different weapon load out. Was told they could take ton of small weapon fire without ever losing any models.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Not Online!!! wrote:Karol wrote:Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ? 4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised. It was a 4th edition codex written with 5th edition in mind™, but it really only was a thing during 5th. Nob bikers stood out because of exhaust cloud providing 4+ cover layered with 4+ FNP from the doc on a fast unit that could be made troops by a warboss. Regular nobz could do the very same thing, but were lacking exhaust cloud and had to bring a battlewagon to get anywhere. It also was much more of an issue of players being pissed at the gamey exploit of the wound allocation rules and death stars in general than an actually powerful army - any S8 hit still instantly splatted them unless you were tanking those hits with a warboss. A unit of nob bikers with warboss babysitter usually clocked in at 600+ points. GW absolutely made sure that this would never happen again: - 6th: nerfed cover and FNP, removed the ability to allocate wounds while spreading instant death and S8 everywhere to deal with those pesky multi-wound models - 7th: nerfed cybork dead (5++ => 6+ FNP), turned the doc unit upgrade into an IC which was more expensive and easy to kill through challenges, exhaust cloud deleted - 8th index era: nerfed FNP again, reduced leadership, boss poles and the waaagh! banner deleted - 8th codex: took away ability to take kombi-weapons - 9th FW book: pain boy legended, moved from elite to overcrowded fast attack slot, extra choppa and stikkbombs taken away, NOBZ keyword removed - 9th edition codex: 'keepin da order taken away, none of the new bike rules added, making nob bikers nothing but a worse (but more expensive) version of warbikers Fun fact for Karol: GK Paladins were explicitly designed by Matt Ward to exploit these rules even worse than nobs ever could - the reason why there are so many different melee weapons is so you could create more unique load-outs to exploit the rule better with things like warding staffs added so they would not have the same issues as nob bikers in combat. Essentially they were nob bikers+2.
40509
Post by: G00fySmiley
Jidmah wrote:Not Online!!! wrote:Karol wrote:Well GK were getting multi nerfed just in case, because they were too good in 5th ed. When was the nob biker lists a thing, in 2ed ?
4th if i member correctly, had to do not due to combat prowess but due to abuse of wound allocation and multiwound models with differing equipment and FNP through a dok, at a time where a FNP was 4+ standardised.
It was a 4th edition codex written with 5th edition in mind™, but it really only was a thing during 5th. Nob bikers stood out because of exhaust cloud providing 4+ cover layered with 4+ FNP from the doc on a fast unit that could be made troops by a warboss. Regular nobz could do the very same thing, but were lacking exhaust cloud and had to bring a battlewagon to get anywhere.
It also was much more of an issue of players being pissed at the gamey exploit of the wound allocation rules and death stars in general than an actually powerful army - any S8 hit still instantly splatted them unless you were tanking those hits with a warboss. A unit of nob bikers with warboss babysitter usually clocked in at 600+ points.
GW absolutely made sure that this would never happen again:
- 6th: nerfed cover and FNP, removed the ability to allocate wounds while spreading instant death and S8 everywhere to deal with those pesky multi-wound models
- 7th: nerfed cybork dead (5++ => 6+ FNP), turned the doc unit upgrade into an IC which was more expensive and easy to kill through challenges, exhaust cloud deleted
- 8th index era: nerfed FNP again, reduced leadership, boss poles and the waaagh! banner deleted
- 8th codex: took away ability to take kombi-weapons
- 9th FW book: pain boy legended, moved from elite to overcrowded fast attack slot, extra choppa and stikkbombs taken away, NOBZ keyword removed
- 9th edition codex: 'keepin da order taken away, none of the new bike rules added, making nob bikers nothing but a worse (but more expensive) version of warbikers
Fun fact for Karol: GK Paladins were explicitly designed by Matt Ward to exploit these rules even worse than nobs ever could - the reason why there are so many different melee weapons is so you could create more unique load-outs to exploit the rule better with things like warding staffs added so they would not have the same issues as nob bikers in combat. Essentially they were nob bikers+2.
yup, the irony of using wound shenanagins to buff the new hotness of GK paladins (and the few existing multiwound models) that inadvertantly gave orks a nice powerful unit that worked will with our other competative lists of the days. We had kanwall and battlewagon bash both backed up by a squad or 2 of nob bikers. I miss my madmax orks actually working. I had a fun list I liekd a lot that took a few local tournaments with 2 warbosses on bikes, 2 maxed nob biker units w/painboys on bikes (now legends) backed up by 3x max squads of kannons (now legends) deffcoptas with a big bomb per squad (bomb now legends) a manz missle (meganobz in a trukk) some bikes and gretchen troops. It either got glory and won turn 2 or folded like a house of card, there was no inbetween . later in the addition incoperation of a dakkajet helped to hit back field stuff while allowing the death from the skies white dwarf for dogfighting rules (i keep waiting for GW to redo those in 40k they were quite fun)
120227
Post by: Karol
Well maybe that is how GW games are, unless you play eldar, you get a few months every one or two decades when it is very fun to play your faction and that is it. Guess it wasn't my time for GK, on the other hand AoS with my Lords is super fun, even if I lose. I don't think there is an army I don't want to play aside for the mermaid people, who just hard counter shoting, so I just don't play vs them. As the saying went at my old store "there is always next edition".
101163
Post by: Tyel
I guess the question for the new season is how the new Knights stack up.
Knights are inherently a skew and so have tended either gatekeep the meta or define it as they did during 2018-19.
Looking nervously at these massed wardog lists. But then, they are only glorified rhino's if you get to assault them - so I may be exaggerating the fear.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
A reddit thread prompted this thought. This is the top 100 from ITC split off to show how they do against the rest of the field ( all games, no TTS, 4/22 forward ). The gist is the perception of win rates is affected by armies the top players use.
I think this potentially demonstrates the difference in player skill despite strength of a book.
101163
Post by: Tyel
Its a good counter argument to the idea that a noob with [top meta list] would beat [40k professional] with [basically everything except Guard - and frankly I suspect even that would go up if they had to play them].
Its clear that judging balance purely on win% has a flaw in that it's exaggerated by top player favoritism. But the question is how far you go down.
I mean the top 100 in your list above represent a tiny fraction of the total games. For example 35 of 1102 Tyranid Games are from players in the top 100 - and their higher win% probably isn't really impacting that total win percentage very much. They are 3% of games. You are down to 1.9% in the case of Tau.
By contrast, 30 out of 415 Harlequin games is 7.2%. DE at 6.8%. If those players ditched the faction, you'd see a more pronounced drop.
I.E. DE have a 47% win rate from 365 games - and an 80% win rate from 25 games.
Lets remove those 25 top 100 games - and there 20 wins.
47% of 365=171.55, so lets say 172.
So this is now 152 wins from 340 games. So DE win rate falls from 47% to 44.7%. Round up to say 45%. So those pro's are probably helping DE by about 2.5%, which isn't inconsiderable.
Tyranid equivalents. 61% of 1102. 76% of 35. Maths doesn't totally work - but lets say 27 wins for the top 100. 61% of 1102=672 wins for everyone.
So the change becomes (672-27)/(1102-35)=60.45%. So only half a % or so's difference.
120227
Post by: Karol
Is comparing under 10 games to something like a 1000 adequate? Not saying that either stats doesn't show important stuff.
There is food for though there. if tyranids after a 1000+ games, have a 61% win rate, then the book is probably really good, considering it is a win rate avarge out of the best and worse players. Then if pros take the same codex and get an even better win rate, then the book is probably too good.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Yes, I think it demonstrates that Nids are a good book with an easy carry, but that a number of other factions still have a path to flex up.
The numbers of games make it hard to be conclusive as always and I would not want to expand past 100. I think at about 150 their scores are about half of the top 10 so there's a big gap there.
108848
Post by: Blackie
Where are those who screamed "custodes are dead and nerfed into the ground, wtf GW"?
They seemed still pretty powerful to me and having a look at the chart Daedalus81 posted maybe I wasn't that crazy.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Daedalus81 wrote:A reddit thread prompted this thought. This is the top 100 from ITC split off to show how they do against the rest of the field ( all games, no TTS, 4/22 forward ). The gist is the perception of win rates is affected by armies the top players use.
I think this potentially demonstrates the difference in player skill despite strength of a book.
It's the first table that affects most of the players here though...
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Jidmah wrote:It's the first table that affects most of the players here though...
Yea, but in terms of "problem armies" basically it is only Nids and perhaps some Harlies. Most people should be able to get a good game if you dodge the bugs.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Daedalus81 wrote: Jidmah wrote:It's the first table that affects most of the players here though...
Yea, but in terms of "problem armies" basically it is only Nids and perhaps some Harlies. Most people should be able to get a good game if you dodge the bugs.
Even against bugs, you can have a good game. Obviously talking about a casual game tho.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Even against bugs, you can have a good game. Obviously talking about a casual game tho.
I'm eager to potentially encounter them for the first time in a couple weeks at a major. We'll see how well I can fend of maleceptors.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
I like playing chaos and based on the chart above I'm probably a below average player. If you take out the Top 100 victories then chaos has a win rate of about 31%. My win rate vs my meta is around 20% or so (if I'm lucky).
Now I feel worse then when I started this post.
The bigger issue that I note is what the top 100 are playing the most- Harlies, Asuryani, and Nids. That says that they think that these are the books with the best chance of winning.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I like playing chaos and based on the chart above I'm probably a below average player. If you take out the Top 100 victories then chaos has a win rate of about 31%. My win rate vs my meta is around 20% or so (if I'm lucky).
Now I feel worse then when I started this post.
The bigger issue that I note is what the top 100 are playing the most- Harlies, Asuryani, and Nids. That says that they think that these are the books with the best chance of winning.
The 30% winrate is based on bringing the best possible list for Chaos, where you bring a wombocombo and try to hurt your opponent as much as possible. If youre not playing that way, its normal that you get a lower win%. And don't despair, new codex is gonna make us OP soon enough so that winrate is sure to go up
95410
Post by: ERJAK
Daedalus81 wrote:A reddit thread prompted this thought. This is the top 100 from ITC split off to show how they do against the rest of the field ( all games, no TTS, 4/22 forward ). The gist is the perception of win rates is affected by armies the top players use. I think this potentially demonstrates the difference in player skill despite strength of a book. If we agree that 50% winrate across 'infinite' games is ideal, and that between 45-55% is acceptable, this chart makes it clear that the biggest problem isn't actually the top of the list, but the BOTTOM. Ignoring the biggest statistical skews (i.e. factions with sub 20 games who are likely only being played by extremely dedicated players) only TWO factions are seeing excessively high winrates. A whopping TWELVE factions are seeing excessively LOW winrates. It's pretty clear that THIS is where the big problem is.
73016
Post by: auticus
That tracks with my experience with 40k from 3rd - 8th.
The two or three factions that are kings of that era are the most represented, and then everyone else kind of languishes underneath (in general - on average).
108848
Post by: Blackie
Big difference with 3rd-8th is that now we don't have 2-3 factions that dominate an edition but only a certain moment of the edition. Eventually a dozen or more of factions will have their top tier moment in the current edition, and that's a good thing.
It also means that a lot of the most broken combos are avoided by a large crowd of players since they're going to be nerfed too soon to justify the investment in terms of time and money. I've never seen orks lists with 9 squigbuggies and 5 flyers in real life for example, and they were OP and legal for 5-6 months.
101163
Post by: Tyel
Blackie wrote:Big difference with 3rd-8th is that now we don't have 2-3 factions that dominate an edition but only a certain moment of the edition. Eventually a dozen or more of factions will have their top tier moment in the current edition, and that's a good thing.
It also means that a lot of the most broken combos are avoided by a large crowd of players since they're going to be nerfed too soon to justify the investment in terms of time and money. I've never seen orks lists with 9 squigbuggies and 5 flyers in real life for example, and they were OP and legal for 5-6 months.
Being pedantic I think it was about 3.5?
But yeah. Tyranids are riding high. I suspect they'll get nerfed at some point. Especially if the professional commentary scene continues their "this is the most broken stuff ever pls fix" refrain.
We'll also have to see what happens in the new season. If certain factions lose some easy secondaries, and others potentially gain them, you would expect to see win% shaken up a bit.
120227
Post by: Karol
ERJAK 804923 11361964 wrote:
If we agree that 50% winrate across 'infinite' games is ideal, and that between 45-55% is acceptable, this chart makes it clear that the biggest problem isn't actually the top of the list, but the BOTTOM.
Ignoring the biggest statistical skews (i.e. factions with sub 20 games who are likely only being played by extremely dedicated players) only TWO factions are seeing excessively high winrates.
A whopping TWELVE factions are seeing excessively LOW winrates. It's pretty clear that THIS is where the big problem is.
But that is how sports work. You at best get 2-3 guys or gals or teams doing really well, and the rest does not. That is how you get X years of domination of this or that player, and others can win mostly when the top either doesn't shop up or gets sick and can't finish the event or gets injured/pregnant. In this way GW games are very much like all other games or sports. Even in sports that aren't professional and are just played outside of official competitions, everyone knows that the team that gets the first pick and take the two biggest/talls/strongest guys will dominate the other team, because no team play and power of friendship can beat out someone being almost 6 foot at the age of 16.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Except this isn't a sport. It's a designed system. It would be better to compare this to computer systems. Sure there are faster or slower systems that exist at the same time but they are priced with that in mind. What GW is doing is charging everybody the same regardless of which model they buy. Or worse yet charge more for the lesser systems. Then they claim that they aren't a manufacturer but a programming company so, "Oh well" even though they build the computers in their own factories.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
ERJAK wrote:If we agree that 50% winrate across 'infinite' games is ideal, and that between 45-55% is acceptable, this chart makes it clear that the biggest problem isn't actually the top of the list, but the BOTTOM.
Ignoring the biggest statistical skews (i.e. factions with sub 20 games who are likely only being played by extremely dedicated players) only TWO factions are seeing excessively high winrates.
A whopping TWELVE factions are seeing excessively LOW winrates. It's pretty clear that THIS is where the big problem is.
The question is then what is holding them down.
These are win rates for sub-100 Necrons against opponents. The culprits dragging them down are pretty evident.
If it weren't for Nids then Necrons would be 47 to 48%.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
What's the definition of "sub-100" mean here, Daed?
And I'd argue the last three highlighted rows aren't having a significant effect, given we're taking 12 games in total. I'm surprised you didn't flag GSC at 38% (from 17), though, having done so for Custodes at the same % (from 21 games).
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Players whop aren't top 100 in the ITC.
Yea, I missed GSC. I just highlighted struggles -- the biggest impact is bugs, harlies, and custodes ( and GSC close by ).
42761
Post by: Pancakey
Exalted.
Strategems are an absolutely brian dead game mechanic.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
Pancakey wrote:
Exalted.
Strategems are an absolutely brian dead game mechanic.
you an argue that they're a bad mechanic. calling them 'braindead' just makes it seem like you don't know what 'opportunity cost' is.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
And calling them Brian dead is more than a little ironic.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
C'mon man! What did Brian ever do to you?
107700
Post by: alextroy
You need to always look on the bright side of life, Dysartes.
128453
Post by: BlackoCatto
What are they doing with Guard. Year after year of stop gap and patches, and with the the potential rotation/ discontinuation of most if not all of the Cadian characters, (including Raine, the BL character), I wonder wtf is going on?
105713
Post by: Insectum7
BlackoCatto wrote:What are they doing with Guard. Year after year of stop gap and patches, and with the the potential rotation/ discontinuation of most if not all of the Cadian characters, (including Raine, the BL character), I wonder wtf is going on?
Guard are about to cross the rubicon and update to a new scale for humans. Guard units will all get bespoke weapons, and be reorganized so you can't mix weapons in their squads, too. Assault Lasrifle, Heavy Lasrifle, etc. Kits will be 80$ a box, and come with 5 models.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
BlackoCatto wrote:What are they doing with Guard. Year after year of stop gap and patches, and with the the potential rotation/ discontinuation of most if not all of the Cadian characters, (including Raine, the BL character), I wonder wtf is going on?
I feel like they want to do a big redo of the infantry lines, but haven't quite been able to line everything up. Gaunt's Ghosts leans that way and the Cadian kit was a stop gap of a sort.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
Insectum7 wrote: BlackoCatto wrote:What are they doing with Guard. Year after year of stop gap and patches, and with the the potential rotation/ discontinuation of most if not all of the Cadian characters, (including Raine, the BL character), I wonder wtf is going on?
Guard are about to cross the rubicon and update to a new scale for humans. Guard units will all get bespoke weapons, and be reorganized so you can't mix weapons in their squads, too. Assault Lasrifle, Heavy Lasrifle, etc. Kits will be 80$ a box, and come with 5 models.
I know you're joking, but this is actually a scary concept I feel they "tried" with Gaunt's Ghosts. Variant Las weapons. I would not be surprised to see them so a "every squad has a marksman with a hot shot long las, and every squad sgt has a option of 3 types of lasrifle. Every squad can designate one member as a medic for X Points, and that squad member may be used to bring back one dead soldier per turn" or some such nonsense.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Insectum7 wrote: BlackoCatto wrote:What are they doing with Guard. Year after year of stop gap and patches, and with the the potential rotation/ discontinuation of most if not all of the Cadian characters, (including Raine, the BL character), I wonder wtf is going on?
Guard are about to cross the rubicon and update to a new scale for humans. Guard units will all get bespoke weapons, and be reorganized so you can't mix weapons in their squads, too. Assault Lasrifle, Heavy Lasrifle, etc. Kits will be 80$ a box, and come with 5 models.
I know you're joking, but this is actually a scary concept I feel they "tried" with Gaunt's Ghosts. Variant Las weapons. I would not be surprised to see them so a "every squad has a marksman with a hot shot long las, and every squad sgt has a option of 3 types of lasrifle. Every squad can designate one member as a medic for X Points, and that squad member may be used to bring back one dead soldier per turn" or some such nonsense.
the medic and marskmen would be interesting at least. But lasguns shouldnt get variants IMO
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Maybe they're looking for a new theme for IG. Something that says "I'm an Astra Militarium model not an Imperial Guard model." I don't know what that look would be but maybe finding it is what is making the Guard, um Astra Mil book take so long.
128453
Post by: BlackoCatto
It all just worries me.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
I was really surprised at the rotation out of Severina and Yarrick.
I'm really not liking range rotation, though I suppose it is achieving GW's goals- getting any folks who were holding out to finally buy, reducing sku bloat and getting finecast of the website.
As someone who has been happy with 9th ed, I expect some decent things from the guard dex. I'd love to see some of these retiring Resin kits back in plastic, but who knows?
21358
Post by: Dysartes
I would ask the question on this batch if they are being rotated, or just gotten rid of - there's been no WHC piece talking up the rotation aspect this time, after all...
102719
Post by: Gert
When did they get put up? Warcom announces these things on Sundays remember.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
I think they were spotted towards the end of last week, and I don't think there was anything about them the Sunday before - definitely wasn't anything on the most recent Sunday.
102719
Post by: Gert
Oh well, we'll know for sure if the kits aren't mentioned in the next Sunday round-up.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Losing Yarrick is an end of an era.
Wouldn't say no to a plastic re-do though, as long as it doesn't go through a process of 'weird-i-fi-cation' like the Lord Commissar did when it made the jump from metal to plastic:
There's just something... off... about that plastic mini.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Scars vs age lines. The top one looks tough the bottom one looks tired.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
So I thought they announced a New Lord Commy, a new Creed (His daughter) and a new HWT, and a new Armored Sentinel. That's basically it. I really hope they make the armored sentinel not just a slightly less crappy sentinel, and really give it some T7 heft.
Wasn't there also a rumor of new Rough Riders?
71876
Post by: Rihgu
No announcement of any of that, just rumors. There's a rumor engine picture that looks a lot like a rough rider/death rider lance, but that's pretty much it.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
H.B.M.C. wrote:Losing Yarrick is an end of an era.
Wouldn't say no to a plastic re-do though, as long as it doesn't go through a process of 'weird-i-fi-cation' like the Lord Commissar did when it made the jump from metal to plastic:
There's just something... off... about that plastic mini.
Uh, one has a pointier hat, obviously.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Not to mention the old Lord appears to have misplaced his Emperor-issued tactical rock.
Was he actually available in metal? I think I've got him in "finely-cast resin" somewhere, with a sword that's useful for stabbing around corners.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I've got him in metal.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Good to know - guess it is time to trawl eBay again.
|
|