Well. Most of army building limits going very relaxed though my all dreadnought army went from illegal but fixable with more plastic to flat out gone but ah well.
Well, this new detachment and army building system just seems great too me, as well as free strategic reserves and allies. Just great. Also, making 0-1 datasheets get an extra is fun too. I can definitely see me making a chapter master and two captain marine lists (3 wolflords on thunderwolf!!)
I am not convinced that new detachment system will not cause a host of problems down the line, but given this is probably the last of these for 9th ed they'll never get fixed.
Good that GC's gain a bit more ability to include Brood Brothers effectively.
The Phazer wrote: I am not convinced that new detachment system will not cause a host of problems down the line, but given this is probably the last of these for 9th ed they'll never get fixed.
Good that GC's gain a bit more ability to include Brood Brothers effectively.
Of course odds are 10e is similar detachment system.
This new uber detachment looks cool and free ally detachment is nifty even if the detachment restriction does suck.
Nice to see patching for gaky secondary from books that came out 6 months ago. If only those were free too
I suppose dissolving already lax army composition restrictions isn't going to do as much damage as it might otherwise do, but it's certainly not good for the game. No better time than now, though. They can drive 9th ed into the ground for good and let people ride it out for a couple of months before they preview the 10th ed rules that look like a right proper fix next to the current train wreck.
On a practical level (for people with reasonable collections, not 10k points of everything), I'm struggling to find a difference between this and 'eh, take whatever.'
Up to 4 HQ choices, 6 of any particular slot and and extra slots for the already questionable elite character role. That doesn't seem like much of a restriction (or coherent army list at all). Even before free reserves or CP-free allies.
Pay to Bypass the 0-1 restriction sounds like a joke. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a sudden reversal from GW.
WarCom wrote:Free stuff is a big theme in this matched play season.
Oh good. I want to feel threatened by a return of 7th edition style army building.
We know so little about the battle brothers detachment process its far too early to comment regards whether it's just like 7th again. They might still break army rules, they might have other limitations. Of the examples given in the article, votann is the only one that doesn't currently exist anyway.
At which point the free style detachment is the only thing and something a lot of people work around anyway.
"How do we make the FOC even more pointless?"
"Just make it huge, free, and give you tons of slots, and you can pick what your compulsories are."
"That works. Or doesn't. Whatever."
"Three hour lunch?"
"Three hour lunch!"
H.B.M.C. wrote: "How do we make the FOC even more pointless?"
"Just make it huge, free, and give you tons of slots, and you can pick what your compulsories are."
"That works. Or doesn't. Whatever."
"Three hour lunch?"
"Three hour lunch!"
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
Nazrak wrote: I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
Nazrak wrote: I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
Which is different to now... how exactly? This is the competitive rules packet, fluff needn't apply. Although that itself is an issue.
As an Ork player I'm glad I can still take 2 Warbosses using the Heroic Support stratagem and actually save 1 CP on taking an additional patrol to facilitate.
My biggest concern is the Battle Brothers thing.
It depends how flexible and extensive the list is.
It can just become a take the good stuff fest that without costs and balances can lead to some broken armies.
But I'm approaching this from a tournament perspective.
You could do this before but with costs attached such as loss of CP and or faction secondaries.
But if they implement that correctly it could be an exciting season.
Nazrak wrote: I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
Which is different to now... how exactly? This is the competitive rules packet, fluff needn't apply. Although that itself is an issue.
Against all better judgement, I like this detachment. Obviously mandatory troops are good for game balance, but sometimes you just want to build an army a certain way.
SamusDrake wrote: Against all better judgement, I like this detachment. Obviously mandatory troops are good for game balance, but sometimes you just want to build an army a certain way.
Nazrak wrote: I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
People already do that anyway...
Indeed, I was sort of hoping we'd see a move *away* from it.
All units must be from the same faction[and that faction cannot be Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, or Tyranid].
This Detachment is incredibly flexible and will work for all factions, though there will be a couple of specific additional rules to it to allow for unusual armies like Drukhari and DarkAngels forces, that would previously have usually been made of multiple smaller detachments.
With this in mind, and looking at some of the other rules in the preview, I have one serious question:
????????
Nazrak wrote: I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
Well, considering that the old FOC was based off Space Marines and their Codex Astartes layout I found it weird that the fluff only cared about Space Marines and no one else; not even the Space Marines who didn't follow the Codex like Deathwing and Ravenwing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "How do we make the FOC even more pointless?"
"Just make it huge, free, and give you tons of slots, and you can pick what your compulsories are."
"That works. Or doesn't. Whatever."
"Three hour lunch?"
"Three hour lunch!"
I mean, you're not wrong, but the current way it's done punishes too many potential armies. Plus the extra slots for Elite characters is the smartest thing I've seen GW do in the last few months.
Nazrak wrote: I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
People already do that anyway...
Indeed, I was sort of hoping we'd see a move *away* from it.
We move away from that by having real choices about what to spend points on.
Nazrak wrote: I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like this all-but-total jettisoning of any army composition restrictions will just mean everyone crams as many of the most 'optimal' units possible into their list and the fluff goes down the toilet. Snore.
Well, considering that the old FOC was based off Space Marines and their Codex Astartes layout I found it weird that the fluff only cared about Space Marines and no one else; not even the Space Marines who didn't follow the Codex like Deathwing and Ravenwing.
I don't know if they've changed it in the last few years but my understanding was always that the Dark Angels largely *do* follow the Codex, they were just the chapter with enough Terminator armour for the whole 1st Co. to have their own suit. Then, based on people not paying attention, people decided this meant "the entire first company always turns up en masse so I need to be able to field an all Terminator army with no drawbacks", similar to how we ended up with "All White Scars must be on bikes"
tneva82 wrote: It saves cp from those 3+ compulsory fa/elite/hs det's.
Gw can't decide do they want more or less cp
I guess I wonder who was actually taking anything other than a battalion unless it was DE or DA? It was so incredibly rare to see anything of the sort after the CP changes. This just removes the need to tap into that filler.
Rihgu wrote: Disciples of Belakor was taking SHA, Patrol, and Vanguard, for as much as DoB matters for anything.
Yea I'd consider that an edge case caused by a weird release that they tried to force a way to make it work. This sounds like it could make it easier with the allies thing, but we'll have to see the text to judge.
The Dark Angels make use of very different terminology when referring to the Chapter's officers as compared to that commonly used by other Space Marine Chapters.
This is because the Dark Angels have continued to draw upon the ancient military traditions of The Order of lost Caliban in organising the Chapter. In general, this terminology is also replicated in most, but not all, of the Unforgiven Successor Chapters of the Ist Legion.
The Dark Angels make use of very different terminology when referring to the Chapter's officers as compared to that commonly used by other Space Marine Chapters.
This is because the Dark Angels have continued to draw upon the ancient military traditions of The Order of lost Caliban in organising the Chapter. In general, this terminology is also replicated in most, but not all, of the Unforgiven Successor Chapters of the Ist Legion.
Ok, if you consider "they call some of the guys something a bit different, but their roles are largely analogous" wildly divergent from standard Codex organisation, then sure.
This is an intreasting one. My initial feelings on this are pretty mixed. I like that it opens a ton of flexibility in building, but it takes away any sort of penalty for just bringing the best units.
That being said, this is only a small slice, we don't have near anywhere all the information. There could be more benefits/downisdes in other sections. We are also getting the balance slate and points adjustments at the same time.
Will need to get the full picture of not only this book, but the rest of the drop and some time to digest it. Nephilim was generally thought about pretty poorly upon release, but ended up being probably the best matched play experience of 9th, so I'm cautiously optimistic about this.
Lammia wrote: Dark angels are the least Codex compliant chapter and have been since 3rd edition...
Their dilfernce is 1st is all dw and bike company is 2nd instead of 6. They are actually quite compliciant if you care about fluff and not powergaming every free bonus rule.
It might just be a taste of where 10th is going to go - but to me its shouting "big rules reset incoming so have fun with your toys however you like and don't cry to us about balance cos we ain't coming back."
I'd be... cautious, on running to the shops to get your weird-skew list that may well not make it six months.
Tyel wrote: It might just be a taste of where 10th is going to go - but to me its shouting "big rules reset incoming so have fun with your toys however you like and don't cry to us about balance cos we ain't coming back."
I'd be... cautious, on running to the shops to get your weird-skew list that may well not make it six months.
I get that this has some historical precedent, however, seasons and tournament packs really don't follow that logic. It seems fairly likely that GW is going to continue to roll into the next season in June. Whether or not things get up-ended by a new edition becomes less likely the more that GW finds stability in this sort of rotation.
Anyway - nothing wrong with a little caution for the next 4 to 6 months.
I think we will probably see weird things that have to get hammered out. Many Thousand Sons would love ditching Rubrics for a whole other block of Scarabs. Normally the obsec might discourage dumping troops, but with Scarabs as obsec the downside is pretty small ( other than casting a bunch more spells with Rubrics ).
I am also interested to see how super heavies interact within that detachment. Stompas might be viable.
But as you say...it could all be gone in an instant.
Normally the obsec might discourage dumping troops, (...)
Well, I don't think it is the case. Apart from very powerful troops like tyranid Warriors, people tend to take the bare minimum of troops to fill the mandatory slots of Batallions and Patrols.
This new force organization chart will render troops obsolete, if only as a mandatory choice, or completely. Why bother taking weak infantry with objective secured ability, if you can max on heavy hitters that will wipe out the troops out of objectives ? Troops will become only list fillers that competitors will spend their spare points on. The fluff will go down the toilet with Arks of Omen.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "How do we make the FOC even more pointless?"
"Just make it huge, free, and give you tons of slots, and you can pick what your compulsories are."
"That works. Or doesn't. Whatever."
"Three hour lunch?"
"Three hour lunch!"
Sells out on day 1.
I know (or just choose to believe) it was different people that said this, but we had a lot of "I'm not buying this" at the start of Nephilim then a lot of "It's sold out and I need it" recently.
All units must be from the same faction[and that faction cannot be Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, or Tyranid].
This Detachment is incredibly flexible and will work for all factions, though there will be a couple of specific additional rules to it to allow for unusual armies like Drukhari and DarkAngels forces, that would previously have usually been made of multiple smaller detachments.
With this in mind, and looking at some of the other rules in the preview, I have one serious question:
????????
You make a Space Marine Ark of Omen Detachment. That also happens to be an Imperium Detachment because all Space Marines also have the Imperium keyword. You then take the allied detachment.
You make a Space Marine Ark of Omen Detachment. That also happens to be an Imperium Detachment because all Space Marines also have the Imperium keyword. You then take the allied detachment.
The salient point is that the Imperium keyword can't be the only thing all your units share, so it prevents all-imperial soup lists.
For me at least, I'm excited for this detachment solely because I can field my Inquisition without being at an immediate disadvantage by paying 3cp for a vanguard detachment. Otherwise I'm meh.
I'm a bit confused. The three elite slots for characters is nice on the surface, but haven't pretty much all elite characters been given a slot-exemption if certain (lore-based) conditions are met? So now I can take three Datasmiths without Kestelans, or three Commissars without Command Squads, and suffer no real ill effects? I don't know all the factions that well, but I can only think of a handful of situations this helps with (Tau marksmen, some of the Ork characters, maybe some Spez Marns?). Seems that every elite character should have just been written with a lore/balance based exemption to begin with so it's not a free-for-all.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: For me at least, I'm excited for this detachment solely because I can field my Inquisition without being at an immediate disadvantage by paying 3cp for a vanguard detachment. Otherwise I'm meh.
I will say that's a nice change, as we've been doing that anyway in our group as long as you keep it to roughly 25% of your points.
KillerAngel wrote: I'm a bit confused. The three elite slots for characters is nice on the surface, but haven't pretty much all elite characters been given a slot-exemption if certain (lore-based) conditions are met? So now I can take three Datasmiths without Kestelans, or three Commissars without Command Squads, and suffer no real ill effects? I don't know all the factions that well, but I can only think of a handful of situations this helps with (Tau marksmen, some of the Ork characters, maybe some Spez Marns?). Seems that every elite character should have just been written with a lore/balance based exemption to begin with so it's not a free-for-all.
DeathGuard's Elite Characters don't get that "slot exemption".
This will help DeathGuard lists, as it would be easier to maximize Deathshrouds and Blightlords.
This seems so random and a complete 180 from how things were going previously, really seems like they are just saying "feth it, 10th edition is out soon lol"
I don't think fluff ever played a role with competitive list construction.
I don't really mind this flexible super-detachment, I can finally take a superheavy e.g. a Spartan or Baneblade without losing all army special rules.
Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.
ph34r wrote: This seems so random and a complete 180 from how things were going previously, really seems like they are just saying "feth it, 10th edition is out soon lol"
Gw flipflopping around is as usual.
First it's modifiers, then rerolls, then modifiers, rr's...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: They aren't going to remove the rule of 3. It's been the greatest balancing tool GW ever ran into since allowing more than 3 of any specific slot.
Obsec is also built into codexes. It's not going anywhere either.
Band aid to hide problem rather. Didn't fix problem.
cody.d. wrote: Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.
We will lend to getting rid of weak troops and will take only the best killy / resilient / (both) from our codex, and at no cost.
For Astra Militarum, spam the Leman Russes and sentinels, with the "armoured superiority" regiment trait, to count them as 5 or 3 models respectively, on objectives. Then add some Bullgryns and/or rough riders for melee punch. Take 3 commissars (elite characters new slot) to give the order "count as objective secured" on sentinels, bullgryns or cavalry when needed. No need for infantry squads.
Does this looks as a fluffy Imperial Guard army ? No. But it will work.
cody.d. wrote: Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.
We will lend to getting rid of weak troops and will take only the best killy / resilient / (both) from our codex, and at no cost.
For Astra Militarum, spam the Leman Russes and sentinels, with the "armoured superiority" regiment trait, to count them as 5 or 3 models respectively, on objectives. Then add some Bullgryns and/or rough riders for melee punch. Take 3 commissars (elite characters new slot) to give the order "count as objective secured" on sentinels, bullgryns or cavalry when needed. No need for infantry squads.
Does this looks as a fluffy Imperial Guard army ? No. But it will work.
Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.
cody.d. wrote: Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.
We will lend to getting rid of weak troops and will take only the best killy / resilient / (both) from our codex, and at no cost.
For Astra Militarum, spam the Leman Russes and sentinels, with the "armoured superiority" regiment trait, to count them as 5 or 3 models respectively, on objectives. Then add some Bullgryns and/or rough riders for melee punch. Take 3 commissars (elite characters new slot) to give the order "count as objective secured" on sentinels, bullgryns or cavalry when needed. No need for infantry squads.
Does this looks as a fluffy Imperial Guard army ? No. But it will work.
Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.
You needed at least 3 troops though, and a plan to make something out of them. which is not the case anymore.
Dudeface wrote: Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.
The improvement over taking a spearhead other than the CP savings is the extra other slots. A Spearhead was 1~2 HQ, 0~2 Elite, 0~2 Fast Attack. This new detachment is 1~4 HQ, 0~3 Elite, 0~3 Elite characters, 0~3 Fast Attack.
So 9 x LRBT as base, but now you can take 3 TCs instead of just 2 or take 3 units of Sentinels instead of just 2.
Dudeface wrote: Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.
The improvement over taking a spearhead other than the CP savings is the extra other slots. A Spearhead was 1~2 HQ, 0~2 Elite, 0~2 Fast Attack. This new detachment is 1~4 HQ, 0~3 Elite, 0~3 Elite characters, 0~3 Fast Attack.
So 9 x LRBT as base, but now you can take 3 TCs instead of just 2 or take 3 units of Sentinels instead of just 2.
Oh I understand this, but the complaint was that guard will no longer have to take troops, when they didn't anyway.
Dudeface wrote: Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.
The improvement over taking a spearhead other than the CP savings is the extra other slots. A Spearhead was 1~2 HQ, 0~2 Elite, 0~2 Fast Attack. This new detachment is 1~4 HQ, 0~3 Elite, 0~3 Elite characters, 0~3 Fast Attack.
So 9 x LRBT as base, but now you can take 3 TCs instead of just 2 or take 3 units of Sentinels instead of just 2.
How much are 9 Lemans and 2 Commanders base? It doesn't matter if they had 10 extra Fast Attack slots if there's no points for Sentinels to begin with.
Hulksmash wrote: They aren't going to remove the rule of 3. It's been the greatest balancing tool GW ever ran into since allowing more than 3 of any specific slot.
Obsec is also built into codexes. It's not going anywhere either.
Yes, that's what I mean by "Assuming it's still there"
But how much do you think you could exploit the system.
Hulksmash wrote: They aren't going to remove the rule of 3. It's been the greatest balancing tool GW ever ran into since allowing more than 3 of any specific slot.
Obsec is also built into codexes. It's not going anywhere either.
Yes, that's what I mean by "Assuming it's still there"
But how much do you think you could exploit the system.
I don't think anyone can answer that really, it's basically the exact same crappy meta lists as now, but with more cp to spend or 100-200 points of troops cut.
The biggest benefactors of this are likely the lone LoW lists, stompas, monoliths etc. Get to turn up and not be dead weight.
cody.d. wrote: Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.
We will lend to getting rid of weak troops and will take only the best killy / resilient / (both) from our codex, and at no cost.
For Astra Militarum, spam the Leman Russes and sentinels, with the "armoured superiority" regiment trait, to count them as 5 or 3 models respectively, on objectives. Then add some Bullgryns and/or rough riders for melee punch. Take 3 commissars (elite characters new slot) to give the order "count as objective secured" on sentinels, bullgryns or cavalry when needed. No need for infantry squads.
Does this looks as a fluffy Imperial Guard army ? No. But it will work.
I'm not sure if that's broken, powerful perhaps but with weaknesses and shortcomings. And as mentioned you just had to exchange a few command points for the privilege. But that leaves you with less stratagems you can use due to unit variety, thus less CP you can and need to use in an given turn. So is it really that much of a cost?
My thoughts are, this FOC isn't really much of a change. Just GW lumping it all together and saying, eh, do whatever. Feels kinda lazy.
HH Rites of war feel more fun, buuuuuut way harder to balance with asymmetrical armies of course.
I quite like this, people already take what they want regardless by juggling detachments, and there is now potentially an actual reason to consider super heavies outside of knights (presumably in Arks of Omen detachment and not a SHA = actually gets army rules).
Only complaints from me are that the transport rule is still dumb, and the new battle brothers could have been about a sentence or two longer to allow any army to take an allies detachment that shares appropriate keywords (i.e. Goff Orks could bring Evil Sunz buddies along) instead of the usual soup poster boys only.
KillerAngel wrote: I'm a bit confused. The three elite slots for characters is nice on the surface, but haven't pretty much all elite characters been given a slot-exemption if certain (lore-based) conditions are met? So now I can take three Datasmiths without Kestelans, or three Commissars without Command Squads, and suffer no real ill effects? I don't know all the factions that well, but I can only think of a handful of situations this helps with (Tau marksmen, some of the Ork characters, maybe some Spez Marns?). Seems that every elite character should have just been written with a lore/balance based exemption to begin with so it's not a free-for-all.
DeathGuard's Elite Characters don't get that "slot exemption".
This will help DeathGuard lists, as it would be easier to maximize Deathshrouds and Blightlords.
? You get the Foetid Virion. You get 3 elite characters per slot.
Insularum wrote: I quite like this, people already take what they want regardless by juggling detachments, and there is now potentially an actual reason to consider super heavies outside of knights (presumably in Arks of Omen detachment and not a SHA = actually gets army rules).
Only complaints from me are that the transport rule is still dumb, and the new battle brothers could have been about a sentence or two longer to allow any army to take an allies detachment that shares appropriate keywords (i.e. Goff Orks could bring Evil Sunz buddies along) instead of the usual soup poster boys only.
To be fair, we don't know that the Transport rule as is will stay. They might remove it as there have been lots of complaints about it.
That said with every step forward GW takes like 7 steps back.
KillerAngel wrote: I'm a bit confused. The three elite slots for characters is nice on the surface, but haven't pretty much all elite characters been given a slot-exemption if certain (lore-based) conditions are met? So now I can take three Datasmiths without Kestelans, or three Commissars without Command Squads, and suffer no real ill effects? I don't know all the factions that well, but I can only think of a handful of situations this helps with (Tau marksmen, some of the Ork characters, maybe some Spez Marns?). Seems that every elite character should have just been written with a lore/balance based exemption to begin with so it's not a free-for-all.
DeathGuard's Elite Characters don't get that "slot exemption".
This will help DeathGuard lists, as it would be easier to maximize Deathshrouds and Blightlords.
? You get the Foetid Virion. You get 3 elite characters per slot.
And now it's largely unnecessary, which is a good thing.
EviscerationPlague wrote: To be fair, we don't know that the Transport rule as is will stay. They might remove it as there have been lots of complaints about it.
The transport limitation is printed right on the detachment sheet.
EviscerationPlague wrote: To be fair, we don't know that the Transport rule as is will stay. They might remove it as there have been lots of complaints about it.
That said with every step forward GW takes like 7 steps back.
It does say in the article quite a way down (after the heroic support strat) that there is some carry over from Nephilim, including CP generation and transports must be occupied at start. I'm totally indifferent to what the CP magic meter settings are, but mandatory fluff on how to play transports is dumb - especially for armies whose only/best vehicles are DT's.
I feel like this new force org is edging into giving too much freedom. Without restrictions being meaningful people don't have to make hard choices. And while hard choices are, well, hard, they add depth to gameplay. Too many is bad, too few makes the game feel more shallow and lacking any rules.
In some ways, they wrote MORE rules to give you MORE freedom... which seems a little silly, but that's what we've ended up with.
Allied detachments will be specific based on faction, now, which is interesting. And they'll have extra rules for weird armies like Drukhari and Dark Angels that don't fit the normal bill.
Whatever restrictions there were before have been heavily eased or straight up removed. As a Night Lord player, I can now have 3 squads of Possessed AND 3 helbrutes AND still have enough room for a master of executions.
You do still have to be a little choosy, because, for example, if I do the above, I can still only take 3 venomcrawlers but can't fit extra squads of raptors in there. So there's still a tiny bit of limit, but... well, not paying command points to take heavy elite-related stuff, not having to pay troop taxes, etc...
I guess we'll see what this new command point system is. I'm all for more freedom for building your army, but I find it hilarious that it feels like there's more paragraphs of rules that ultimately say 'take more of what you want!'
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like this new force org is edging into giving too much freedom. Without restrictions being meaningful people don't have to make hard choices. And while hard choices are, well, hard, they add depth to gameplay. Too many is bad, too few makes the game feel more shallow and lacking any rules.
People don't really have to make hard choices now, outside of Nephilim artificially strangling your CP reserve (something that 9th Ed changed at the start, touted as a big deal as we'd have more CP... can GW limit themselves to maybe just two horse changes per race please?).
As soon as you could just bring the "All the Heavy Support" detachment as well as the normal one, or even instead of the normal one, the FOC has been pointless.
This new FOC, which is equally as stupid, at least cuts out the middle man and will get rid of all the 3x patrol armies out there that are maximising limited HQs/warlord traits/relics and whatnot. I genuinely like it, even if it is yet another complete abdication of rules writing responsibility on the part of the 40k team. It's dumb, but it's not "Lasguns wound Warlord Titans on 6's To Hit" dumb.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like this new force org is edging into giving too much freedom. Without restrictions being meaningful people don't have to make hard choices. And while hard choices are, well, hard, they add depth to gameplay. Too many is bad, too few makes the game feel more shallow and lacking any rules.
People don't really have to make hard choices now, outside of Nephilim artificially strangling your CP reserve (something that 9th Ed changed at the start, touted as a big deal as we'd have more CP... can GW limit themselves to maybe just two horse changes per race please?).
As soon as you could just bring the "All the Heavy Support" detachment as well as the normal one, or even instead of the normal one, the FOC has been pointless.
This new FOC, which is equally as stupid, at least cuts out the middle man and will get rid of all the 3x patrol armies out there that are maximising limited HQs/warlord traits/relics and whatnot. I genuinely like it, even if it is yet another complete abdication of rules writing responsibility on the part of the 40k team. It's dumb, but it's not "Lasguns wound Warlord Titans on 6's To Hit" dumb.
I don't see it as -dumb- perse... It's more like... this would have been nice to start 9th with. Now, it feels like a test-bed for 10th, but considering 10th has already been written, it's more like they're trying to get us adjusted to whatever's coming next.
It feels less dumb and more... disingenuous. GW has been giving and taking these weird add-ons that you don't buy models for... CP, subfaction rules, FOC, allies, stratagems, warlord traits and relics... they're trying to find a balance between all these things that arent represented on models, but at the end of the day all we want are just ways to play with the models we want to play with. You don't need CP or specific traits or relics for that. You just need the freedom to play with your models.
It's like GW is installing this really obtuse middle-man between purchasing the plastic and playing with the plastic, and that middle-man has been getting really fat and obnoxious of late.
I think it's the push and pull of GW's desire to innovate and advance the game vs their obsession with secrecy.
I agree with you in that I believe 10th is already done... so why nkt tell us? Why not do what so many other companies do and do a beta test of the new rules. You could even make it a paid beta, if GW has to wring some extra cash out of it.
They spend all this time and effort patching patches and writing new exceptions to exceptions, and occassionalky throwing their hands up and giving up (AOC, HOTE, this new FOC)... well why not make use of your passionate and expansive customer base for something other than just more sales?
This does give more freedom in list building, but the swing is massive from the start of 9th. We've gone from 1 LoW for 3CP, to 1 LoW for 1CP if it's from the same faction as your warlord, to up to 3 LoWs for "free" and they can be your Compulsory choice? This really feels like the rules writing team just throwing their hands in the air and saying "Yeah whatever. Do what you want", while waiting for 10th and letting 9th burn on the way out.
I actually really like this. I might actually consider using a 'naut or two in my ork armies. The cp tax was just too much before. I will have to look into this.
I consider this thought a huge win for GW. So many people will consider making creative lists with the limitations relaxed.
I have to say this Ark of Omen Detachment is a very interesting hybrid of multiple detachments. It allows lots of freedom and encompasses many different army types, but is actually more limiting than most 2 detachment options y you can pick out of the rulebook. It removes the need for picking a Fortification Detachment, but otherwise look at some comparisons:
Battalion + Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider: You get the same number of Troops slots (or more if you use that as your compulsory choice), but you actually get less HQ, Elites (and some must be Characters), Fast Attack, and Heavy Support units. You do get the option of same non-super faction Lord of Wars with full sub-faction benefits, which is very nice.
Combination of two different detachments between Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider: Strictly worst unless you only wanted 3 of the core unit from the second detachment. But then, you might has well have used a Patrol instead unless you are mixing subsections (non-Nephilim restrictions).
Super-Heavy plus Super-Heavy Auxiliary: I got your 6 Lords of War in one detachment instead of 2. All is good, with a side of Fortifications if you want them. Will work great for Chaos/Imperial Knights.
So as much as this opens up some freedom, it it still somewhat restrictive. Will be interesting to see how people adjust their list as opposed to building armies with ludicrous amounts of one unit type (like stupid amounts of Elites).
I don't mind so much the removal of compulsory troops choices, because many if not most factions have garbage troops, ObSec be damned. Like, seriously, what troops in the game are good? Tyranid Warriors obviously are, and personally I think the Votann troops are solid but not amazing, but for most other armies they are just a tax you pay in order to fill out your detachment with as much of the actually good stuff as possible.
I do think we are in for a wild six months of skew lists, the return of soup (although since it kills your faction purity bonuses it probably won't be like early 8th or anything) and generally more LoWs in the game.
cody.d. wrote: Okay, so what's the worst/most powerful thing you reckon you can do with this FOC? Assuming the rule of 3 and obsec are still a thing in this tourney pack. Though they very well could be for all I know.
We will lend to getting rid of weak troops and will take only the best killy / resilient / (both) from our codex, and at no cost.
For Astra Militarum, spam the Leman Russes and sentinels, with the "armoured superiority" regiment trait, to count them as 5 or 3 models respectively, on objectives. Then add some Bullgryns and/or rough riders for melee punch. Take 3 commissars (elite characters new slot) to give the order "count as objective secured" on sentinels, bullgryns or cavalry when needed. No need for infantry squads.
Does this looks as a fluffy Imperial Guard army ? No. But it will work.
Again, that was possible before though, maybe at a CP hit, but that composition is nothing new.
But there was at least tradeoff.
Balance has taken a dive to worse unless new secondaries/scenarios eencourage troops
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insularum wrote: I quite like this, people already take what they want regardless by juggling detachments, and there is now potentially an actual reason to consider super heavies outside of knights (presumably in Arks of Omen detachment and not a SHA = actually gets army rules).
Only complaints from me are that the transport rule is still dumb, and the new battle brothers could have been about a sentence or two longer to allow any army to take an allies detachment that shares appropriate keywords (i.e. Goff Orks could bring Evil Sunz buddies along) instead of the usual soup poster boys only.
So you know already full battle brother combinations? Care to share? As gw only gave partial list.
alextroy wrote: I have to say this Ark of Omen Detachment is a very interesting hybrid of multiple detachments. It allows lots of freedom and encompasses many different army types, but is actually more limiting than most 2 detachment options y you can pick out of the rulebook. It removes the need for picking a Fortification Detachment, but otherwise look at some comparisons:
Battalion + Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider: You get the same number of Troops slots (or more if you use that as your compulsory choice), but you actually get less HQ, Elites (and some must be Characters), Fast Attack, and Heavy Support units. You do get the option of same non-super faction Lord of Wars with full sub-faction benefits, which is very nice.
Combination of two different detachments between Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider: Strictly worst unless you only wanted 3 of the core unit from the second detachment. But then, you might has well have used a Patrol instead unless you are mixing subsections (non-Nephilim restrictions).
Super-Heavy plus Super-Heavy Auxiliary: I got your 6 Lords of War in one detachment instead of 2. All is good, with a side of Fortifications if you want them. Will work great for Chaos/Imperial Knights.
So as much as this opens up some freedom, it it still somewhat restrictive. Will be interesting to see how people adjust their list as opposed to building armies with ludicrous amounts of one unit type (like stupid amounts of Elites).
Assuming you have the points to fill out some of those options. Taking, say, an Outrider and a Vanguard gives you 6 fast attack and 6 elite, but... most factions will struggle to fill those to capacity, especially since you'll still get a few slots of each of those in the opposing detachment.
I'm sure Guard players will have a field day, since many of their units are cheap enough that they can make the most out of any of these combinations.
ZergSmasher wrote: I don't mind so much the removal of compulsory troops choices, because many if not most factions have garbage troops, ObSec be damned. Like, seriously, what troops in the game are good?
Necron Warriors & Immortals
Gretchin,
Votann,
Tyranid Warriors
Imperial Guard,
Drukahi wyches & wracks (I don't use them, but there's an awful lot of DE players who swear by these things....)
*Spindel Drones (a Legends unit from Blackstone Fortress & the only Unaligned TROOP choice in the game. And at only 3PL is often the cheapest option for filling the required Troop slot in initial Crusade game Patrols for many forces. If you can't see how that's good....)
Deamons
etc etc etc
Of course, in order to tell if a troop (or any other) unit is any good, you have to be able to identify what you intend it to do with it. And then do it.
For ex: My Grots? They're invaluable to my Gretchin themed force. They're the units scoring me the majority of my VPs. The rest of the force? The Grot tanks, all the Gunz, & the Kanz? Those are the fighting units.
The foot grots score the pts & chip in as they can/as needed otherwise. Are they comperable to a tyranid warrior in any way? Nope. Not even close. But they do a damned fine job at getting me those VP. And doing actions the other units can't.
Now were I to send them out to act as my front line combat units? They'd fail miserably (most of the time).
The game needs more restrictions in army building, not fewer. The extra Elites slots for characters is a great example of how stupid this is. This really does feel like GW just giving up. They've even backtracked on the 1 per detachment because of how this new one works. The old system was getting a little bit complex, but at least there were tradeoffs and some attempt at restrictions. Now it just feels like a free for all.
I don't understand why so many people are getting their knickers in a twist over these FOC changes. We all know GW like to break/OP their games in the final few months before a new edition. Allow folks to play with everything they own, however they like, no matter how OP. We all know that in 6 months it's all in the bin and we'll be greeted with "the bestest edition evar", ready to start the new 3 year cycle of churn and burn.
The only surprising thing, is that people are surprised.
Slipspace wrote: The game needs more restrictions in army building, not fewer. The extra Elites slots for characters is a great example of how stupid this is. This really does feel like GW just giving up. They've even backtracked on the 1 per detachment because of how this new one works. The old system was getting a little bit complex, but at least there were tradeoffs and some attempt at restrictions. Now it just feels like a free for all.
I feel its born of most factions not taking anything other than patrols or battalions just for CP purposes. You get all of the same slot options from the other detachment types, don't spend the CP, and you can take a second hive tyrant, warboss, etc without needing to muck about with detachments.
It's a simpler and easier version of what we're already doing, I don't see anything being broken by it.
tneva82 wrote: Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds
Please provide an example of a broken list this FOC provides that the existing structure isn't currently capable of. Hint, you won't find one, you'll just find they have 3cp more, or maybe 100 points spent differently.
It opens up what were previously Vanguard or Outrider detachment based armies to have a 7 CP first turn alpha strike (where the 7 CP is spent on a combo of traits, relics and first turn strategems).
No CP tax, no points tax, just bring exactly 2,000 points of killer with no filler.
EightFoldPath wrote: It opens up what were previously Vanguard or Outrider detachment based armies to have a 7 CP first turn alpha strike (where the 7 CP is spent on a combo of traits, relics and first turn strategems).
No CP tax, no points tax, just bring exactly 2,000 points of killer with no filler.
I'm working on the assumption that it's still 6cp at the start given they're leaving the pay for WLT and relic rules.
Which again, is the same lists as now but with +3cp more or with a couple hundred points moved around.
Ravajaxe wrote: You needed at least 3 troops though, and a plan to make something out of them. which is not the case anymore.
You almost always need something cheap and/or durable on back objectives as well as speaders to keep deepstrikes off. People thinking they can dump troops and not suffer against Blood Angels or free strategic reserves are smoking something.
Ravajaxe wrote: You needed at least 3 troops though, and a plan to make something out of them. which is not the case anymore.
You almost always need something cheap and/or durable on back objectives as well as speaders to keep deepstrikes off. People thinking they can dump troops and not suffer against Blood Angels or free strategic reserves are smoking something.
I dunno, some factions (e.g. Necrons and Orks, off the top of my head) have units that can do this job in other slots that their Troops were arguably *already* struggling to compete with for space in armies, and I can see this new Detachment further exacerbating that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Like, I *want* to take Warriors and Boyz, and I probably still will as I'm not much of a competitively-minded player, but it'd be nice to be able to do so without getting the sense I'm actively mugging myself off at the army-building stage.
More CP does add up.
But I think the balance issues are less likely to be in a more open FOC, than in the re-introduction of Battle Brothers. Although we'd need to know the full details to be sure.
And I guess one could argue that's a case of poor internal balance in the Ork/Necron Codices, but in a game with as many overlapping moving parts as 40K, it seems to me it would be sensible to try and have those parts interact in a way that minimises their relative specific flaws, rather than exacerbating them.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
In a bid to see some sort of silver lining in this, it does seem to open up my plan for doing an Ork Army built using the Ere We Go-era army composition rules (e.g. you need to bring a Painboy to take any Dreadnoughts etc., which is a bit easier thanks to those additional Elite Character slots) and it gives me a bit of a push to get my Morkanaut painted.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
In a bid to see some sort of silver lining in this, it does seem to open up my plan for doing an Ork Army built using the Ere We Go-era army composition rules (e.g. you need to bring a Painboy to take any Dreadnoughts etc., which is a bit easier thanks to those additional Elite Character slots) and it gives me a bit of a push to get my Morkanaut painted.
Said army will obviously get immediately stomped by someone fielding an all-Jump-Pack-Bastards Blood Angels list and insisting it's fluffy.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
As in dreadnoughts? With 6 elite slots max dreadnought list is one thing harder going from hard to impossible for loal marines to do all dreadnought list.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I had four lists that came to mind that I wanted to go back to working on:
GSC Aberrant horde
GSC Patriarch and stealers horde
Votann Hearthguard strikeforce
Necron Destroyers
All of the above were more or less doable under the current rules, but now I can reduce the points used on troops or skip them all together. Since I can care-less about how an army performs, but enjoy organized play, I can just build what interests me and be able to play.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
As in dreadnoughts? With 6 elite slots max dreadnought list is one thing harder going from hard to impossible for loal marines to do all dreadnought list.
Whats stopping you taking two Arks of Omen detachments?
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
As in dreadnoughts? With 6 elite slots max dreadnought list is one thing harder going from hard to impossible for loal marines to do all dreadnought list.
Whats stopping you taking two Arks of Omen detachments?
Oh yikes, *something* hopefully, or it's gonna be worse than I thought.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
As in dreadnoughts? With 6 elite slots max dreadnought list is one thing harder going from hard to impossible for loal marines to do all dreadnought list.
Whats stopping you taking two Arks of Omen detachments?
Probably the rules in that book - the article does say "Many powerful leaders can only be taken once per Detachment – and with only the one Arks of Omen Detachment available, you’d be unable to take more. "
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
In a bid to see some sort of silver lining in this, it does seem to open up my plan for doing an Ork Army built using the Ere We Go-era army composition rules (e.g. you need to bring a Painboy to take any Dreadnoughts etc., which is a bit easier thanks to those additional Elite Character slots) and it gives me a bit of a push to get my Morkanaut painted.
This will open up some thematic lists I've wanted to run for a while but the CP cost was too high for them to work. Ork walkerz with an 'orkanaut sounds like fun, especially now single LoWs benefit from clan traits. Also my oops-all-carnifexes list will finally see the table.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
As in dreadnoughts? With 6 elite slots max dreadnought list is one thing harder going from hard to impossible for loal marines to do all dreadnought list.
Whats stopping you taking two Arks of Omen detachments?
Probably the rules in that book - the article does say "Many powerful leaders can only be taken once per Detachment – and with only the one Arks of Omen Detachment available, you’d be unable to take more. "
I wondering if these tea leaves are leading to simple army construction rules for the Arks of Omen Season: Your army consist of one Arks of Omen detachment and one optional Allied Detachment?
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
As in dreadnoughts? With 6 elite slots max dreadnought list is one thing harder going from hard to impossible for loal marines to do all dreadnought list.
Whats stopping you taking two Arks of Omen detachments?
If you read article it says you get 1. One is less than 2.
And the way battle brother rule is shown indicates other det's not possible as daemons have no need for that...unless other detachments aren't available.
What are folk thinking of using this FOC to field?
I’m immediately thinking I could field my Fury of the Ancients Heresy list. With less fun weapons than Heresy allows of course.
I've got two lists planned, one is essentially a 9th ed version of the Daemonhunters army, and the other is a Necron list with lots of Immortals, Warriors, Praetorians and Lychguard arranged in Ranked Tercio formations.
I was thinking an interesting army would would be a fast attack army with bikes and speeders. With 6 slots thats a lot of fast moving vehicles. For heft just add in some contemptor dreads add an HQ or 2 and viola.
I guess this detachment means that some faction-specific fortifications will now be able to get sub-faction traits.
For example the tyranid sporocyst. Previously they couldn't get hive fleet traits due to being in fortification network detachments.
Similar thing with stuff like the tyranid hierophant bio-titan and harridan. Where it wasn't possible to fit 3 of them in a super-heavy detachment in a 2k point game, leading to them not getting hive fleet traits. It's a very minor buff in most cases, but the idea of an obsec bio-titan amuses me.
I honestly liked it better when they had the classic forceorg chart that didn't change for several editions. I felt it gave a nice margin between restriction and freedom, and was coupled with certain models as the warlord making non-troop stuff troops. It felt fun and thematic.
The AoS method works too, if less fun. You need a warlord and 3 troop choices (for 2k) after that there are limitations on certain kinds of models (6 leaders, 4 behemoth, 4 artillery, 3 endless spells) but otherwise the roster can be chosen from freely--and a solid majority of units across armies fall into this 'unclassified' category. Seems like they are moving 40k towards this.
tneva82 wrote: Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds
Please provide an example of a broken list this FOC provides that the existing structure isn't currently capable of. Hint, you won't find one, you'll just find they have 3cp more, or maybe 100 points spent differently.
3 CP and 100 pts additional are actually quite usefull for GSC nvm 12 troopslots.
I can already forsee 12x5 acolythes bullying quite a few armies. Or 6 x5 acolythes and a swath of neophytes.
drbored wrote: I'm all for more freedom for building your army, but I find it hilarious that it feels like there's more paragraphs of rules that ultimately say 'take more of what you want!'
GW has learned well that acceptance is in the presentation. Notable examples are 7th ed Unbound, which was not generally considered a valid way of army building, and the release version of AoS that took only a token effort to put on the road to success. Presenting "do whatever, we don't care" with a lot of text and a chart for better visualization creates the illusion of structure and implies some thought went into creating the absence of rules restrictions and it therefore has merit. That's literally all it takes for a lot of people to accept something they would otherwise decry as lacking or unbalanced.
tneva82 wrote: Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds
Please provide an example of a broken list this FOC provides that the existing structure isn't currently capable of. Hint, you won't find one, you'll just find they have 3cp more, or maybe 100 points spent differently.
3 CP and 100 pts additional are actually quite usefull for GSC nvm 12 troopslots.
I can already forsee 12x5 acolythes bullying quite a few armies. Or 6 x5 acolythes and a swath of neophytes.
Honestly I think the most notable skew lists with AoO are going to be troops spam. The new detachment doesn't really open up much more use of Elite or HS slots than before, all it's really doing is taking away the CP tax and a token points value in troops. Even then very few effective lists will forgo troops entirely.
However a big change is the ability to take 12 troop slots without the requirement to also fill out all the slots and/or CP needed for a brigade or double battallion. For factions with decent troops liek GSC (and likely World Eaters) that's going to have a big impact.
Not all of these will be good and I'll be waiting to see how the new points shake out.Mainly theoretical lists based on what I've played against in tournaments or with. But they all tend to go with a theme of "I really hope you had a plan for killing this one specific datasheet" and should hopefully give an idea of what you might expect to see.
Dark Angels - 3 Ravenwing Talonmasters, Chief Primaris Apothecary, 30 Deathwing Terminators is 1,780 pts, starts with 6 CP. Quite a few other factions can do the 90 wounds of terminators with healing, such as...
Thousand Sons - 3 Exalted Sorcerers, 3 Sorcerers, 30 Scarab Occult is 1,860 pts, starts with 6 CP.
Thousand Sons - 3 Exalted Sorcerers, 3 Sorcerers, 12x5 Rubric Marines is 1,830 pts, starts with 6 CP. A healthy 24 casts per turn to start, with just 39 cabal points to buff up your spells - sadly you need 52 to use all the buffs every turn, so still some decisions required.
Eldar - 2 Farseer Skyrunners, Baharroth, Karandras, 2x10 Dire Avengers, 2x5 Howling Banshees, 2x5 Striking Scorpions, 2 x Warlock Skyrunners, 2x10 Swooping Hawks is 1,710 pts, starts with 6 CP. 1 free FA slot left.
Ultramarines - Roboute Guilliman, Master Primaris Techmarine, 3 Redemptor Dreads, 3 Contemptor Dreads is 1,570 points, starts with 6 CP. Some of the dreads can start in reserves for free so they always get a round of shooting when they come in. I think if Space Marines stay weak/over-costed there will be better versions of this elsewhere.
Tau - 2 Commanders, 2x5 Crisis, 2 Stormsurge is about 1,850 pts, starts with 5 CP. Stormsurges can start in reserves for free so they always get a round of shooting when they come in.
Votann - 1 Forge-master, 3x6 Hernkyn Pioneers, 3 Land Fortresses, 1,810 pts, starts with 6 CP. Land Fortresses can start in reserves for free so they always get a round of shooting when they come in.
Death Guard - 1 Lord of Contagion, 12x5 Plague Marines, 3x3 Deathshroud, 1,830 pts, starts with 6CP.
Death Guard - 1 Lord of Contagion, 8x20 Poxwalkers, 2x5 Plague Marines, 3x5 Possessed, 3x3 Deathshroud, 1,940 pts, starts with 6CP. Running out of deployment zone, free reserves is here to save you. This is maybe just a discount version of the next list...
Dark Eldar - 1 Haemonculus, 11x20 Wracks, 1x10 Wracks, 1,998 pts, starts with 6 CP. 230 wounds of tanky fun. Running out of deployment zone, free reserves is here to save you.
tneva82 wrote: Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds
Please provide an example of a broken list this FOC provides that the existing structure isn't currently capable of. Hint, you won't find one, you'll just find they have 3cp more, or maybe 100 points spent differently.
3 CP and 100 pts additional are actually quite usefull for GSC nvm 12 troopslots.
I can already forsee 12x5 acolythes bullying quite a few armies. Or 6 x5 acolythes and a swath of neophytes.
Honestly I think the most notable skew lists with AoO are going to be troops spam. The new detachment doesn't really open up much more use of Elite or HS slots than before, all it's really doing is taking away the CP tax and a token points value in troops. Even then very few effective lists will forgo troops entirely.
However a big change is the ability to take 12 troop slots without the requirement to also fill out all the slots and/or CP needed for a brigade or double battallion. For factions with decent troops liek GSC (and likely World Eaters) that's going to have a big impact.
indeed, and if the GSC codex has one really good aspect, than it is it's troop slot. Whereas before you may saw 15 suicide acolythes and 30 neophytes now you will probably see 30 and 60, and those 30 will hurt quite a bit.
stonehorse wrote: What is even the point in having a Force Organisation Chart anymore?
I think this is the sales team basically getting the rules team to remove all hurdles to entry.
As the decades roll on, the more I miss 3rd edition when it was just the lists in the rule book. Those were fun times.
Well stops loyalists from building all dread army.
5+ greater daemon lists become impossible.
But yea not much restrictions beside ro3
Anyone even wanting to take those is best to avoid. Life is too short to play against people with the WAAC mentality, just sucks the fun out of the game.
stonehorse wrote: What is even the point in having a Force Organisation Chart anymore?
I think this is the sales team basically getting the rules team to remove all hurdles to entry.
As the decades roll on, the more I miss 3rd edition when it was just the lists in the rule book. Those were fun times.
Well stops loyalists from building all dread army.
5+ greater daemon lists become impossible.
But yea not much restrictions beside ro3
Anyone even wanting to take those is best to avoid. Life is too short to play against people with the WAAC mentality, just sucks the fun out of the game.
Gentle reminder this is for tournament/organised play rules, which is inherently aimed at WAAC players. I'd also say a 5 greater daemon lists or all dreads is not WAAC, its just a funky skew list.
stonehorse wrote: What is even the point in having a Force Organisation Chart anymore?
I think this is the sales team basically getting the rules team to remove all hurdles to entry.
As the decades roll on, the more I miss 3rd edition when it was just the lists in the rule book. Those were fun times.
Well stops loyalists from building all dread army.
5+ greater daemon lists become impossible.
But yea not much restrictions beside ro3
Anyone even wanting to take those is best to avoid. Life is too short to play against people with the WAAC mentality, just sucks the fun out of the game.
Gentle reminder this is for tournament/organised play rules, which is inherently aimed at WAAC players. I'd also say a 5 greater daemon lists or all dreads is not WAAC, its just a funky skew list.
What if I told you that tournament play doesn't have to be WAAC. What if I told you tournaments can be a way for players who don't get a lot of chance to game, to get get a few games in during a day.
WAAC/ultra competitive mindset is what is damaging to the miniatures hobby. Never understood the burning need to win in a game where players push plastic toys around, just feels like a massive over compensation for something.
stonehorse wrote: What is even the point in having a Force Organisation Chart anymore?
I think this is the sales team basically getting the rules team to remove all hurdles to entry.
As the decades roll on, the more I miss 3rd edition when it was just the lists in the rule book. Those were fun times.
Well stops loyalists from building all dread army.
5+ greater daemon lists become impossible.
But yea not much restrictions beside ro3
Anyone even wanting to take those is best to avoid. Life is too short to play against people with the WAAC mentality, just sucks the fun out of the game.
Gentle reminder this is for tournament/organised play rules, which is inherently aimed at WAAC players. I'd also say a 5 greater daemon lists or all dreads is not WAAC, its just a funky skew list.
What if I told you that tournament play doesn't have to be WAAC. What if I told you tournaments can be a way for players who don't get a lot of chance to game, to get get a few games in during a day.
WAAC/ultra competitive mindset is what is damaging to the miniatures hobby. Never understood the burning need to win in a game where players push plastic toys around, just feels like a massive over compensation for something.
I don't disagree with any of that (beyond maybe over compensating, competition means different things to different people), but these are optional rules for competing in tournaments where for at least some people, their main goal will be to win the event.
But I feel your definition of WAAC might be a little off the mark if you put all dreadnought armies in that bucket.
This mission pack, somewhat ironically, is probably more of a casual players dream given the flexibility to do weird things with it.
Loalists(at least blood angels) have no dreads in troop, fa or heavy support so 3 hq, 6 eiite is cap. No 3 for 1 slot either
If you run an ADEPTUS ASTARTES detachment you can throw in Murderfang (SW) into the Elite Character slots, plus Bjorn the Fell-handed can make up the 4th HQ.
So, 3 Librarian Dreadnoughts, Bjorn, Murderfang, 3 x Redemptors, and 3 x Venerable Dreadnoughts
If you chose SPACE WOLVES for <CHAPTER> then the Venerable Dreadnoughts can take Axes and Blizzard Shields (the Librarian Dreads have BLOOD ANGLES as a fixed keyword, right?).
By my estimates, with all upgrades, this will bring in the list at 1915 points for a total of 11 Dreadnoughts. I'm not sure if there are more expensive options that I might have overlooked, but 1915 isn't too bad all things told.
What scares me the most about the allies matrix is: For example I have deathwing terminators and I ally in a votann patrol do I now have access to both books secondaries for matched play would there be any limit on mixing them. If there's no limits, 9th is dead now, brought down by the horrible idea of army specific secondaries.
stonehorse wrote: What is even the point in having a Force Organisation Chart anymore?
I think this is the sales team basically getting the rules team to remove all hurdles to entry.
As the decades roll on, the more I miss 3rd edition when it was just the lists in the rule book. Those were fun times.
Well stops loyalists from building all dread army.
5+ greater daemon lists become impossible.
But yea not much restrictions beside ro3
Astra can build an all LRBT army, but marines cant build an all dread army, sounds fair.
Given that march of the dreadnaughts is not something that happens every century while Tank Companies are a staple of the Astra Militarum, it seems totally fair to me.
Loalists(at least blood angels) have no dreads in troop, fa or heavy support so 3 hq, 6 eiite is cap. No 3 for 1 slot either
If you run an ADEPTUS ASTARTES detachment you can throw in Murderfang (SW) into the Elite Character slots, plus Bjorn the Fell-handed can make up the 4th HQ.
So, 3 Librarian Dreadnoughts, Bjorn, Murderfang, 3 x Redemptors, and 3 x Venerable Dreadnoughts
If you chose SPACE WOLVES for <CHAPTER> then the Venerable Dreadnoughts can take Axes and Blizzard Shields (the Librarian Dreads have BLOOD ANGLES as a fixed keyword, right?).
By my estimates, with all upgrades, this will bring in the list at 1915 points for a total of 11 Dreadnoughts. I'm not sure if there are more expensive options that I might have overlooked, but 1915 isn't too bad all things told.
Swap the VenDreads for Contemptors, Deredeos, or Leviathans and you can break 2k pretty easily.
Gibblets wrote: What scares me the most about the allies matrix is: For example I have deathwing terminators and I ally in a votann patrol do I now have access to both books secondaries for matched play would there be any limit on mixing them. If there's no limits, 9th is dead now, brought down by the horrible idea of army specific secondaries.
I'm pretty sure mixing factions takes away your access to faction specific secondaries. Or else, maybe you only have access to the ones that match your warlord's faction. One of those two, don't have my book in front of me right now. Of course, maybe the new tournament book changes that and I'm talking out of my ass right now...
Gibblets wrote: What scares me the most about the allies matrix is: For example I have deathwing terminators and I ally in a votann patrol do I now have access to both books secondaries for matched play would there be any limit on mixing them. If there's no limits, 9th is dead now, brought down by the horrible idea of army specific secondaries.
I'm pretty sure mixing factions takes away your access to faction specific secondaries. Or else, maybe you only have access to the ones that match your warlord's faction. One of those two, don't have my book in front of me right now. Of course, maybe the new tournament book changes that and I'm talking out of my ass right now...
The Rules wrote:If a secondary objective appears only when corresponding Faction filter is selected, it is a faction secondary objective and it can only be selected by a player if every unit from their army (excluding AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM, AGENT OF CHAOS and UNALIGNED units) is from the appropriate faction.
You're correct, you only get faction secondaries when your entire army is of that specific faction
The only difference between a themed list that spams a lot of a handful of things and a WAAC list that spams a lot of a handful of things is...
intent.
Very difficult to measure across the internet, but when you sit down with your opponent at a tournament or FLGS you'll quickly figure out what the intent is.
There are some GREAT themes out there that have at different times been super busted broken and at others have been horribly underpowered. Dreadnought lists, Iyanden wraith lists, Saim Hann biker lists, White Scars biker lists, Blood Angels Drop Pod spam, Mechanized Guard of varying degrees, 'Oops All Baneblades' lists, etc, etc.
I often encourage people to pursue those themes if that's the sort of army they're interested in building, painting, and playing. Many players, casual and tournament, will have much more fun playing a list that fits a theme than they will trying a list that's been shoe-horned into a specific FOC or that has been tailored to a competitive meta. In fact, many people I know are often DISCOURAGED if certain options are too powerful.
The only reason I haven't done an entire Word Bearers 'oops all Dreadnoughts' list in 30k is because dreads are just too powerful in the current iteration. I'd love to do it, but I don't want to be 'that guy'.
So how does this relate to the new FOC?
Well, frankly, the new FOC allows people more flexibility in pursuing those themed lists... but it's a tournament-pack-based thing. Doesn't mean people can't use it in casual play. After all, if it's been balanced with tournament play in mind, then it's likely just as good for casual list-building too. That's how a lot of tournament rules tend to be viewed when used in casual settings. Casual players often adopt those things because it's the 'in' thing to do.
So, yes, you will see more 'spam' lists, but before you jump on someone for being WAAC, consider their intent. Are they building it to be a skewed meta-breaker, or do they just really like dreadnoughts?
stonehorse wrote: What is even the point in having a Force Organisation Chart anymore?
I think this is the sales team basically getting the rules team to remove all hurdles to entry.
As the decades roll on, the more I miss 3rd edition when it was just the lists in the rule book. Those were fun times.
Well stops loyalists from building all dread army.
5+ greater daemon lists become impossible.
But yea not much restrictions beside ro3
Astra can build an all LRBT army, but marines cant build an all dread army, sounds fair.
Given that march of the dreadnaughts is not something that happens every century while Tank Companies are a staple of the Astra Militarum, it seems totally fair to me.
But is dreadnought list more broken? That's what should matter in this missionpack.
You DID read what this mission pack is intended for didn't you? Right?
Oh wait you talk about fluff so no you didn't so your comment is worthless junk.
As by the local TO, with this supplement we get the most balanced version of 40k that has ever been there, which is also the most fun game
So I guess if you played something that is now not possible you must have been a powergamer
(as it was pointed out in the past, GW does not remove armies from the game, so if you had a legal, fluffy army before, it will always be a legal army)
That there is change simple for the sake of change because tournaments get boring after everyone is playing the very same lists for a year because there is not much variation in the game on the top
Yeah, I always laugh too when someone tells me the main reason why they play 40k is that this is the only game were they can sure that their army is still valid in 3+ years
Given that march of the dreadnaughts is not something that happens every century while Tank Companies are a staple of the Astra Militarum, it seems totally fair to me.
But is dreadnought list more broken? That's what should matter in this missionpack.
The only reason this debate even is taking place is that multiple Russ models can be taken per slot to bypass the rule of 3, while marine vehicles generally can't. That has far less to do with this mission pack and more to do with how the marine codex was written.
tneva82 wrote: Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds
Step 2, Muster Armies, from the Grand Tournament book
With the exception of units with the Troops or Dedicated Transport Battlefield Roles, or units that are added to a player’s army during the battle, each player can only include the same datasheet in their army 2 times (if they are playing an Incursion battle) or 3 times (if they are playing a Strike Force battle).
EightFoldPath wrote: When I say an alpha strike has 7 CP that is because you start with 6 then get a 7th as soon as your alpha strike first turn begins.
Not all of these will be good and I'll be waiting to see how the new points shake out.Mainly theoretical lists based on what I've played against in tournaments or with. But they all tend to go with a theme of "I really hope you had a plan for killing this one specific datasheet" and should hopefully give an idea of what you might expect to see.
Dark Angels - 3 Ravenwing Talonmasters, Chief Primaris Apothecary, 30 Deathwing Terminators is 1,780 pts, starts with 6 CP. Quite a few other factions can do the 90 wounds of terminators with healing, such as...
Thousand Sons - 3 Exalted Sorcerers, 3 Sorcerers, 30 Scarab Occult is 1,860 pts, starts with 6 CP.
Thousand Sons - 3 Exalted Sorcerers, 3 Sorcerers, 12x5 Rubric Marines is 1,830 pts, starts with 6 CP. A healthy 24 casts per turn to start, with just 39 cabal points to buff up your spells - sadly you need 52 to use all the buffs every turn, so still some decisions required.
Eldar - 2 Farseer Skyrunners, Baharroth, Karandras, 2x10 Dire Avengers, 2x5 Howling Banshees, 2x5 Striking Scorpions, 2 x Warlock Skyrunners, 2x10 Swooping Hawks is 1,710 pts, starts with 6 CP. 1 free FA slot left.
Ultramarines - Roboute Guilliman, Master Primaris Techmarine, 3 Redemptor Dreads, 3 Contemptor Dreads is 1,570 points, starts with 6 CP. Some of the dreads can start in reserves for free so they always get a round of shooting when they come in. I think if Space Marines stay weak/over-costed there will be better versions of this elsewhere.
Tau - 2 Commanders, 2x5 Crisis, 2 Stormsurge is about 1,850 pts, starts with 5 CP. Stormsurges can start in reserves for free so they always get a round of shooting when they come in.
Votann - 1 Forge-master, 3x6 Hernkyn Pioneers, 3 Land Fortresses, 1,810 pts, starts with 6 CP. Land Fortresses can start in reserves for free so they always get a round of shooting when they come in.
Death Guard - 1 Lord of Contagion, 12x5 Plague Marines, 3x3 Deathshroud, 1,830 pts, starts with 6CP.
Death Guard - 1 Lord of Contagion, 8x20 Poxwalkers, 2x5 Plague Marines, 3x5 Possessed, 3x3 Deathshroud, 1,940 pts, starts with 6CP. Running out of deployment zone, free reserves is here to save you. This is maybe just a discount version of the next list...
Dark Eldar - 1 Haemonculus, 11x20 Wracks, 1x10 Wracks, 1,998 pts, starts with 6 CP. 230 wounds of tanky fun. Running out of deployment zone, free reserves is here to save you.
I can't speak on all of these but the Thousand Sons lists are caricatures.
30 Scarabs don't kill much and without AoC I don't think they'll stay standing as easily. Not to mention it'd be really difficult to hold your own objectives.
60 Rubrics sounds fun, but Smite is 18" with an escalating cost. Spells like Glamor or Weaver would be totally irrelevant as there are no worthwhile units to use them on. Your entire pool of spells would be the witchfires of which don't even cover the casts from 6 sorcerers. You could likely be able to cast Smite on 5 through 9 reliably. Anything after that is lost.
tneva82 wrote: Guess you don't put units on objectives then
That usually makes it hard to do actions and score secondaries and perhaps primary unless marines get the rumored sticky objectives ( also assuming no deepstrike / reserve concerns ).
GW has realized (too late) that the army construction design framework does not pair well with the mission design framework.
Currently it's creating a feel-bad scenario where players feel like they're being penalized Command Points to use the detachments that allow them to better score the best / easiest pre-selected mission objectives. With the new AoO detachment, players will be able to pre-select their win conditions (i.e. secondary objectives) and then build the best army, that is uninhibitedly capable of scoring those secondary objectives.
The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.
Sadly, GW has chosen what is easy instead of dealing with the real problem; that the whole mission design is fundamentally flawed. W40K has become a single person game where you select your win condition at home and then select the game pieces that work best to achieve that win condition. Having someone on the other side of the table has become nothing more than a formality. Under the current mission design players only need to interact with another player if their secondary objective requires it - think about that.
oni wrote: The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.
Legit curious, what does Mike Brandt have to do with it? I generally know who he is (NOVA Open creator, GW events coordinator, etc etc) but unsure how he fits into this. What's your negative assessment based on?
oni wrote: The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.
Legit curious, what does Mike Brandt have to do with it? I generally know who he is (NOVA Open creator, GW events coordinator, etc etc) but unsure how he fits into this. What's your negative assessment based on?
Mike Brandt is the father of the current GT mission design. He created it, used it for NOVA. GW then adopted it when they hired him to be the steward of completive missions and completive play for them.
It's no secret that I have a low opinion of his aptitude.
It means that you control an objective, once taken, until it is seized by your opponent, even if your units are no longer there. There's at least one 40k scenario that uses those rules and its definitely handy to not have to been pinned to your backfield objectives.
I'm not sure its as handy as armour of contempt though.
It's usually a characteristic of an objective marker - once you held it with an unit with 'Objective Secured' at the end of a command phase, it stays under your control even if you move the unit away in the following turns; it only changes control again if an enemy secures it in turn. You could tack that to units, as a kind of 'Objective Secured+'
oni wrote: The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.
Legit curious, what does Mike Brandt have to do with it? I generally know who he is (NOVA Open creator, GW events coordinator, etc etc) but unsure how he fits into this. What's your negative assessment based on?
Mike Brandt is the father of the current GT mission design. He created it, used it for NOVA. GW then adopted it when they hired him to be the steward of completive missions and completive play for them.
It's no secret that I have a low opinion of his aptitude.
That's factually incorrect. The current mission design owes much, much more to the ITC missions designed by FLG. Hold 1/hold2/hold more is taken directly from it, as are several of the secondaries.
It's also unclear just how much input MVB has into overall balance. He does seem to be involved to some extent in mission design, and the GWGT terrain set-ups are his, but he doesn't seem to be too involved in the actual decision making regarding what and how to balance units.
That's factually incorrect. The current mission design owes much, much more to the ITC missions designed by FLG. Hold 1/hold2/hold more is taken directly from it, as are several of the secondaries.
It's also unclear just how much input MVB has into overall balance. He does seem to be involved to some extent in mission design, and the GWGT terrain set-ups are his, but he doesn't seem to be too involved in the actual decision making regarding what and how to balance units.
Nope. GW's GT mission design is a near carbon copy of the old NOVA missions. Fact.
And using allegorical interpretation to state someone is "factually incorrect" simply does not work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW also adopted Actions from the NOVA missions.
It's not. It's just more of feelsbad contrived BS where your army technically 'wins' on points while the opponent kicked crap out of it, like the other bandaid GW did, making OP secondaries. I'd rather have AoC because SM are supposed be durable in fluff, not redshirts barely any better than IG conscripts with terrible battlefield performance losing battles horribly but 'winning' because they collected enough participation awards along the way. It's just not fun for either player...
It's not. It's just more of feelsbad contrived BS where your army technically 'wins' on points while the opponent kicked crap out of it, like the other bandaid GW did, making OP secondaries. I'd rather have AoC because SM are supposed be durable in fluff, not redshirts barely any better than IG conscripts with terrible battlefield performance losing battles horribly but 'winning' because they collected enough participation awards along the way. It's just not fun for either player...
Nope. GW's GT mission design is a near carbon copy of the old NOVA missions. Fact.
And using allegorical interpretation to state someone is "factually incorrect" simply does not work.
GW also adopted Actions from the NOVA missions.
I think this is a case of you both being right. When GW released the first set of Tournament Rules, they strongly resembled the then current ITC Missions. Those missions were strongly influenced by an older version of NOVA missions. From my recollection, NOVA missions had moved on to other design elements that are not in the current Matched Play Tournament Rules.
So if you don't like progressive points and player selected secondaries, you can say it's because of NOVA and ITC. Still, blaming Mike Brandt for the current GW mission like he is some mission-style boogyman is silly. GW wouldn't keep publishing them if people didn't seem to enjoy them. They did push Malestorm for a few editions to mixed success.
alextroy wrote: GW wouldn't keep publishing them if people didn't seem to enjoy them. They did push Malestorm for a few editions to mixed success.
GW don't care if people like them or not, this does not influence what they publish or what they change
People who want to play "official" events need to use them, TOs who want to make "official" events need to use them, and those who don't like them will happily buy the next version as this is just valid for 1 year anyway
Some more information on how this new boarding actions mode is supposed to play. Highlights include:
Terrain is not breachable by default, and line of sight cannot be drawn though it forcing combat though the doorway etc. This ALSO applies to aura and other none line of sight powers, so a captain stood on the other side of a wall doesn't grant aura abilities to troops the far side.
NLOS shooting is expressly forbidden, and all units block line of fire, so you can't shoot though friendly units and can only target units you can draw a clear line of sight to that doesn't touch anything else.
Standard game mode strategies, WLT and Relics are not allowed, you can only use re roll, combat interrupt and auto morale. Special boarding actions relics, traits and strategies will be published in the arks of Omen books
Shame they haven't made exceptions for indirect-fire weapons that still work in that environment like the old FW rules did, but it does simplify things.
Weapons like D-cannons, smart missile systems, and mole launchers that can still function in close confines.
alextroy wrote: I think this is a case of you both being right. When GW released the first set of Tournament Rules, they strongly resembled the then current ITC Missions. Those missions were strongly influenced by an older version of NOVA missions. From my recollection, NOVA missions had moved on to other design elements that are not in the current Matched Play Tournament Rules.
So if you don't like progressive points and player selected secondaries, you can say it's because of NOVA and ITC. Still, blaming Mike Brandt for the current GW mission like he is some mission-style boogyman is silly. GW wouldn't keep publishing them if people didn't seem to enjoy them. They did push Malestorm for a few editions to mixed success.
9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.
I'm no mathematician, but 9th came out July 2020, so it's already over 2 years and given we don't have a release or even a confirmation of a 10th ed yet, we're going to have to assume 9th will make it to 3.
9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.
You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.
I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.
Some more information on how this new boarding actions mode is supposed to play. Highlights include:
Terrain is not breachable by default, and line of sight cannot be drawn though it forcing combat though the doorway etc. This ALSO applies to aura and other none line of sight powers, so a captain stood on the other side of a wall doesn't grant aura abilities to troops the far side.
NLOS shooting is expressly forbidden, and all units block line of fire, so you can't shoot though friendly units and can only target units you can draw a clear line of sight to that doesn't touch anything else.
Standard game mode strategies, WLT and Relics are not allowed, you can only use re roll, combat interrupt and auto morale. Special boarding actions relics, traits and strategies will be published in the arks of Omen books
Gives more reason to use a named Character over a generic one since a named Character will have more rules by default. That's a shame.
9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.
You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.
I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.
False. My friends & acquaintances who own or work for game stores across 4 different regions and whom I talk to regularly, would strongly disagree with you. 9th edition has not done well, and it's largely been because it's tournament-hammer in that competitively play has driven away all but the most competitive of players and the competitive players don't buy much. Other top complaints about the edition are excessive quantity of stratagems and overwhelming rules bloat. In my discussions with actual store owners, some who I've been friends with for 20+ years... 8th edition was the most successful and prior to that 5th edition. Not 9th.
9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.
You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.
I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.
False. My friends & acquaintances who own or work for game stores across 4 different regions and whom I talk to regularly, would strongly disagree with you. 9th edition has not done well, and it's largely been because it's tournament-hammer in that competitively play has driven away all but the most competitive of players and the competitive players don't buy much. Other top complaints about the edition are excessive quantity of stratagems and overwhelming rules bloat. In my discussions with actual store owners, some who I've been friends with for 20+ years... 8th edition was the most successful and prior to that 5th edition. Not 9th.
For starters, how do you define successful?
Also, popularity and quality don't always go hand-in-hand. Just because a thing is popular doesn't mean it's good.
9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.
You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.
I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.
False. My friends & acquaintances who own or work for game stores across 4 different regions and whom I talk to regularly, would strongly disagree with you. 9th edition has not done well, and it's largely been because it's tournament-hammer in that competitively play has driven away all but the most competitive of players and the competitive players don't buy much. Other top complaints about the edition are excessive quantity of stratagems and overwhelming rules bloat. In my discussions with actual store owners, some who I've been friends with for 20+ years... 8th edition was the most successful and prior to that 5th edition. Not 9th.
No one cares about you and your friends. You are nothing and the couple of store owners you know are also nothing. We are talking about a company that operates and sell a game worldwide.
My friends and I also don't like 9th edition for the same reasons you listed. However 40K has been incredibly successful these last few years in spite of that. Hell, GW has been incredibly successful. The annual reports prove it.
That doesn't mean 9th edition 40k has been successful. That means that GW has been successful at making a big profit from the product they have shifted. We have no idea which products have done well or why. For example, people who buy models solely to collect and paint will be uneffected by any current rules.
Unless GW or someone else does widespread surveying of their customer base, no one will actually know this. GW themselves will be able to make inferences from the distribution of product sold too.
While not having access to the internal numbers of AoS vs. 40k I'd be shocked if 40k was making less than during 8th while AoS and other sub games have made up for the massive increase in revenue even when GW simply couldn't make enough items.
Maybe AoS and the secondary games really have made up for the entirety of the increase in sales plus the drop off of 40k. But that tends to stretch credibility.
Also bear in mind that a lot of store owners are a bit cross at GW still for all the supply chain issues. They couldn't get product in to sell. And my friends that run games stores have told me so! (see how relevant that is?)
Haighus wrote: That doesn't mean 9th edition 40k has been successful. That means that GW has been successful at making a big profit from the product they have shifted. We have no idea which products have done well or why. For example, people who buy models solely to collect and paint will be uneffected by any current rules.
Unless GW or someone else does widespread surveying of their customer base, no one will actually know this. GW themselves will be able to make inferences from the distribution of product sold too.
Before 8th (and especially 9th), GW didn't care at all about the competitive scene. Huge FAQs/erratas were put up by the community to be used by TO to solve the many many design issues / errors / problems which used to absolutely plague GW's games. And just as today, back in the goold old days, the competitive scene was minuscule compared to the casual scene (in which I throw everyone else : the painter that never plays, the casual players that are not interested in participating in tournaments, etc).
Tom Kirby used to boast that his company was a miniature company, not a gaming company, while at the same time, GW was following the way of the dodo.
The rest is history. The decision made by GW to focus hard on the competitive scene, a first in the company history, had huge positive results. And while Kirby was a complete moron to ignore the "gaming side" of the company he worked for, he was right about GW being first and foremost about selling miniatures. Their primary revenue is still selling (overpriced) miniatures and 40K absolutely beat the crap out of any other game they sell.
Hulksmash wrote: While not having access to the internal numbers of AoS vs. 40k I'd be shocked if 40k was making less than during 8th while AoS and other sub games have made up for the massive increase in revenue even when GW simply couldn't make enough items.
Maybe AoS and the secondary games really have made up for the entirety of the increase in sales plus the drop off of 40k. But that tends to stretch credibility.
Also bear in mind that a lot of store owners are a bit cross at GW still for all the supply chain issues. They couldn't get product in to sell. And my friends that run games stores have told me so! (see how relevant that is?)
You may be looking at the wrong things here. Much of the life of 9th ed has happened while Covid lockdowns were widespread. I don't think it's a point of contention that GW profited from people sitting around at home with not much else to do than paint toy soldiers. With that in mind, rather than 40k vs everything else GW produces I'd consider the interesting thing to look at production and sales numbers of rules material compared to prior editions. And as you say, we don't have those numbers.
This is not to say that you're wrong about the popularity of 9th ed, but we have circumstances that don't allow a fair comparison to previous editions on financial success. Without internal numbers we have little to go on to say either way because for 9th ed we have an external factor that may or may not have sold models better than any edition could. Nothing comparable has happened previously.
Hulksmash wrote: While not having access to the internal numbers of AoS vs. 40k I'd be shocked if 40k was making less than during 8th while AoS and other sub games have made up for the massive increase in revenue even when GW simply couldn't make enough items.
Maybe AoS and the secondary games really have made up for the entirety of the increase in sales plus the drop off of 40k. But that tends to stretch credibility.
Also bear in mind that a lot of store owners are a bit cross at GW still for all the supply chain issues. They couldn't get product in to sell. And my friends that run games stores have told me so! (see how relevant that is?)
Sure, but 40k outselling AoS doesn't mean 9th edition was popular. It is very possible that GW would have made more profit than it did with a more popular ruleset.
There are just far to many confounding variables that we have no idea about the impact of.
Hulksmash wrote: While not having access to the internal numbers of AoS vs. 40k I'd be shocked if 40k was making less than during 8th while AoS and other sub games have made up for the massive increase in revenue even when GW simply couldn't make enough items.
Maybe AoS and the secondary games really have made up for the entirety of the increase in sales plus the drop off of 40k. But that tends to stretch credibility.
Also bear in mind that a lot of store owners are a bit cross at GW still for all the supply chain issues. They couldn't get product in to sell. And my friends that run games stores have told me so! (see how relevant that is?)
You may be looking at the wrong things here. Much of the life of 9th ed has happened while Covid lockdowns were widespread. I don't think it's a point of contention that GW profited from people sitting around at home with not much else to do than paint toy soldiers. With that in mind, rather than 40k vs everything else GW produces I'd consider the interesting thing to look at production and sales numbers of rules material compared to prior editions. And as you say, we don't have those numbers.
This is not to say that you're wrong about the popularity of 9th ed, but we have circumstances that don't allow a fair comparison to previous editions on financial success. Without internal numbers we have little to go on to say either way because for 9th ed we have an external factor that may or may not have sold models better than any edition could. Nothing comparable has happened previously.
Plus, without going to deep into the underlying reasons for this, the group that did financially best out of the pandemic were the already wealthy, who suddenly found they had a lot of disposable income they were no longer spending.
I'd wager a majority of GW's whales fall into this category, and as a group would likely have more time and money to spend on 40k.
Why would you specifically disallow standard relics? I just cannot fathom why you would do that.
"Let us board this Space Hulk so that we might claim it for the glory of Chaos!"
"But my Lord, your Daemon Weapon, Kal'drak'naz, is claustrophobic, so you'll have to leave him behind!"
"Good thinking!"
"For the glory of the Emperor, we will storm this bastion of hate and retake our lost void craf... what... why are you starring at me like that, master Tech-Marine?"
"You're still wearing your Artificer Armour, my Captain. You know the rules for wearing fancy armour inside ships."
"By the blood of Dorn you're right. Let me just switch back to my regular Power Armour."
You guys win. 9th edition isn't the most profitable edition in which they were still more profitable than prior editions while building a new factory.
Also 9th isn't focused on the competitive scene. It's just been acknowledging it actually exists and releasing things for it. Unlike before where they left that in the hands of people running events. But even when doing this they highlighted narrative play in the actual codexes.
Arks of Omen looks to be a good thing. It'll bring more flexibility and actually open up more armies to be playable and fun. I'm excited for it as a competitive player and as a hobbyist building some cool armies and taking units I wouldn't have taken prior because it hamstrung my army to hard.
Hulksmash wrote: Also 9th isn't focused on the competitive scene.
It most assuredly is. If 40k was a Street Fighter game, it'd be the version of Street Fighter that has "Tournament Edition" in its actual title.
lol yeah, SEVERAL tournament packs coming out, the balance dataslate (which is for matched play) and other things have all been in response to the competitive scene.
Releasing things for competitive doesn't mean it's competitive focused. It's released more actual content for narrative and is set to release narrative ONLY books over the next few months. You guys act like them actually trying to keep the game inline is them focusing on competitive play.
It's easy to be confused because gw literally never paid ANY attention to competitive play. So even releasing some stuff for it seems like it's focused on it. Half the stuff you associate with "competitive" is simply balancing the game so its easier for people to get a better play experience.
Hulksmash wrote: Releasing things for competitive doesn't mean it's competitive focused.
Quite correct.
But 40k 9th is absolutely tournament focused. Chapter approved literally shifted from a random grab bag of narrative rules, extra army lists, scenarios, optional rules, FAQs and other interesting information into pure tournament updates divided into seasons.
Yes, they added Crusade, but you notice how campaign books with Crusade stuff basically died off, and tournament focused ramped up even further? The lack of matched play rules in the upcoming Arks of Omen books is a direct response to people not wanting to have to carry multiple books to keep their army up to date, something that had become an annoyance to everyone, but was a big deal in the competitive scene.
I'm not part of the competitive scene, and I don't give a toss what's "meta" or what's not - "Metawatch" articles just make me laugh and roll my eyes, especially those early player profiles ones that had 'ratings' for players in 'early game' and 'late game' and so on - so believe me when I say that I love that they have added additional structure to narrative style gaming in this addition.
But it's Tournament Edition 40k, through and through.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would you specifically disallow standard relics? I just cannot fathom why you would do that.
Spoiler:
"Let us board this Space Hulk so that we might claim it for the glory of Chaos!"
"But my Lord, your Daemon Weapon, Kal'drak'naz, is claustrophobic, so you'll have to leave him behind!"
"Good thinking!"
"For the glory of the Emperor, we will storm this bastion of hate and retake our lost void craf... what... why are you starring at me like that, master Tech-Marine?"
"You're still wearing your Artificer Armour, my Captain. You know the rules for wearing fancy armour inside ships."
"By the blood of Dorn you're right. Let me just switch back to my regular Power Armour."
But HBMC, how is GW going to sell you a second book with some options old and new if they don't deprive you of all the options first?
As I recall we were wondering how GW intends to fill four or more books without the usual matched play additions. Turns out it's dead easy if they just copy paste several pages each from the two dozen or so codices. It's not that thematically fitting relics and warlord traits won't be allowed, you'll just find them in a different place. Sure they could just have a list of items that are allowed in boarding actions, but it's so much neater to have the full rules compiled for your convenience over three lists in three books that you can buy for only [insert current overblown book price in local currency] each.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Carrying multiple books is a syndrome of wanting to sell $60 codices that y'all eat up. GW needs to go digital.
It never really gets old, flipping through the mental gymnastics to make this -other- customers' fault (just not the speaker, they are always above the rifraff which caused the problem).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would you specifically disallow standard relics? I just cannot fathom why you would do that.
Spoiler:
"Let us board this Space Hulk so that we might claim it for the glory of Chaos!"
"But my Lord, your Daemon Weapon, Kal'drak'naz, is claustrophobic, so you'll have to leave him behind!"
"Good thinking!"
"For the glory of the Emperor, we will storm this bastion of hate and retake our lost void craf... what... why are you starring at me like that, master Tech-Marine?"
"You're still wearing your Artificer Armour, my Captain. You know the rules for wearing fancy armour inside ships."
"By the blood of Dorn you're right. Let me just switch back to my regular Power Armour."
Kanluwen wrote: I'm sure there has totally been no other factor, at all, that has not made 9th less popular for store play.
I'm guessing it has something to do with Plasma Guns and a lack of lasguns on Guard sergeants.
Quite a few factions have HQ's that would be almost unstoppable in a corridor fight if they are allowed to take all the toys. Balancing rules is hard, so just press delete right?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would you specifically disallow standard relics? I just cannot fathom why you would do that.
Spoiler:
"Let us board this Space Hulk so that we might claim it for the glory of Chaos!"
"But my Lord, your Daemon Weapon, Kal'drak'naz, is claustrophobic, so you'll have to leave him behind!"
"Good thinking!"
"For the glory of the Emperor, we will storm this bastion of hate and retake our lost void craf... what... why are you starring at me like that, master Tech-Marine?"
"You're still wearing your Artificer Armour, my Captain. You know the rules for wearing fancy armour inside ships."
"By the blood of Dorn you're right. Let me just switch back to my regular Power Armour."
Kanluwen wrote: I'm sure there has totally been no other factor, at all, that has not made 9th less popular for store play.
I'm guessing it has something to do with Plasma Guns and a lack of lasguns on Guard sergeants.
Quite a few factions have HQ's that would be almost unstoppable in a corridor fight if they are allowed to take all the toys. Balancing rules is hard, so just press delete right?
Yes and the named characters with more bonuses to begin with won't be unstoppable right?
There is a picture of Kharn in the WarCom article but I wouldn't personally be betting on named characters playing a prominent role in the first boarding action book.
Keep in mind:
Arks Of Omen Grant Tournament Pack - A set of rules for handsome, brave, humble, smart, kind and modest tournament players to use.
Arks of Omen Abaddon, Angron, Vashtorr - Boarding Action rules which will probably be as popular as the special terrain rules pack they released this edition... Yes, try to remember the name... By the way 75% off at element games and 10+ in stock... I was going to say city fighting rules, but I honestly don't know what is actually in this book...
Spoiler:
Tactical Deployment.
I thought these new books would also contain datasheet rules for Angron, Vashtorr and whoever is named in the 4th book, maybe the Primaris Missile Stick Marines and some other new units as well.
EightFoldPath wrote: I thought these new books would also contain datasheet rules for Angron, Vashtorr and whoever is named in the 4th book, maybe the Primaris Missile Stick Marines and some other new units as well.
This bit is still unclear thanks to the "no matched play rules" comment from GW when the Arks of Omen books were first revealed. With the exception of Angron, of course, who will be in the World Eaters codex.
We don't actually have information how Vashtorr's datasheet will be distributed. Conventionally we'd expect it in the book named after the character, but GW's statement confuses the whole thing.
EightFoldPath wrote: I thought these new books would also contain datasheet rules for Angron, Vashtorr and whoever is named in the 4th book, maybe the Primaris Missile Stick Marines and some other new units as well.
This bit is still unclear thanks to the "no matched play rules" comment from GW when the Arks of Omen books were first revealed. With the exception of Angron, of course, who will be in the World Eaters codex.
We don't actually have information how Vashtorr's datasheet will be distributed. Conventionally we'd expect it in the book named after the character, but GW's statement confuses the whole thing.
i suppose it really depends if you count a unit datasheet a "matched play" rule, or just...rules. If you wanted to get technical about it, only the rules surrounding the actual missions themselves are, strictly speaking, "matched play" rules. the turn order, combat resolution, etc, is all Core Rules, and the unit datasheets are not matched play exclusive.
so, GWcould keep to the letter of their word and still push out the rules for vashtorr in his namesake book.
EightFoldPath wrote: I thought these new books would also contain datasheet rules for Angron, Vashtorr and whoever is named in the 4th book, maybe the Primaris Missile Stick Marines and some other new units as well.
This bit is still unclear thanks to the "no matched play rules" comment from GW when the Arks of Omen books were first revealed. With the exception of Angron, of course, who will be in the World Eaters codex.
We don't actually have information how Vashtorr's datasheet will be distributed. Conventionally we'd expect it in the book named after the character, but GW's statement confuses the whole thing.
i suppose it really depends if you count a unit datasheet a "matched play" rule, or just...rules. If you wanted to get technical about it, only the rules surrounding the actual missions themselves are, strictly speaking, "matched play" rules. the turn order, combat resolution, etc, is all Core Rules, and the unit datasheets are not matched play exclusive.
so, GWcould keep to the letter of their word and still push out the rules for vashtorr in his namesake book.
Or put the datasheet in the book and up on the website at the same time
Characters and units can be used in open war, and narrative. Datasheets will definitely be allowed in whatever publication regardless of matched play rules.
you have a specific, limited detachment you must use:
0-1 HQ 0-3 Troops
0-3 Elites
yes, that is no compulsory options.
VEHICLES, MONSTERS, BIKES, and CAVALRY are out, as well as anything with a JUMP PACK or some other way to FLY about.
their is a list of faction specific exceptions to this general rule, normally to allow in something that would logically be included but is the wrong type for this. examples given are marine Hellblasters and Eliminators, Tau Crisis suits ("so long as they dont FLY", whatever that means), and the Hounds of Khorne.
everyones faction specific limits and exceptions have been kindy provided free, here on this link:
Ive not read the full list on there, so i cant comment on any factions exceptions, but what do people think? this could provide some intresting army compositions.
edit: reading closer into one faction (thousand sons), we have some intresting changes to the default rules:
thier is something called "boarding squads", which seems to be a universal rule for allowing big squads to split into multiple smaller squads, combat squad style.
one of the standard mustering rules has been narrowed in scope (can only take 1 cultist unit, can not take more tzanngor units than rubrics, and scarabs do not count for this)
allowed to take chaos spawn (dispite being fast attack)
legion command (our points upgrade abilites) are not allowed.
certain psychic powers have had their casting value increased significantly. most of the powers named are ultility powers like "extra move" and the "deep strike" powers.
so, you could run a force of 2 5 man scarab bricks, which might be hard to shift.
The pdf is surprisingly game-y for GW (and yes, I know that sounds ironic).
All the warp charge changes, a few outright profile changes, and very specific squad sizes seem unusual, and micro-managing game details that they usual just handwave or ignore for non-standard scenarios.
It seems... fiddly. They're taking a lot away and adding 'chosen exceptions' that feel weird. I'm not sure this would be fun to play.
It also seems to bizarrely downplay how stupidly big 40k ships are, especially Space Hulks. Its another lore mismatch, because we absolutely know there hallways big enough for tanks and large open spaces big enough for full scale battlefields.
Voss wrote: The pdf is surprisingly game-y for GW (and yes, I know that sounds ironic).
All the warp charge changes, a few outright profile changes, and very specific squad sizes seem unusual, and micro-managing game details that they usual just handwave or ignore for non-standard scenarios.
It seems... fiddly. They're taking a lot away and adding 'chosen exceptions' that feel weird. I'm not sure this would be fun to play.
It also seems to bizarrely downplay how stupidly big 40k ships are, especially Space Hulks. Its another lore mismatch, because we absolutely know there hallways big enough for tanks and large open spaces big enough for full scale battlefields.
That can be played with normal 40k rules, so I think the intent here is for claustrophobic halls and potential squeezey spaces.
I think it’s great honestly and about as keen as myself can get for 40k.
"Yeah, its alright, you can take Screamer-Killers if you really want to."
Considering the constant mention of allowing things with 5 Wounds in the PDF and the reduction of attacks for certain characters, there's obviously stat limits built into the core rules for the mode.
Anyone else noticed that the Agents of the Imperium rules in the pdf mentions Adeptus arbites troops units? There were some people who were doubting the silhoutte of the shield dude but this confirms 100% that the model in question will be an Adeptus Arbites squad member of a larger unit.
I was a huge fan of City Fight back in the day, so boarding actions is very much inline with how I prefer to play 40K. It is also good to see that GW is supporting this format over the next couple books, so it is not just a one and done with the first book. I am hopeful that there is enough interest locally that people pick-up the format as I would like to play it.
The only thing I have seemed to miss is a recommended point size. I may have breezed over it. *Correction* 500 points. Found it upon second reading!
"Yeah, its alright, you can take Screamer-Killers if you really want to."
Considering the constant mention of allowing things with 5 Wounds in the PDF and the reduction of attacks for certain characters, there's obviously stat limits built into the core rules for the mode.
LOL, it would be a hilarious massacre if 3 Screamer-Killers were let lose in such a game, with a gang of Hormagants holding back "its all right, guys! we're right behind you all of the way!"
Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
The Daemon Primarchs have the Primarch keyword, too.
EDIT: Okay, yeah, I know you mentioned it's in the Space Marines section, but is it unusual to see keywords generalised in this way when there are other examples elsewhere in the game? I'm not sure. Might just be how they write the rules nowadays.
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
They also use the HORMAGAUNT Keyword instead of specifying the Hormagaunt unit. Do you think maybe they're planning on releasing a new type of Hormagaunt!?
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
When they updated the Supreme Command detachment for 9th calls out Primach as a unit type, but we haven’t seen The Lion yet. I wouldn’t hold my breathe.
"Yeah, its alright, you can take Screamer-Killers if you really want to."
Considering the constant mention of allowing things with 5 Wounds in the PDF and the reduction of attacks for certain characters, there's obviously stat limits built into the core rules for the mode.
LOL, it would be a hilarious massacre if 3 Screamer-Killers were let lose in such a game, with a gang of Hormagants holding back "its all right, guys! we're right behind you all of the way!"
Did you even read the article? The chart doesn't allow Heavy Supports.
Rihgu wrote: They also use the HORMAGAUNT Keyword instead of specifying the Hormagaunt unit. Do you think maybe they're planning on releasing a new type of Hormagaunt!?
Just saw a rumour about that somewhere else; specifically that some kind of enhanced hormagaunt would be unleashed soon. Not sure what to make of that though.
There had to have been a better way to organise list creation than that nightmare web of exceptions and caveats, no?
Every third line of this document makes me go "But, why?".
"You can include a Sisters Repentia unit if their unit size is either 4 or 9." - But why? What's wrong with a unit of 7?
"You can include a Custodian Wardens unit if its Starting Strength is 3 or 6 models." - But why? Why not a unit of 4?
"You can only upgrade one Aspect Warriors unit in your army to have an Exarch Power." - But why?
"You cannot include more than one model equipped with a balefire tome..." - But why?
"You cannot include Brood Brothers units in your Boarding Patrol." - But why?
"Solitaire models cannot be given an Enhancement or upgraded to have a Pivotal Role." - But why?
"You can include one Fast Attack slot, but only if it is a Canoptek Scarab Swarms unit (even though it has the Fly keyword) or an Ophydian Destroyers unit." - But why not Wraiths? You'd think something that can phase through matter would be useful in a boarding situation.
"You can include up to two units of Meganobz in your army." - And meanwhile, Chaos are limited to 5-man Possessed, and Sisters have to bring set number Repentia and Archo units. Who wrote this?
"If you include a Hellblaster Squad unit, it can only have a Starting Strength of 5 models – additional models cannot be added to it." - But why?
"You cannot upgrade any models in your army to have any Prototype System upgrades." - But why?
"You cannot upgrade any models in your army to have any Legion Command upgrades." - But why?
"You cannot include both a Zoanthropes and a Venomthropes unit." - Wait... what???
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
When they updated the Supreme Command detachment for 9th calls out Primach as a unit type, but we haven’t seen The Lion yet. I wouldn’t hold my breathe.
Don't have any of my books to hand - do Magnus and Mortarion have PRIMARCH or DAEMON PRIMARCH as keywords?
H.B.M.C. wrote: There had to have been a better way to organise list creation than that nightmare web of exceptions and caveats, no?
Every third line of this document makes me go "But, why?".
"You can include a Sisters Repentia unit if their unit size is either 4 or 9." - But why? What's wrong with a unit of 7?
"You can include a Custodian Wardens unit if its Starting Strength is 3 or 6 models." - But why? Why not a unit of 4?
"You can only upgrade one Aspect Warriors unit in your army to have an Exarch Power." - But why?
"You cannot include more than one model equipped with a balefire tome..." - But why?
"You cannot include Brood Brothers units in your Boarding Patrol." - But why?
"Solitaire models cannot be given an Enhancement or upgraded to have a Pivotal Role." - But why?
"You can include one Fast Attack slot, but only if it is a Canoptek Scarab Swarms unit (even though it has the Fly keyword) or an Ophydian Destroyers unit." - But why not Wraiths? You'd think something that can phase through matter would be useful in a boarding situation.
"You can include up to two units of Meganobz in your army." - And meanwhile, Chaos are limited to 5-man Possessed, and Sisters have to bring set number Repentia and Archo units. Who wrote this?
"If you include a Hellblaster Squad unit, it can only have a Starting Strength of 5 models – additional models cannot be added to it." - But why?
"You cannot upgrade any models in your army to have any Prototype System upgrades." - But why?
"You cannot upgrade any models in your army to have any Legion Command upgrades." - But why?
"You cannot include both a Zoanthropes and a Venomthropes unit." - Wait... what???
The squad size stuff is something to do with the way boarding patrols break down into smaller units; basically everyone gets combat squads, whether they want it or not.
The rest are, hopefully, balance restrictions and playability changes. I also suspect that things like prototype systems will get boarding-only versions much like the relics are.
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
When they updated the Supreme Command detachment for 9th calls out Primach as a unit type, but we haven’t seen The Lion yet. I wouldn’t hold my breathe.
Don't have any of my books to hand - do Magnus and Mortarion have PRIMARCH or DAEMON PRIMARCH as keywords?
Magnus and Mortarion have the DAEMON PRIMARCH keyword, soon to be joined by Angron. RG remains the lone PRIMARCH in 40K.
Not that I don't expect The Lion some time in the future. Last I heard in the background is that he had awaken from his slumber beneath The Rock.
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
Good spot. The plot thickens.
Plot twist! It's actually Corax! The Summer of Ravens is coming!
Voss wrote: It also seems to bizarrely downplay how stupidly big 40k ships are, especially Space Hulks. Its another lore mismatch, because we absolutely know there hallways big enough for tanks and large open spaces big enough for full scale battlefields.
Ah yes. "Here's new way to play. It's same as old".
Maybe you could consider playing those boarding battles in full scale battlefields with...I don't know...normal rules? If you are fighting in hulk in where it's big enough then what's the difference playing with normal rules?
There's no point making rules for different enviroment if the rules is same as normal. There's no need to make rules for fighting in huge areas of space hulk if the rules are just normal. Or you want different cover art for rulebook?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dirk wrote: Anyone else noticed that the Agents of the Imperium rules in the pdf mentions Adeptus arbites troops units? There were some people who were doubting the silhoutte of the shield dude but this confirms 100% that the model in question will be an Adeptus Arbites squad member of a larger unit.
Technically it could be something else with arbites coming lot later(daemon codex had rule reference that actually make only sense now with world eater army of renown). Though yeah odds of pic being arbites is like 99.9999999999999999999999999% now.
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
When they updated the Supreme Command detachment for 9th calls out Primach as a unit type, but we haven’t seen The Lion yet. I wouldn’t hold my breathe.
Mortarion isn't Primach? Magnus isn't Primach?
Difference here being supreme commander was available to multiple armies with Primach. This document section is for one(so far). It doesnt' apply to Magnus & Mortarion.
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
When they updated the Supreme Command detachment for 9th calls out Primach as a unit type, but we haven’t seen The Lion yet. I wouldn’t hold my breathe.
Don't have any of my books to hand - do Magnus and Mortarion have PRIMARCH or DAEMON PRIMARCH as keywords?
Magnus and Mortarion have the DAEMON PRIMARCH keyword, soon to be joined by Angron. RG remains the lone PRIMARCH in 40K.
Not that I don't expect The Lion some time in the future. Last I heard in the background is that he had awaken from his slumber beneath The Rock.
KEYWORDS: CHARACTER, MONSTER, DAEMON, PRIMARCH,
It's not DAEMON PRIMARCH. It's DAEMON, PRIMARCH
Otherwise they couldn't be put to supreme commander by being PRIMARCH ;-)
What codex or book would I buy/acquire to get the rules for the "Agents of the Imperium" on the Boarding Actions PDF thing it shared on Warhammer Community?
I 100% want to do Arbites for it but still need the rules/points for the other available units in that listing.
Rogzor87 wrote: What codex or book would I buy/acquire to get the rules for the "Agents of the Imperium" on the Boarding Actions PDF thing it shared on Warhammer Community?
I 100% want to do Arbites for it but still need the rules/points for the other available units in that listing.
The book Warzone Octarius Book 1: Rising Tide has most of the datasheets for Agents of the Imperium such as inquistors, acolytes, etc.
The Voids man at arms and the Navy Breachers are PDFs (all Kill Teams get PDF dataslates for 40k after the Kill Team release).
The Arbites will be released as PDFs for 40k sometime after the Kill Team release.
bullyboy wrote: Might be stretching on this one, but notice how in the Space Marines rules it allows you take a LOW as long as it’s a Primarch. It didn’t specifically just say Guilleman, just Primarch.
Another slight confirmation that the Lion is in fact coming soon?
When they updated the Supreme Command detachment for 9th calls out Primach as a unit type, but we haven’t seen The Lion yet. I wouldn’t hold my breathe.
Don't have any of my books to hand - do Magnus and Mortarion have PRIMARCH or DAEMON PRIMARCH as keywords?
Magnus and Mortarion have the DAEMON PRIMARCH keyword, soon to be joined by Angron. RG remains the lone PRIMARCH in 40K.
Not that I don't expect The Lion some time in the future. Last I heard in the background is that he had awaken from his slumber beneath The Rock.
KEYWORDS: CHARACTER, MONSTER, DAEMON, PRIMARCH,
It's not DAEMON PRIMARCH. It's DAEMON, PRIMARCH
Otherwise they couldn't be put to supreme commander by being PRIMARCH ;-)
I got that backwards in my mind. I was always wondering why they called out DAEMON PRIMARCH along with PRIMARCH when the applicable units were DAEMON, PRIMARCH?
Awesome thank you. Yeah just wanted to see what other HQ/troop/elite options it has to make a list.
You don't need any others. Agents of the Imperium can plug+play into any Imperium lists.
Yes, but as per the PDF they also seem to have tried to weld them together into a single force under an inquisitor. Such as making Acolytes troops if an inquisitor is at the head, you can take a single assassin regardless of what else is going on in the list, and you can seemingly include the other Agents of the Imperium squad units in the list as well as acolytes.
It's kinda janky, and reminds me of late 7ths "agents of the Imperium" codex, but it does exist. On other notes, the Jokero is looking spicy in this mode, as it hands out free rerolls and packs a weapon with two profiles, essentially a 6-shot intercessor rifle, and 1 shot S8, AP -3, Damage 3 cannon shot. On a t3/s3/2A/3W platform for 20pts. In a mode where a lot of factions heavy weapons are gone due to the Force Org, this could be handy.
They tried no such thing. It's "Agents of the Imperium". What it's doing is not new nor really surprising. The biggest thing seems to be that they don't want to let you game the system with an Inquisitor and a bunch of character Acolytes, hence the mandate of the min squad size of 5 for the Troops choice that the Inquisitor brings along.
Please take a few moments and actually read the PDF and the article it was linked from. HQs aren't mandatory. They literally set up a way for you to grant yourself enhancements without needing a character leading your force if you chose to run "pure" Arbites.
New Battle Brother leaks, courtesy of Auspex Tactics on Youtube:
tldw:
- Only 1 BB (Battle brother) detachment per faction.
- No overall purity protection, you only keep your doctrine if their are already some rules in your codex to do so (ex: harlequin travelling players, free dreadblade, etc...)
- No two big faction BB (ex: Imperial Guard and Space Marines; Thousand Sons and Death Guard; Aeldar and Drukari)
- Space Marines can take one knight, one agent of the imperium or one Votan !
- Guard can only take scions
- CSM is limited to deamons, TS and DG to Tzeentch and Nurgle.
- Belacor is the only one who can take 2 BB ! Corvus Knight and CSM.
- Aelves can only take Harlequins.
- Genestealer Cults can only take Brood Brothers super heavy, patrol or auxiliary support.
One loss is that admech can't take a mechanicus house knight any more, it has to be a freeblade if I read that right. It also doesn't mention % limitations or other shenanigans that GSC and chaos see, so safe to assume it's whatever is printed in the codex for those.
Voss wrote: It also seems to bizarrely downplay how stupidly big 40k ships are, especially Space Hulks. Its another lore mismatch, because we absolutely know there hallways big enough for tanks and large open spaces big enough for full scale battlefields.
A competent gaming group can come up with exceptions around that for different scenarios.
Slight correction to dread their, the options for space marines are, in fact, pan imperial, so guard, admech, sisters, etc are under the same rules (one knight, one agent of the imperium or Votan patrol)
Voss wrote: It also seems to bizarrely downplay how stupidly big 40k ships are, especially Space Hulks. Its another lore mismatch, because we absolutely know there hallways big enough for tanks and large open spaces big enough for full scale battlefields.
A competent gaming group can come up with exceptions around that for different scenarios.
A 'competent gaming group' doesn't need to be sold special rules for... walls and doors. Regardless, if your justification is you can just make stuff up, then you don't need what GW is trying to sell you.
I wouldn't put it past GW to have Imperium Nihilus fall, reduced to a few isolated holdfasts like Baal. They could solidiy the north half of the galaxy as 'bad guy dark zone' while allowing the Imperium to endure and even rebuild in Sanctus. Could set the stage for some cool narratives in the future. I am also keen to hear more about this fine Vashtorr fellow, he seems an upstanding gentleman.
Also, giving out pilotable space hulks which come with a free constant-conflict-simulator* onboard? Abby sure does know how to catch the eyes of Chaos Warlords
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love how the fluff talks up Haarken Worldclaimer.
I think he's the Chaos Lord that Abaddon makes the other Chaos Lords invite to their party so he doesn't feel left out.
It definitely feels like a reverse case of "show, don't tell". As far as him being a herald of Abbadon, he doesn't seem to do a great job. It would be better if they highlighted that he was just the most recent person for this position which has high turnover and Haarken is desperate to make sure his head isn't on the line for failing Abby.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love how the fluff talks up Haarken Worldclaimer.
I think he's the Chaos Lord that Abaddon makes the other Chaos Lords invite to their party so he doesn't feel left out.
It would be hilarious if they played his title completely straight and he was something like Abaddon's notary, going around and literally just claiming worlds, not conquering them. Imagine a pictscreen in the government palace lighting up, and it's just that frumpy guy who clears his throat, dons his chaos-star reading glasses, and rattles of a bunch of dark legalese and basically gives you a notice of eviction All hail Haarken, he who files in triplicate, crosser of all ts, keeper of deadlines, dotter of is, who lets the galaxy run red with ink and those little 'sign here' stickers.
"Join the Warmaster at the outset of his grand coup-de-grace" Shouldn't the coup-de-grace come at the end? And mean he's won?
Yeah, not really impressed with any of this yet. I was amused they mentioned it as being the most significant event since Gathering Storm, since I can't recall anything about that, though I assume it was what led to the Rift being formed. Then there's the gifts of the Arks of Omen, which seem kind of terrible. "Here's a space hulk. It's about 5% easier to control than a regular one but it's still infested with all manner of horrible things!" I think a "thanks, but no thanks" might have been the best answer from old Abby there.
I wonder how long it's going to take GW to realise that literally none of their ongoing storyline expansion series have had any real impact on the player base. I can see these books sitting on shelves for a long time. I just don't think there are enough players out there who are keen to invest in a set of books with no Matched Play rules in them.
"Join the Warmaster at the outset of his grand coup-de-grace" Shouldn't the coup-de-grace come at the end? And mean he's won?
Yeah, not really impressed with any of this yet. I was amused they mentioned it as being the most significant event since Gathering Storm, since I can't recall anything about that, though I assume it was what led to the Rift being formed. Then there's the gifts of the Arks of Omen, which seem kind of terrible. "Here's a space hulk. It's about 5% easier to control than a regular one but it's still infested with all manner of horrible things!" I think a "thanks, but no thanks" might have been the best answer from old Abby there.
He obviously needs Vasthor's help to build another extension for his mantlepiece, to store all the Chekov's guns he's collecting. According to the WarCom article, Abaddon't once again sends out his minions to collect 'mysterious artifacts', a.k.a. MacGuffins and plot devices that only ever pay of in years, if at all. At this point his 'preparing' and 'staging' feels like these filler episodes in anime where people just scream at each other and summarize the plot for weeks before anything actually happens. The Imperium is literally ripped apart, the Demon Primarchs are back, the power of Hell flows freely into the universe and Servants of the Dark Gods walk the realm of men. How much more preparing do you need?
His 'long coup de grace' sums that gak up perfectly: a coup de grace is a swift killing blow to a defeated enemy, not whatever this is. I guess the glacial advance of the heresy books has poisoned the mind of the studio people...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love how the fluff talks up Haarken Worldclaimer.
I think he's the Chaos Lord that Abaddon makes the other Chaos Lords invite to their party so he doesn't feel left out.
It would be hilarious if they played his title completely straight and he was something like Abaddon's notary, going around and literally just claiming worlds, not conquering them. Imagine a pictscreen in the government palace lighting up, and it's just that frumpy guy who clears his throat, dons his chaos-star reading glasses, and rattles of a bunch of dark legalese and basically gives you a notice of eviction All hail Haarken, he who files in triplicate, crosser of all ts, keeper of deadlines, dotter of is, who lets the galaxy run red with ink and those little 'sign here' stickers.
I mean, even the text itself seems to suggest that the Warmaster's daily routine is a bureaucratic quagmire:
The first book, Arks of Omen: Abaddon, finds our eponymous villain and/or anti-hero mulling over his next strategic move following Haarken Worldclaimer’s reaving of the Nachmund Gauntlet. The Imperium Nihilus is barely holding together, despite desperate victories on Vigilus and Baal, and the Despoiler senses that it’s time to tighten his grip and seize ultimate control.
But where to strike next? Abaddon has survived the Long War by picking his fights with care, and so he spends his waking hours surrounded by charts and data-banks and dark prophets, his frustration and battle-lust growing by the day.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love how the fluff talks up Haarken Worldclaimer.
I think he's the Chaos Lord that Abaddon makes the other Chaos Lords invite to their party so he doesn't feel left out.
It would be hilarious if they played his title completely straight and he was something like Abaddon's notary, going around and literally just claiming worlds, not conquering them. Imagine a pictscreen in the government palace lighting up, and it's just that frumpy guy who clears his throat, dons his chaos-star reading glasses, and rattles of a bunch of dark legalese and basically gives you a notice of eviction All hail Haarken, he who files in triplicate, crosser of all ts, keeper of deadlines, dotter of is, who lets the galaxy run red with ink and those little 'sign here' stickers.
I mean, even the text itself seems to suggest that the Warmaster's daily routine is a bureaucratic quagmire:
The first book, Arks of Omen: Abaddon, finds our eponymous villain and/or anti-hero mulling over his next strategic move following Haarken Worldclaimer’s reaving of the Nachmund Gauntlet. The Imperium Nihilus is barely holding together, despite desperate victories on Vigilus and Baal, and the Despoiler senses that it’s time to tighten his grip and seize ultimate control.
But where to strike next? Abaddon has survived the Long War by picking his fights with care, and so he spends his waking hours surrounded by charts and data-banks and dark prophets, his frustration and battle-lust growing by the day.
The Dark Mechanicum is so passé, give me the Dark Administratum Nurgle as the patron of the unchanging ledger and the tallyman of all things, Tzeentch the god of typos and miscalculation, Slaanesh who indulges in perfect records, and Khorne to collect his tithe in battle...
Dark administratum actually sounds like ... not a half bad idea actually. For certain a corrupted part of the administratum would make for a nice background for a campaign or story.
Not Online!!! wrote: Dark administratum actually sounds like ... not a half bad idea actually. For certain a corrupted part of the administratum would make for a nice background for a campaign or story.
On the face of it ''administrating chaos'' borders on slapstick, but you can obviously play it straight into a story about the banality of evil and uncommon forms of excess & corruption if you wish.
Not Online!!! wrote: Dark administratum actually sounds like ... not a half bad idea actually. For certain a corrupted part of the administratum would make for a nice background for a campaign or story.
On the face of it ''administrating chaos'' borders on slapstick, but you can obviously play it straight into a story about the banality of evil and uncommon forms of excess & corruption if you wish.
Absolutly, but chaos in the 40k sense is not chaos colloqually known and used by us.
Not Online!!! wrote: Dark administratum actually sounds like ... not a half bad idea actually. For certain a corrupted part of the administratum would make for a nice background for a campaign or story.
On the face of it ''administrating chaos'' borders on slapstick, but you can obviously play it straight into a story about the banality of evil and uncommon forms of excess & corruption if you wish.
Absolutly, but chaos in the 40k sense is not chaos colloqually known and used by us.
True, 40k 'chaos' is far too regimented, restricted and patterned.
Slipspace wrote: Then there's the gifts of the Arks of Omen, which seem kind of terrible. "Here's a space hulk. It's about 5% easier to control than a regular one but it's still infested with all manner of horrible things!" I think a "thanks, but no thanks" might have been the best answer from old Abby there.
Except a lot of CSM warbands already use space hulks (that still move randomly despite the efforts of band sorcerers and stuff) because they can't get their hands on a real ship and have to make do with what's available. For them, more controllable hulks would be a real boon (and funnily enough, a good way to explain why Khornate warbands don't self kill in transit like most of old fluff says they should). Fanfiction CSM with battle barge per squad sporting pristine 30K tech just aren't a thing, most of Chaos are beggars deep below level of being picky.
Voss wrote: True, 40k 'chaos' is far too regimented, restricted and patterned.
But when GW tries to play up the '10000 year old champions, each master of different, legendary, one of a kind weapon' a bit more with the rules, complete with more free form loadouts, the loud minority upset their snowflake CSM more regimented and copy-pasted than freshly inducted Cadians (complete with brand new combi-plasma plus whatever melee weapon is the best in X edition spam) starts to whine. Go figure
"Join the Warmaster at the outset of his grand coup-de-grace" Shouldn't the coup-de-grace come at the end? And mean he's won?
Yeah, not really impressed with any of this yet. I was amused they mentioned it as being the most significant event since Gathering Storm, since I can't recall anything about that, though I assume it was what led to the Rift being formed. Then there's the gifts of the Arks of Omen, which seem kind of terrible. "Here's a space hulk. It's about 5% easier to control than a regular one but it's still infested with all manner of horrible things!" I think a "thanks, but no thanks" might have been the best answer from old Abby there.
I wonder how long it's going to take GW to realise that literally none of their ongoing storyline expansion series have had any real impact on the player base. I can see these books sitting on shelves for a long time. I just don't think there are enough players out there who are keen to invest in a set of books with no Matched Play rules in them.
I find myself dramatically more invested in 40k as a setting with plot movement than without. While I feel some elements could have been handled better overall I have been quite happy with the plot developments thus far. If anything I am MORE excited for these because they have no Matched Play rules; I'm not interested in 40ks Matched Play at all so that would be wasted page space for me.
well, we have seen how a pure narrative ruleset without any matched play rules works out with the first edition of AoS
And I don't know any game system that does not use some sort of matched play
even Black Powder adds matched play rules with the army list supplements
and it is not like we had the ongoing story line before, but GW likes to reset the story back to "shortly before" because their grim dark flair comes from everything is close to the end were the big clash happens and they don't know how to proceed
they advanced the story in 8th to point X after M40 and in 9th we "explore" the time between M40 and point X
if 10th does not go beyond the point we already reached in 8th than the advancing plotline is just a marketing buzzword but not more
It might just be me but I find the whole battle Brothers detachment pretty weird. Especially because somehow a bunch of space dwarfs are much better and closer allies to the Imperium than the various subgroupings within the Imperium are. But I guess that it's another of those things that wasn't really thought through.
And, of course, it's amazing that you can have a knight walking with your guardsmen but you can't have guardsmen walking with multiple knights.
Dolnikan wrote: It might just be me but I find the whole battle Brothers detachment pretty weird. Especially because somehow a bunch of space dwarfs are much better and closer allies to the Imperium than the various subgroupings within the Imperium are. But I guess that it's another of those things that wasn't really thought through.
And, of course, it's amazing that you can have a knight walking with your guardsmen but you can't have guardsmen walking with multiple knights.
that latter part is almost certianly a deliberate decision to limit knights players ability to grab some cheap obsec point holders and cover one of their "traditional" weaknesses the designers want the faction to have, like SM scouts being moved to elites..
tneva82 wrote: Doesn't matter if they move year though. The status quo situation will still remain with "I'll get you next time!" saturday cartoon.
Player wanted 40k be turned from setting to saturday cartoon, GW gave them that.
Pretty sure a warp rift tearing the galaxy in half qualifies as more than 'I'll get you next time!' not to mention important character/planet losses. If that's your Saturday cartoon then damm, they were a hell of a lot better than mine!
tneva82 wrote: Doesn't matter if they move year though. The status quo situation will still remain with "I'll get you next time!" saturday cartoon.
Player wanted 40k be turned from setting to saturday cartoon, GW gave them that.
Pretty sure a warp rift tearing the galaxy in half qualifies as more than 'I'll get you next time!' not to mention important character/planet losses. If that's your Saturday cartoon then damm, they were a hell of a lot better than mine!
When I was a kid everyone watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop and Serial Experiments Lain.
I swear there were no psychological drawbacks.
Voss wrote: It also seems to bizarrely downplay how stupidly big 40k ships are, especially Space Hulks. Its another lore mismatch, because we absolutely know there hallways big enough for tanks and large open spaces big enough for full scale battlefields.
A competent gaming group can come up with exceptions around that for different scenarios.
A 'competent gaming group' doesn't need to be sold special rules for... walls and doors. Regardless, if your justification is you can just make stuff up, then you don't need what GW is trying to sell you.
"Join the Warmaster at the outset of his grand coup-de-grace" Shouldn't the coup-de-grace come at the end? And mean he's won?
Yeah, I don't think it's saying a lot that this is the "biggest event since Gathering Storm" when the vast majority of stuff from the last few narrative updates have led pretty much nowhere and were overall just forgettable. They hinted at Psychic Awakening being a big thing with everyone being affected by Psychic Events to an unprecedented level, Tyranids were meant to be getting more powerful, Magnus had plans of making an Psychic Empire, blackstone was something everyone was scrambling to get, Orks were gathering in utterly absurd numbers not seen before, and after all that in terms of actual significant stuff it was mostly..... Baal gets almost destroyed but is saved at the last minute because Guilliman and Primaris, and I guess the Ragnar / Ghazghull fight.
The Baal system was pretty much consumed and almost all Blood Angels (first founding and successors) devoured.
Casualties were about half, and were instantly replaced by Primaris when Bob showed up at the end and chased away the remnant fleet in space.
One of moons was basically depopulated, the other was fine. Given that's a small, irradiated scavenger population, it fits into the 'so what?' category of imperial losses.
Bob also encouraged Dante to remake Baal into somewhere worth living rather than an irradiated hellscape to breed recruits, so really it's a net positive for the Imperium longterm.
Kind of like blowing up Cadia resulting in Bob and Primaris.
So, regarding the Arks of Omen detachment, GW promised: "a couple of specific additional rules to it to allow for unusual armies like Drukhari and Dark Angels forces". Do you think they will release these rules once books hit the stores?
I'd like to run some "mixed" detachments (Kabal + Coven, for example), so it'd be nice to know if it's possible/what can be done to let all units in the detachment benefit from their Obsessions.
SarisKhan wrote: So, regarding the Arks of Omen detachment, GW promised: "a couple of specific additional rules to it to allow for unusual armies like Drukhari and Dark Angels forces". Do you think they will release these rules once books hit the stores?
I'd like to run some "mixed" detachments (Kabal + Coven, for example), so it'd be nice to know if it's possible/what can be done to let all units in the detachment benefit from their Obsessions.
You can make the ark of omen detachment realspace raid detachment though need to have all 3 of them for it.
Platuan4th wrote: The Dark Angels apparently already had their rules added to the DAFAQ that day.
Oh well, so it's either 1 or 3 subfactions in one detachment, no middle ground (if I want Obsessions to work). Unless they eventually remember to release an FAQ for us too
Voss wrote: It also seems to bizarrely downplay how stupidly big 40k ships are, especially Space Hulks. Its another lore mismatch, because we absolutely know there hallways big enough for tanks and large open spaces big enough for full scale battlefields.
A competent gaming group can come up with exceptions around that for different scenarios.
A 'competent gaming group' doesn't need to be sold special rules for... walls and doors. Regardless, if your justification is you can just make stuff up, then you don't need what GW is trying to sell you.
"Join the Warmaster at the outset of his grand coup-de-grace" Shouldn't the coup-de-grace come at the end? And mean he's won?
Yeah, I don't think it's saying a lot that this is the "biggest event since Gathering Storm" when the vast majority of stuff from the last few narrative updates have led pretty much nowhere and were overall just forgettable. They hinted at Psychic Awakening being a big thing with everyone being affected by Psychic Events to an unprecedented level, Tyranids were meant to be getting more powerful, Magnus had plans of making an Psychic Empire, blackstone was something everyone was scrambling to get, Orks were gathering in utterly absurd numbers not seen before, and after all that in terms of actual significant stuff it was mostly..... Baal gets almost destroyed but is saved at the last minute because Guilliman and Primaris, and I guess the Ragnar / Ghazghull fight.
Psychic Awakening promised Gathering Storm 2, what we got was the old style where nothing really changes. It is what I disliked about the old style of 40k setting writing; they are a bunch of flashes for no significant movement in plot or development for characters/factions. It was just a big showy way to keep the setting like it was.
tneva82 wrote: Doesn't matter if they move year though. The status quo situation will still remain with "I'll get you next time!" saturday cartoon.
Player wanted 40k be turned from setting to saturday cartoon, GW gave them that.
Pretty sure a warp rift tearing the galaxy in half qualifies as more than 'I'll get you next time!' not to mention important character/planet losses. If that's your Saturday cartoon then damm, they were a hell of a lot better than mine!
When I was a kid everyone watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop and Serial Experiments Lain.
I swear there were no psychological drawbacks.
Something I don't think I've seen mentioned anywhere is the impact of the new Arks detachment on Incursion games – seems like at lower than 2K, having to take 3 of the same of at least one Battlefield Role is going to be quite restrictive, certainly for some armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Cue a load of people getting mad at the suggestion anyone might play anything other than 2K games…)
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love how the fluff talks up Haarken Worldclaimer.
I think he's the Chaos Lord that Abaddon makes the other Chaos Lords invite to their party so he doesn't feel left out.
It would be hilarious if they played his title completely straight and he was something like Abaddon's notary, going around and literally just claiming worlds, not conquering them. Imagine a pictscreen in the government palace lighting up, and it's just that frumpy guy who clears his throat, dons his chaos-star reading glasses, and rattles of a bunch of dark legalese and basically gives you a notice of eviction All hail Haarken, he who files in triplicate, crosser of all ts, keeper of deadlines, dotter of is, who lets the galaxy run red with ink and those little 'sign here' stickers.
I mean, even the text itself seems to suggest that the Warmaster's daily routine is a bureaucratic quagmire:
The first book, Arks of Omen: Abaddon, finds our eponymous villain and/or anti-hero mulling over his next strategic move following Haarken Worldclaimer’s reaving of the Nachmund Gauntlet. The Imperium Nihilus is barely holding together, despite desperate victories on Vigilus and Baal, and the Despoiler senses that it’s time to tighten his grip and seize ultimate control.
But where to strike next? Abaddon has survived the Long War by picking his fights with care, and so he spends his waking hours surrounded by charts and data-banks and dark prophets, his frustration and battle-lust growing by the day.
The Dark Mechanicum is so passé, give me the Dark Administratum Nurgle as the patron of the unchanging ledger and the tallyman of all things, Tzeentch the god of typos and miscalculation, Slaanesh who indulges in perfect records, and Khorne to collect his tithe in battle...
Not Online!!! wrote: Dark administratum actually sounds like ... not a half bad idea actually. For certain a corrupted part of the administratum would make for a nice background for a campaign or story.
On the face of it ''administrating chaos'' borders on slapstick, but you can obviously play it straight into a story about the banality of evil and uncommon forms of excess & corruption if you wish.
Lord_Valorion wrote: The GT book is already sold out everywhere. feth them and their FOMO gak, I will play Tempest and Open War for the next 6 months.
They're both 40k fun mode anyway, 100% my preference on game type.
I've not bought a single one of the GT mission packs since they started doing them, and I've still managed to have plenty of enjoyable games of 40K in that time (using the rulebook missions and the Open War / Tempest decks). I just wish more people would get on board with the idea there's more than just a single way to approach the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That said, I do think it's quite weird what limited quantities the last two GT packs seem to have been produced in.
So, did anyone else notice that the advertised boarding patrol box (abbadon, five legionaries, twenty cultists) is now over the point limit for a boarding patrol after the dataslate changes?
Haven’t checked the other boxes but it’s probably worth doing if you collect the forces depicted.
Mr_Rose wrote: So, did anyone else notice that the advertised boarding patrol box (abbadon, five legionaries, twenty cultists) is now over the point limit for a boarding patrol after the dataslate changes?
Haven’t checked the other boxes but it’s probably worth doing if you collect the forces depicted.
That box has actually 10 legionaries inside as the sprues can't be split up into 5's.
Even before the new points list those models are still well over the 500pt limit. It's weird that they included a second unit of cultists, I wonder if this box will have a different price to the space marine version.
Mr_Rose wrote: So, did anyone else notice that the advertised boarding patrol box (abbadon, five legionaries, twenty cultists) is now over the point limit for a boarding patrol after the dataslate changes?
Haven’t checked the other boxes but it’s probably worth doing if you collect the forces depicted.
Before the point changes they where 580 for CSM and 445 for SM plus wargear points.
Now they are 630 for CSM and 390 for SM plus wargear points.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Doesn't the article itself point out that the boarding patrol will have some lect over?
It does:
GW wrote:* Out of the box this collection has a few too many points for a single Boarding Action force, but that just gives you more options to play around with.
We have yet to see the price and this is still not a good box for it on account of Abbadon being in it, but we should be happy for every opportunity to get more Cultists for less money. In my opinion anyway. The separate Cultist box is not what you should want for a horde unit, or one with weapon options for that matter. Shame GW cheaped out on it.
Because they don't make a "cool lord with lots of weapon options". They do make a limited amount of versions of chaos lords, some with minimal weapon options.
Mr_Rose wrote: So, did anyone else notice that the advertised boarding patrol box (abbadon, five legionaries, twenty cultists) is now over the point limit for a boarding patrol after the dataslate changes?
Haven’t checked the other boxes but it’s probably worth doing if you collect the forces depicted.
That box has actually 10 legionaries inside as the sprues can't be split up into 5's.
Even before the new points list those models are still well over the 500pt limit. It's weird that they included a second unit of cultists, I wonder if this box will have a different price to the space marine version.
Huh, wasn’t aware of that; I went by the picture which only shows five legionaries. But if we assume the as-printed points and the picture as the intended goal, it actually works; 300 for yabbadabbadon, 90 for five marines, 100 for 20 cultists, leaving 10 points for some upgrades, or drop a cultist or two for more.
Then the balance slate went and made that non-viable.
As a millenial I have never had trouble understanding the term. I half-disagree with its application to 40k, but the argument being made is clear and not unreasonable to make.
NinthMusketeer wrote: As a millenial I have never had trouble understanding the term. I half-disagree with its application to 40k, but the argument being made is clear and not unreasonable to make.
In my opinion it's more apt to liken modern 40k narratives to super hero comics where named characters travel any amount of distance to meet up somewhere, test their wits and let their armies clash, then end with climactic fisticuffs that result in some kind of draw to preserve all characters for their next appearance.
Saturday morning cartoon villainy describes a subset of characters who stand out for inherently not suffering consequences if they lose in a fight and for whom no special action is required to preserve them for their next appearance. I put Necrons in this category, but they're not the only ones. For an example in Warhammer Fantasy, during the End Times Vlad got shanked by anyone and everyone because he handily returned to (un)life in no time due to his magic ring.
40k doesn't have to have the former and doesn't so consistently have to use the latter, but that's what the writers chose to go with.
A 'competent gaming group' doesn't need to be sold special rules for... walls and doors. Regardless, if your justification is you can just make stuff up, then you don't need what 
Exciting. After shearing the galaxy in half and doing... pretty much nothing with that, letting the necrons flatten the warp and driving people mad(der) and doing nothing with that, giving abaddon's forces some extra large boats seems.. underwhelming
