warl0rdb0b wrote: Has anyone seen anything on Orkimedes? I've just been sent a fairly convincing image of him for the Armageddon release.
It's AI. You can tell because unlike how GW uses clear, repeated iconography and design elements across a faction it has bits that are just weird melted shapes.
I fell for it. The transparent brain dome should've given it away. Ah well. Getting old.
warl0rdb0b wrote: Has anyone seen anything on Orkimedes? I've just been sent a fairly convincing image of him for the Armageddon release.
It's AI. You can tell because unlike how GW uses clear, repeated iconography and design elements across a faction it has bits that are just weird melted shapes.
I fell for it. The transparent brain dome should've given it away. Ah well. Getting old.
Saw your FB of it. The left hand has The Dreaded Finglers.
Two Thumbs Fresh indeed. Yes, I expect only a select few Dakkanauts to get that reference.
warl0rdb0b wrote: Has anyone seen anything on Orkimedes? I've just been sent a fairly convincing image of him for the Armageddon release.
It's AI. You can tell because unlike how GW uses clear, repeated iconography and design elements across a faction it has bits that are just weird melted shapes.
I fell for it. The transparent brain dome should've given it away. Ah well. Getting old.
Yeah, there were a few things that didn't sit right with me, but my brain was too tired to work out what they were. The friend that sent it to me was utterly convinced it was real though, until the details were pointed out.
Selfcontrol wrote: Given the huge number of units now present on the battlefield, with a few rare exceptions, taking a plasma pistol instead of a laspistol has no impact on the course of a game. This made sense when a 1000 points army was made up of fewer than 30 regular CSM, a Dreadnought, and a Chaos Lord (I still have my old Codex City Fight and this is what a 1000 CSM used to be) : every single loss was felt.
Nowadays, not so much.
I try really hard not to get caught up in pistol arguments. Most units do not at any point fire their pistols during a game. The value of one special pistol is so incrementally small its basically impossible for it to have a meaningful impact on the points value of the unit.
That said, I think there are places where GW found niches for weapons and places they clearly failed. Often times its very clear that they overvalued a single extra attack for a huge number of weapons and basically every weapon that was relying on Dev Wounds got abandoned when GW realized how dangerous the tools they provided to enable that rule were (Oath/Eldar/Etc). There are also weapons that were clearly designed as grunt only that remain Sgt options I assume largely for backward compatability. I do think Las Cannons design largely worked. Melta almost got there but probably just needs a close range STR boost more than DMG.
Looking forward to how they take another swing at things in 11th. I think a lot of weapons are in a good place and a lot that need a total rework. I'm curious to see how GW approaches these kind of things, as it seems like something that you save for a full codex update..
The pistol is just an example to demonstrate the point. You can make it as big as you want. The Riptide's massive heavy burst cannon never gets taken either because it fundamentally does not fill a useful role whereas the ion accelerator does.
I should also add that every time horde armies have gotten remotely decent in 10th edition GW has obliterated them with nerfs. Tyranid endless swarm, Ork mass boyz builds, etc. GW very clearly doesn't want an environment to exist where guns like the burst cannon are useful, and I don't see how 11th edition is supposed to fix that.
Overread wrote: GW has already tried to make close combat a flat value no matter weapons. AoS is doing it all the time now and Tyranid Warriors are doing it too
So on that score we could see GW making ranged kits for 40K with loads of different weapons and just a "ranged weapon" stat profile Instead of one per weapon type.
Epic40K was Jervis's favourite system (it wasn't bad at all, though I do prefer Epic Armageddon), so he might still have a few acolytes and Firepower Table in the studio...
Seriously I think Ghaz is just treating it like having a playdate now.
It would be funny if that is how he's treating it, unaware in the way Orks are of the frailty and aging of humans
I guess this time it's Deus Ex Wolf Machina for how Yarrick survived.
But yeah, there's precedence for Ghazzy not delivering the killing blow and wanting more of a challenge, so I think he's trying to milk Yarrick for what he's worth by not killing him.
The wolves have built an efficient 'resurrect people after losing to Thraka' medical pipeline when they rebuilt Ragnar, so Yarrick is just par for the course. The wolves are going to sit in orbit resurrecting everyone like DBZ so Armageddon never ends.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno, a steady, measured advance with fortifications left in your wake sounds pretty solid.
Time consuming? Yes. But when you’re Immortal? What does time matter to you.
And how does he plan to garrison them as he moves forward? Or is he going to leave them with understrength garrisons or even empty? His mortal forces are not infinite. Realspace fortifications and weaponry will also require maintenance and ammunition, while troops will need food. How is he going to keep them all supplied (especially if he turns each world into a wasteland of fortifications)? The demands on his forces and logistical train will grow and grow. While he might strip mine worlds initially to raise his fortifications, not sure how he will keep them sustainable in the long run.
You don't need that many troops in a well-fortified garrison and most of them/almost all won't be Iron Warriors but human traitors and lots of servitors. Food? Build some underground algae/fungus/whatever plantations like the Squats or the Valhallans and eat vermin and dead people.
Ah, legends for his BSF character, and not a generic "Man of Iron" with a new model release. For example, Espern, Tadius and Pious returned as a Navigator and Ministorum Priests, respectively. I should have been more specific.
If that art is scale accurate, it looks like Perturabo is at least 40 feet tall to the top of his head, not counting all the servo arms. That would make him as bulky as a Knight. I'm kind of hoping this is some artistic liberty and he's actually about half that size.
Khorne manifests himself to battle the Ghosts, killing several major characters including That Guy and What's His Name. He's beating down Gaunt who can barely parry the Empire State Building-sized Bloodaxe of Skulls using the Honor Sword of That Dead Dude when suddenly, out of frikking nowhere M'Koll jumps out of the shadows and backstabs Khorne with his Straight Silver. Thus ending the war and in fact all wars everywhere since no one feels bloodlust.
Gaunt is promoted to Assistant Vice Emperor and the Ghosts are sent on another suicide mission.
Do you have a quote and citation? I thought firm numbers were never actually given, with GW using the copout of any in-universe listing saying it was just 1 page of a larger listing of forces.
Page 70, this is after a summer of fighting however.
Ashiraya wrote: A colossal one. They dropped its points by 24%, down to 65. They were really miles off base.
That AND they buffed it by giving the lash whip extra attacks rather than keeping it as a separate weapon profile, so it has a lot of value purely from the amount of attacks it puts out alone with up to 12-14 attacks for a single model.
The upgrade thing is interesting. Basically a way to return some limited wargear options, and it'll be fairly useful for the sub-detachments that don't favour characters.
For example if there's an Ork dread-themed detachment you could upgrade any deff dreads as well as having some duplicates.
xttz wrote: The upgrade thing is interesting. Basically a way to return some limited wargear options, and it'll be fairly useful for the sub-detachments that don't favour characters.
For example if there's an Ork dread-themed detachment you could upgrade any deff dreads as well as having some duplicates.
Conversely we're straight back into a situation where a 20pt reroll 1s to hit or whatever is great on a 10 man unit of terminators but sucks ass on 5 legionnaires or whatever.
Want to hear more about mission selection. I like the concept of compare with your opponent and get something thematic. But for people with limited models, if might get very same-y. You could always change your detachment for more choices.
Will be interesting to see how it falls out. I’ve got deep enough collections I’m fine with whatever. But for someone who just buys a focused 2k list it could be an issue.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Definitely intrigued, but worryingly I think it’s something which could go horribly wrong.
Same. I can imagine angles like fielding just enough "Recon" to force the mission to be "everyone must dogpile into opposite deployment zone" and then filling the rest of your force with melee hammers.
Definitely intrigued, but worryingly I think it’s something which could go horribly wrong.
It’s GW.
They shake up the system every edition. Most of their ideas sound fine on paper, but sometimes the execution has issues.
I like to try to take the whole thing with an attitude of cautious optimism, with a dollop of cynical wariness. When we get snips of info like this it’s easy to see how it could be broken. All we can do is hope the guys writing the rules could also see that, and fixed it in the fine print that WarCom is not privy to, or isn’t going into the weeds of the rules to clarify.
But with GW’s track record, we can’t assume too much. Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment, as they say…
You might be thinking, “Hold on! What if that swanky new Detachment features a unit type that doesn’t have any Characters? Aren’t Enhancements useless?” and that would be a pretty good question. The new edition introduces the Upgrade tag on some Enhancements, which means they can be applied to up to three non-Character units while only counting as a single choice – though you will need to pay their points costs individually.
I must be reading this wrong, don't you need a Character to be your Warlord?
You might be thinking, “Hold on! What if that swanky new Detachment features a unit type that doesn’t have any Characters? Aren’t Enhancements useless?” and that would be a pretty good question. The new edition introduces the Upgrade tag on some Enhancements, which means they can be applied to up to three non-Character units while only counting as a single choice – though you will need to pay their points costs individually.
I must be reading this wrong, don't you need a Character to be your Warlord?
I wonder if that's changing too...
If your army is made of multiple detachments, you might still need a character for your warlord, but if that’s the only character in your army, you might not have one for every detachment.
Especially if they have focused little detachments. You might take one that boosts tanks, but no desire to have a character with them. But being able to upgrade one would be a fun little perk.
But this is all guesswork. They might change things. Tune in for more info over the next few months; they might answer it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Definitely intrigued, but worryingly I think it’s something which could go horribly wrong.
Same. I can imagine angles like fielding just enough "Recon" to force the mission to be "everyone must dogpile into opposite deployment zone" and then filling the rest of your force with melee hammers.
Or, possibly arguably worse? They overly inform army selection, and so reduce variety of the same.
If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.
Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.
On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.
We can only hope that this is another area where regular Errata can help balance out any wonk. Especially as Codexes get updated and inevitably shift things.
If it’s great out the gate? Horray and hurrah! But errata might be the key to patching it up to work.
Also intrigued to see what the organised event community do with it.
Conversely we're straight back into a situation where a 20pt reroll 1s to hit or whatever is great on a 10 man unit of terminators but sucks ass on 5 legionnaires or whatever.
I suspect it'll be more common to see this used for slightly upgraded weapons/wargear. An obvious example is giving rando marine sergeant #3 his own master-crafted whatchamacallit, because you wanted to convert the model or he has some narrative backstory where he rolled enough sixes in a previous game.
My fingers are crossed for seeing the return of some old tyranid biomorphs on regular units...
If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.
Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).
But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.
If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.
Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.
On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.
Good points. With missions being so integrated with army construction, I also wonder if anything beyond the Five Matched Play Missions will even exist or is this just straight up the death of narrative play? 5 tournament missions and that's it forever (until they make a season book with a grid of 5 New Matched Play Missions)?
Lathe Biosas wrote: I wonder if there will be Allied Detachments. Where you can get bonuses for taking Imperial Agents or Knights.
With army structure being multiple detachments, it would be very simple to include ally rules again. Want a knight? Take the “lone knight” detachment in your imperial force and have fun!
I would hopeGW uses the changes in the core system to make this sort of thing much simpler. It’s seems real easy, and a shame if they don’t. I’d bet they do, but who knows.
If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.
Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).
But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.
A legitimate fear. We could also see a return of having identical units with different rules determined simply by how they were added to your army list.
If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.
Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.
On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.
Good points. With missions being so integrated with army construction, I also wonder if anything beyond the Five Matched Play Missions will even exist or is this just straight up the death of narrative play? 5 tournament missions and that's it forever (until they make a season book with a grid of 5 New Matched Play Missions)?
Sorry, not sure if your 5 mission thing is an assumption or based on confirmed info.
But if the former, with 5 Dispositions and their comparison determining Mission, seems we could be on for…erm…maths is not my strong suit…25 missions? I think? 5 Dispositions multiplied by 5 potential disposition matches = 25?
If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.
Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.
On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.
Good points. With missions being so integrated with army construction, I also wonder if anything beyond the Five Matched Play Missions will even exist or is this just straight up the death of narrative play? 5 tournament missions and that's it forever (until they make a season book with a grid of 5 New Matched Play Missions)?
Narrative players will continue to invent their own missions regardless, as they have continually since the late 1980's.
I am hoping official Crusade support continues though, since it makes onboarding new players much easier.
TBH this suggests the 11th ed ruleset is going in literally the exact opposite direction that I'd want it to, and back down the same gakker as 9th.
Oversimplistic core rules that are for everyone, plus a billion special rule combinations that are written down on someone's army list and not present on the table, so you've got to remember hundreds of unit special rules to play the game and can't just look at your opponent's models and see what they do.
Let's hope 12th is a huge reset, because all this cruft needs to go in the bin to make the game actually fun again.
If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.
Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).
But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.
Saw someone saying that there's basically three kinds of detachment:
1 point - buffs a single unit. so a terminator detachment would literally only buff them.
3 point - full army buff, like gladius.
They didn't specify what 2 point detachments are, but I got the implication they were "wider but not full army" buffs. Like the warcom article mentioned a detachment that specifically effects infantry, that kinda thing.
Pretty sure GW themselves said soup is definitely not back on the menu as you still choose which army your force belongs to, but maybe we'll at least see Knights and Agents (and Daemons for the spiky bois) able to be taken alongside other forces like they are now.
ZergSmasher wrote: Pretty sure GW themselves said soup is definitely not back on the menu as you still choose which army your force belongs to, but maybe we'll at least see Knights and Agents (and Daemons for the spiky bois) able to be taken alongside other forces like they are now.
I presume the special rules of Agents and Daemon detachments will include somthing similar to what IA currently have, allowing them to be taken in specific armies regardless of belonging to a different faction.
ZergSmasher wrote: Pretty sure GW themselves said soup is definitely not back on the menu as you still choose which army your force belongs to, but maybe we'll at least see Knights and Agents (and Daemons for the spiky bois) able to be taken alongside other forces like they are now.
There are still a lot of unknowns on how the whole system is going to function. Will the “Imperial” or “Chaos” keyword be enough to define an army in 11th?
One of the issues with old soup lists was the super friends deathstars. Take characters from assorted armies, layer their special rules into one indestructible unit, profit.
One thing we do know about 11th is that characters attach to units at list building, not deployment. I assume (and we knows how that goes) that they will limit the units leaders can lead to ones in their detachments. This stops cross-detachment unseen synergies, where a rule/enhancement is fine in one det but would be broken when applied to another. The fact that the number of detachments you can take is capped will also keep a lid on things. 2 for 1k lists and 3 for 2k.
Right now the Imperial Agents list includes the SoB/GK/DW. The craftworld eldar codex includes harils/corsairs/DE. Soup is here. But it’s not universal. From what I’ve seen the framework of 11th will allow mixed armies without being broken. Admittedly, we’ve just a snapshot glance. Even if it’s not official GW, narrative players should be able to use it with just mild tweaks to get allied forces fighting alongside each other again. Hopefully GW will bake that into the core rules.
If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.
Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).
But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.
Saw someone saying that there's basically three kinds of detachment:
1 point - buffs a single unit. so a terminator detachment would literally only buff them.
3 point - full army buff, like gladius.
They didn't specify what 2 point detachments are, but I got the implication they were "wider but not full army" buffs. Like the warcom article mentioned a detachment that specifically effects infantry, that kinda thing.
To use Tyranids as an example, I could see Assimilation Swarm being 1 point, Vanguard Onslaught being 2, and Invasion Fleet being 3.
My expectation is that they'll keep the most flexible codex detachments (gladius, invasion fleet, etc) at 3pts, and drop some of the niche / lesser-used ones down to 2pts. Then only the 70 new detachments will be 1pt, and have a much narrower focus (possibly also with fewer than 6 strats & 4 enhancements / upgrades).
So potentially you could throw a (1pt) daemon engine detachment in to support the narrowly-focused Possessed Slaughterband (2pts), but Berzerker Warband (3pts) would need to run solo as it buffs everything.
Nevelon wrote: We could use another article with some solid examples to put a lot of these questions to rest.
But us chatting about them and wondering what’s going to happen is exactly the desired results of these teases, so mission accomplished GW.
Should be such an article today.
Warhammer Community, yesterday wrote: There’s loads more to talk about as far as missions are concerned, so check back in with us tomorrow for a first look. Otherwise, the rules for building your army will be comfortably familiar, so you can focus more on coming up with cool thematic armies and mixing Detachments that call to your hobbyist soul.
I’m torn on the 1 point detachments being used to battleline units.
IMHO if you are going to spam one kind of unit, it’s going to be a sizable chunk of your army. So the bulk of your army rules need to focus on it. That kind of dedication should be a 3 point detachment.
1 point splash dets are good if you want to include odd units, but still let them have some of their thematic fun, without dedicating a whole army to them. Add a unit of harlis to your craftworld, or have some scouts back up your battle company. That sort of thing.
xttz wrote: Then only the 70 new detachments will be 1pt, and have a much narrower focus (possibly also with fewer than 6 strats & 4 enhancements / upgrades).
Mr_Rose wrote:I wonder if a few of the 70(!) generic detachments will be as simple as unit X gains battleline for 1 detachment point.
I'll point out that it's been clarified that it's not 70 new Detachments, it's 70 new and revamped Detachments.
Just noting so you can manage your expectations better.
What I hope from this new edition is if you've got some fun minis in your army, you can tweak these detachments to actually use them. Rather than them being rendered redundant by some random change 6 months down the line.
It sounds like that's what they're going for which is great. Whether it pans out that away of course of course.
I won't be happy with this new edition unless they allow me to field my Loyal 32 Guardsmen in my army.
There's something else... a mystery deck?
All of the initial mission rules and deployment cards come in the new Chapter Approved mission deck, which will be included inside the Armageddon launch box alongside another mystery deck that we’ll talk more about soon.
Lathe Biosas wrote: I won't be happy with this new edition unless they allow me to field my Loyal 32 Guardsmen in my army.
There's something else... a mystery deck?
All of the initial mission rules and deployment cards come in the new Chapter Approved mission deck, which will be included inside the Armageddon launch box alongside another mystery deck that we’ll talk more about soon.
Return of psychic power deck confirmed!
Or maelstrom play mode? Although that space is filled with random secondary missions.
Interesting. However, I'm a little concerned this could lead to things getting stale pretty quickly. If you have a smaller group of players with only one or two armies each you could easily end up playing the same mission over and over and I'm not convinced the asymmetric nature of the missions will help too much since you're likely to be much more focussed on completing your own mission than stopping your opponent's. It feels like a good start, but maybe needs a little more to it.
Interesting. However, I'm a little concerned this could lead to things getting stale pretty quickly. If you have a smaller group of players with only one or two armies each you could easily end up playing the same mission over and over and I'm not convinced the asymmetric nature of the missions will help too much since you're likely to be much more focussed on completing your own mission than stopping your opponent's. It feels like a good start, but maybe needs a little more to it.
One thing that might help is they implied that most detachments would have more then one aspect. So even if you have 2 static armies, that should give you a few options on what missions to play. The twist they talk about will also mix things up.
skrulnik wrote: The sprue pics on Warcom look pretty cool. Also, that kit will take ages to build!
Good lord, is that three full-size sprues? That's literally twice what the Norn Emissary is built from and that one comes with a massive custom base!
Explains why it's expensive, and definitely less disappointing than the Red Corsairs Raiders (who come on two half-size sprues, for the same asking price as Sword Brethren who come on 3...)
Definitely need to know about Detachments before we really have much of a clue.
Which isn’t an attempt to shutdown conversation or criticism and that. Just…I currently like the concept as presented, but without seeing any Detachments, we’re missing important information to really digest things.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Definitely need to know about Detachments before we really have much of a clue.
Which isn’t an attempt to shutdown conversation or criticism and that. Just…I currently like the concept as presented, but without seeing any Detachments, we’re missing important information to really digest things.
Yhe game being designer around formal terrain layouts this time round is a big change. That's been a tournament thing historically that we assumed was considered but is now core rules.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Definitely need to know about Detachments before we really have much of a clue.
Which isn’t an attempt to shutdown conversation or criticism and that. Just…I currently like the concept as presented, but without seeing any Detachments, we’re missing important information to really digest things.
Yhe game being designer around formal terrain layouts this time round is a big change. That's been a tournament thing historically that we assumed was considered but is now core rules.
That’s one of the tings that worries me. If the rules only work if you have a table of Official GW Terrain(tm) then that’s another barrier to entry. And locks you into the themes they make, or puts bars on your counts-as, as they will need to match the official specs.
I have a feeling a lot of people will just hand waves “close enough” if it’s too bad. As someone who started out with stacks of books, cans, and cut out green paper for forests I’d be saddened to see things get restrictively formal.
But I’m not going to worry until I see what’s actually happening. Might be a good thing. And formalization can make for smoother, more ballanced game play. (At the cost of narrative freedom, but they are going to break the rules for their fun stories anyway)
Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.
Oh, I know. I might just be assuming the worst and jumping at shadows. But as soon as I heard the rumor that objectives were being replaced with terrain I knew there was going to be standardization. The last article specifies a “home objective” so we know there are going to be at least some placement restrictions. It might be as simple as spearhead’s bother players get a large and a small bit to put down. Or as formal as the tournament maps.
It’s not an unreasonable conclusion. But so much depends on overall context.
If the standardisation is to facilitate the balancing of mission? It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Just another cog in the overall effort.
But if it’s standardisation for the sake of it? Or, worse, if it ends up favouring a given approach (say, too dense for longer ranged shooting, or not dense enough for foot slogging armies)? It could be very very bad.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not an unreasonable conclusion. But so much depends on overall context.
If the standardisation is to facilitate the balancing of mission? It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Just another cog in the overall effort.
But if it’s standardisation for the sake of it? Or, worse, if it ends up favouring a given approach (say, too dense for longer ranged shooting, or not dense enough for foot slogging armies)? It could be very very bad.
I know “wait and see” is often overused and taken too far, but it’s actually really appropriate for where we are right now. We have slivers of information and a lot of guesswork filling the gaps. At some point we will have enough hard facts to build a solid picture, but we are not there yet.
I try not to overthink the whole thing, but that’s kinda how I’m wired. And it can be hard waiting for the next info drip.
I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.
Hellebore wrote: I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.
Hellebore wrote: I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.
Tanks or Monsters.
The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.
For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.
Hellebore wrote: I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.
Tanks or Monsters.
The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.
For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.
Let's be honest: A good chunk of Apocalypse IS going to be large models, and those models are the most likely targets for the first round of shooting.
And while it's probably a good rule to have, it's really going to shift the target priority to combat units. Sure, you might kill a Knight Porphyrion, but it'll still kill you back. Shoot of a Rampager on turn 1 and it does nothing (unless deployment zones are closer together).
Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.
Yeah, people can make terrain out of foamboard and cardboard that fits the same dimensions and layouts just like we used to instead of buying GW's terrain that tends to randomly go out of stock for long periods of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s definitely a frustrating drip feed! Especially as I think we’re all seeing potential in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And in other news? Apocalypse rules coming in Eye of Terror.
See this? See this, right?
See that? That should be a standard 40K rule.
A blinder of a first turn will still hammer an enemy. But it wouldn’t entirely cripple them.
I liked last Apoc better for it. You accumulated damage over the turn, but got to act at full strength for that turn and take the saves at the end of the turn (alternating activation IIRC). It means alpha striking can become mutually assured destruction so people need to be more tactical about how they deal with enemy units to hit them but not open themselves up to being hit back and being forced to trade. It also meant you could drastically overkill or end up underkilling because they made saves you didn't expect them to but wouldn't know until later.
But this isn't bad. Not as good as the last ed's way of handling wounds but I don't hate it.
Hellebore wrote: I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.
Tanks or Monsters.
The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.
For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.
Let's be honest: A good chunk of Apocalypse IS going to be large models, and those models are the most likely targets for the first round of shooting.
And while it's probably a good rule to have, it's really going to shift the target priority to combat units. Sure, you might kill a Knight Porphyrion, but it'll still kill you back. Shoot of a Rampager on turn 1 and it does nothing (unless deployment zones are closer together).
What it will do is make infantry MORE important to target because reducing them to one model has a much bigger effect than a vehicle.
Battlesuits, terminators, devestators et al will be priority to remove because it will now give you more bang for buck.
Hellebore wrote: I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.
Tanks or Monsters.
The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.
For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.
Let's be honest: A good chunk of Apocalypse IS going to be large models, and those models are the most likely targets for the first round of shooting.
And while it's probably a good rule to have, it's really going to shift the target priority to combat units. Sure, you might kill a Knight Porphyrion, but it'll still kill you back. Shoot of a Rampager on turn 1 and it does nothing (unless deployment zones are closer together).
What it will do is make infantry MORE important to target because reducing them to one model has a much bigger effect than a vehicle.
Battlesuits, terminators, devestators et al will be priority to remove because it will now give you more bang for buck.
Squads and melee big things. Doesn't matter how deadly your melee is if you die before you can make a charge.
Edit: It's why I think 40k should only really go up to three or four thousand points. Anything bigger, use a dedicated system that accounts for the big stuff in better ways.
Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.
Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.
Yeah, people can make terrain out of foamboard and cardboard that fits the same dimensions and layouts just like we used to instead of buying GW's terrain that tends to randomly go out of stock for long periods of time.
All very true but wait until GW rebalance the dimensions of the terrain every dataslate, or when this leads to yet more mdf/card ruins everywhere and then the people who dont own standardised terrain have constantly wonky games as a result. Never mind all the people who will also only ever want to play on the layouts included in the core rules.
Platuan4th wrote: Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.
Yeah most people don't buy multiple warhounds, reavers and a warlord titan (and lets face it from official models most armies don't even have that many big things and that was before GW started cutting out a lot of the FW models anyway). You're more likely just getting peoples whole collection of an army on the table or two armies added up to build up numbers; then that one super keen person who actually has a titan scale model or two and is willing to transport it to the game.
I'll repeat it would have been nice to just have a reprint of the 2019 rules in there + updated Indizes via warcom Downloads...
I don't see how "normal 40K rules, but with 5000 points and first turn lasts even longer because nothing really dies" is supposed to work outside of weekend filling Club Events (which ARE a peak hobbytime, but not that common for the average player).
Platuan4th wrote: Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.
Yeah most people don't buy multiple warhounds, reavers and a warlord titan (and lets face it from official models most armies don't even have that many big things and that was before GW started cutting out a lot of the FW models anyway). You're more likely just getting peoples whole collection of an army on the table or two armies added up to build up numbers; then that one super keen person who actually has a titan scale model or two and is willing to transport it to the game.
The thing is, those who do bring a ‘big thing’ actually want to *use it* not have it shot of the board before it’s able to do anything - which is presumably the problem this rule is trying to solve, rather than just giving general survivability.
Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.
Yeah, people can make terrain out of foamboard and cardboard that fits the same dimensions and layouts just like we used to instead of buying GW's terrain that tends to randomly go out of stock for long periods of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s definitely a frustrating drip feed! Especially as I think we’re all seeing potential in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And in other news? Apocalypse rules coming in Eye of Terror.
See this? See this, right?
See that? That should be a standard 40K rule.
A blinder of a first turn will still hammer an enemy. But it wouldn’t entirely cripple them.
I liked last Apoc better for it. You accumulated damage over the turn, but got to act at full strength for that turn and take the saves at the end of the turn (alternating activation IIRC). It means alpha striking can become mutually assured destruction so people need to be more tactical about how they deal with enemy units to hit them but not open themselves up to being hit back and being forced to trade. It also meant you could drastically overkill or end up underkilling because they made saves you didn't expect them to but wouldn't know until later.
But this isn't bad. Not as good as the last ed's way of handling wounds but I don't hate it.
Platuan4th wrote: Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.
Yeah most people don't buy multiple warhounds, reavers and a warlord titan (and lets face it from official models most armies don't even have that many big things and that was before GW started cutting out a lot of the FW models anyway). You're more likely just getting peoples whole collection of an army on the table or two armies added up to build up numbers; then that one super keen person who actually has a titan scale model or two and is willing to transport it to the game.
The thing is, those who do bring a ‘big thing’ actually want to *use it* not have it shot of the board before it’s able to do anything - which is presumably the problem this rule is trying to solve, rather than just giving general survivability.
Thing is you can't really do survivability in Apoc for big things very easily. What you fight against is more variable and less adaptable. Someone who brings a Reaver cannot expect their opponents to lose one game and then build their own Reaver or 3 baneblades or similar counters for the next game. So you hit a wall - if you make the big things super strong they dominate the game; if you make them too weak they are taken out before doing any of the cool stuff because they are a HUGE psychological target (and tactical target) on the battlefield.
So doing damage resolution at the end is a fantastic way to let people throw loads of damage dealing dice at each other and then resolve all the removals at the end. Honestly if it wasn't for the bookkeeping aspect I'd love to see it as a general rule in regular 40K. We've all that that turn where one player just wipes another half off the table with a round of combat and suddenly one player is willing and the other losing purely because of movement and the turn order more than anything else. Of course a more practical approach is alternative unit activations but we've been down that debate so many times and whilst GW could still make a mess of it; it would honestly work better for them. However it appears to be something that the design team/management team are just utterly unwilling to even experiment once with (The closest we get is alternating close combat in AoS
I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.
The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.
Overread wrote: However it appears to be something that the design team/management team are just utterly unwilling to even experiment once with (The closest we get is alternating close combat in AoS
Well. And Legions Imperialis. And MESBG.
The rule in question here is a nice balance. A stonking first turn, rewarding clever setup and positioning/punishing a poor setup and positioning without entirely crippling the opponent, without offering too much insulation to the guys on the receiving end.
stahly wrote: I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.
The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.
I really hope that defiler kit sells like crazy. I'd love GW to reach a point, at least with larger than infantry models, where even if they aren't going for loads of weapon options; we might see more pose and build variety and choice. Esp in models that you can take more than one of in a game.
Don't get me wrong things like the Norn's look amazing, but they'd be even more so with a few alternative parts to just vary the builds and profiles even if it doesn't vary the actual weapon choices they have.
stahly wrote: I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.
The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.
I really hope that defiler kit sells like crazy. I'd love GW to reach a point, at least with larger than infantry models, where even if they aren't going for loads of weapon options; we might see more pose and build variety and choice. Esp in models that you can take more than one of in a game.
Don't get me wrong things like the Norn's look amazing, but they'd be even more so with a few alternative parts to just vary the builds and profiles even if it doesn't vary the actual weapon choices they have.
The website had a meltdown this morning, and it was out of stock within minutes, so I think you've got your wish.
On a related note, GW's website remains embarrassing for a company of their size.
stahly wrote: I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.
The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.
I really hope that defiler kit sells like crazy. I'd love GW to reach a point, at least with larger than infantry models, where even if they aren't going for loads of weapon options; we might see more pose and build variety and choice. Esp in models that you can take more than one of in a game.
Don't get me wrong things like the Norn's look amazing, but they'd be even more so with a few alternative parts to just vary the builds and profiles even if it doesn't vary the actual weapon choices they have.
Apparently, it's already sold out on the UK Warhammer website.
I'd have said yes to a Defiler I were collecting Chaos Marines. Reasonable by GW's current standards.
The Defiler and Destrier seem to be the same box size and same amount of plastic, yet the Destrier is £17 more expensive. The last six years feels like GW has had it in for Imperial Knight customers, and right now I'm weighing up Chaos Knights instead - especially if Cultists or Traitor Guardsmen become part of their codex.
It’s not a FOMO product, so presumably will return to print.
I’d guess that the 11th launch this summer is causing a bit of a stress on the production schedules. Products probably not getting as much times as we’d all like in the forges.
I'm actually happy I didn't get to buy the Defiler. I still have a bunch of Marauder based Bloodreavers to finish, so it's nice that GW is helping me pace my addi... hobby.
I Will pick up a defiler as soon as I can find it in the local store, no hurry. Havnt really bough anything for 40K since the box with new SW, but this got my attention. Hope they get to Vashtor minions soon.
Overread wrote: Honestly I'm now torn - is the Defiler update the best grow up from ugly to awesome
Or was it the biovore?
I'd probably rate anything Dark Eldar higher, their transition from 3rd edition monstrosities to 5th edition outstanding minis is still unique.
Also, I don't find the new Deffy better than the old one. And given the massive price rise I'd give the win to the old one.
Overread wrote: Honestly I'm now torn - is the Defiler update the best grow up from ugly to awesome
Or was it the biovore?
The Defiler, claws down. I'm getting two (hopefully). One to make generic CSM, and the other to make Thousand Sons. Gonna pick up a Space Wolves dreadnought to use as a basing decoration for the second one.
@Lathe: No, the SW dread will not still be on its feet. Or, for that matter, in one piece.
Overread wrote: Honestly I'm now torn - is the Defiler update the best grow up from ugly to awesome
Or was it the biovore?
The Defiler, claws down. I'm getting two (hopefully). One to make generic CSM, and the other to make Thousand Sons. Gonna pick up a Space Wolves dreadnought to use as a basing decoration for the second one.
@Lathe: No, the SW dread will not still be on its feet. Or, for that matter, in one piece.
You know me too well...
I had assumed the Space Wolf Dreadnought would have been on its back and the hatch open with the Space Wolf climbing out.
This way, anyone who looks at it would know the honorable Space Wolf is giving the Defiler better odds of not instantly losing in a fight.
Overread wrote: Honestly I'm now torn - is the Defiler update the best grow up from ugly to awesome
Or was it the biovore?
I'd probably rate anything Dark Eldar higher, their transition from 3rd edition monstrosities to 5th edition outstanding minis is still unique.
Also, I don't find the new Deffy better than the old one. And given the massive price rise I'd give the win to the old one.
I didnt really like the old defiler, but actually find the soulgrinder to be a great model (own 3 of those). Dont expect the soulgrinder to be not-legends in 11th however.
