Switch Theme:

new 8th edition FAQ  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.


It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/25 08:49:17


 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

I'd say the majority of 40k gamers don't actually know how to make a scenario or campaign system that works, so the support for Narrative play is valuable just in the form of pre made scenarios, campaign rules and the approximation points system they are adding to help in scenario design is reason enough to see "3 ways to play" as more than marketing spin. It's real content lots of people are going to find useful.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/25 08:54:00


Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




morgoth wrote:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.


It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.


There's a ton of Narrative campaigns/scenarios in the numerous released supplements. As per p.116 of the BRB (They are many ways to choose an army and they all have their strengths. The first thing to do is to determine whether or not you and your opponent will be using points limit), 7th edition already endorsed open play (even if nobody played it). So, unless I'm missing something, we already have all of this and ''3 ways to plays'' is nothing new really.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/25 09:00:05


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.


It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.


There's a ton of Narrative campaigns/scenarios in the numerous released supplements. As per p.116 of the BRB (They are many ways to choose an army and they all have their strengths. The first thing to do is to determine whether or not you and your opponent will be using points limit), 7th edition already endorsed open play (even if nobody played it). So, unless I'm missing something, we already have all of this and ''3 ways to plays'' is nothing new really.


There's a big difference between a tiny one-liner nobody even reads, and "one of the three ways to play".
Like there's a big difference between GW telling everyone that FW is included in the game, and then GW later including superheavies in regular 40K and nerfing all of FW into oblivion in order to help that transition finally happen.
The point is, most people have a lot of trouble accepting to play with a points handicap (for me) and making those "narrative", "miniature oriented" ways to play an important part of 8th edition is a recipe for success.

You have to understand that FW has been "legal" for a very long time, yet most people still resist the idea, like we have constant old-guard comments on dakka about how "GMC don't belong in 40K, go back to apocalypse you dirty 40k-migrants".

At this point in time, narrative and miniature oriented games are so non-existent that they don't even get that whine.
Hell, people haven't used unbound once since 7th started.

Making those three ways to play one of the core statements of 8th is definitely a great thing, and I'm fairly sure they'll have a lot more than just a one-liner on p.116 of the BRB, which is new and required if we want to see that type of game actually happen at all.

Mind you, just like the GMC-racists, it's going to take another ten years for people to begin to acknowledge it, but it's still a clear step forward in the right direction.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.


It's not a lame marketing spin, it's giving official rules support to one of the ways people LIKE to play this game, and currently do.
I know way too many people who whine because their armies are weak, yearn for "balanced, fun" games, which with their definition of "a good army list" is entirely impossible within a framework of point costs, which is one of the ways to play, and the only thing we have in this edition.
We do not currently have this in the game and having official support will help people state: I want a type X game, thereby starting to fix the problem of crappy lists going up against top competitive lists.


There's a ton of Narrative campaigns/scenarios in the numerous released supplements. As per p.116 of the BRB (They are many ways to choose an army and they all have their strengths. The first thing to do is to determine whether or not you and your opponent will be using points limit), 7th edition already endorsed open play (even if nobody played it). So, unless I'm missing something, we already have all of this and ''3 ways to plays'' is nothing new really.


dividing unbound away from points play seems a pretty good thing to me, people who want structured games will have it, and the 2 people in the world who like unbound can do it.

meanwhile narritive rules are NOT something GW did much of in the past editions. not when compared to other table top games I've played.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in kr
Stealthy Grot Snipa





I'm usually pretty critical of GW, but I gotta say, I haven't seen a single thing about 8th so far that I dislike.


"The Emporer is a rouge trader."
- Charlie Chaplain. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




BrianDavion wrote:


dividing unbound away from points play seems a pretty good thing to me, people who want structured games will have it, and the 2 people in the world who like unbound can do it.

meanwhile narritive rules are NOT something GW did much of in the past editions. not when compared to other table top games I've played.


And here's some more conservationism with unbound is new so it must be bad... seriously... almost everyone wants unbound but hasn't realized it yet.
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

I actually think unbound/open players are far more common than people realize. They are the casual players who play on the kitchen table who don't show up to store events or post on message boards. They paint their miniatures at home or with friends and have some fun and simple games.

It's like how no one believes Wizards of the Coast when they say the majority of their Magic card customers don't play in sanctioned events and formats but play casual decks with less rules about what can and cannot be included.

Do I think they are the majority in 40k? No, probably not. Although at an old Games Day UK Jervis did say that a majority of their customers didn't really play the full game rules, so maybe it is the majority. I think it's probably less.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/25 10:21:15


Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




Glasgow

Think of Open Play as an agreed format where you can house rule anything with your opponent and use the rules in a modular fashion.

When I started AoS I played with points, but without allegiance abilities or artefacts because I didn't want to engage with that level of granularity in my frist few games.

Me and my opponent used 1250 points, but we discredited the 2 battleline requirement so we could play with everything we had.

Those are all VERBOTEN in matched play, and sure you could argue that we are just adding house rules to matched play, but some people are sticklers for rules and when a guy came over and asked us why we only had one battleline each we said "we're playing open" and he was like: "that's cool, I do that sometimes when I want to run elite armies against my pals." Having it sanctioned by GW is great for players that are new, inexperienced, young or just want a casual game. This whole "no one will use it" attitude is exclusionary nonsense.
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

 DynamicCalories wrote:
Those are all VERBOTEN in matched play, and sure you could argue that we are just adding house rules to matched play, but some people are sticklers for rules and when a guy came over and asked us why we only had one battleline each we said "we're playing open" and he was like: "that's cool, I do that sometimes when I want to run elite armies against my pals." Having it sanctioned by GW is great for players that are new, inexperienced, young or just want a casual game. This whole "no one will use it" attitude is exclusionary nonsense.


That's actually a really good point.

Hobbies involving other people (like playing games) often involve a level of social norms. And while many people are independent thinkers, for the most part people won't necessarily do something against the norms. And even if it's a small percent of people who would like to play in a way other than matched play but don't because they are conforming to the normal way it is done locally, having it spelled out as a sanctioned, normal and accepted approach will probably be of benefit to them. Some people need permission to do things they want when they don't know what is and is not acceptable among other people. It's not a weakness either. It's a useful skill to be that way at times.

Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




Glasgow

The caveat is that open play is not super well supported by GW at the moment, and I feel that is becuase they haven't highlighted its real strength, which is that it is modular.

You can take a narrative battleplan, an army from two grand alliances, given them the allegience ability from a third alliance if you wish, make all the army the same unit, only use monsters, use 20 generals and 1 battleline - you can do whatever, and it's all given the thumbs up by GW.

It's a sandbox format for workshopping or breaking whatever you want. Sure you can do that in Matched play with house rules... but then you aren't playing Matched play. You could also make it a narrative thing, but if you aren't following the battleplans and rules for narrative then... you aren't playing narrative.

Ergo... open play is the third way of play. Staggeringly simple, wonderful for everyone in the hobby.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 DynamicCalories wrote:
The caveat is that open play is not super well supported by GW at the moment, and I feel that is becuase they haven't highlighted its real strength, which is that it is modular.

You can take a narrative battleplan, an army from two grand alliances, given them the allegience ability from a third alliance if you wish, make all the army the same unit, only use monsters, use 20 generals and 1 battleline - you can do whatever, and it's all given the thumbs up by GW.

It's a sandbox format for workshopping or breaking whatever you want. Sure you can do that in Matched play with house rules... but then you aren't playing Matched play. You could also make it a narrative thing, but if you aren't following the battleplans and rules for narrative then... you aren't playing narrative.

Ergo... open play is the third way of play. Staggeringly simple, wonderful for everyone in the hobby.


in short open play is what roleplayers have long called "rule zero"

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker





UK

 frozenwastes wrote:
I actually think unbound/open players are far more common than people realize. They are the casual players who play on the kitchen table who don't show up to store events or post on message boards. They paint their miniatures at home or with friends and have some fun and simple games.

It's like how no one believes Wizards of the Coast when they say the majority of their Magic card customers don't play in sanctioned events and formats but play casual decks with less rules about what can and cannot be included.

Do I think they are the majority in 40k? No, probably not. Although at an old Games Day UK Jervis did say that a majority of their customers didn't really play the full game rules, so maybe it is the majority. I think it's probably less.


Thanks for making this point. I exclusively play games at home with a small group of friends, and the system we play is "simple 7th"* with some house rules, and the armies are 'semi-battleforged' - we stick to the FOC, but occasionally sticking in an extra elite or HQ so we can play with our cool models. We stick to that Long War mantra of 'chillin' in the beats lab, havin' fun rollin' some dice'. Because no one sees it, it's assumed we don't exist, but we really do! We spend a lot of money on miniatures and books and play 40k a lot, but because we don't go to clubs or tournaments, our way of playing is not often heard of.

*no overwatch, charge is 6+D6", no going to ground, no pinning, power weapons are all identical (and AP2), specialist weapon doesn't exist, true grit does exist, and so on. We just made our own game out of the rules, and sometimes we make it up as we go along. it kind of surprises me that this isn't the norm in a hobby that is essentially about painting up little monsters and moving them around a table (I say this with my tongue in my cheek)!

To bring this all back on topic, to 8th edition: my group won't be playing 8th for a while because we're not even playing 7th now! The only problem will be if a new unit is created and we want to play with it, but no doubt we'll find a way to make it 'count as' something else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/25 11:28:58


pronouns: she/her
We're going to need more skulls - My blogspot
Quanar wrote:you were able to fit regular guardsmen in drop pods before the FAQ and they'd just come out as a sort of soup..
 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 corpuschain wrote:
We just made our own game out of the rules, and sometimes we make it up as we go along. it kind of surprises me that this isn't the norm in a hobby that is essentially about painting up little monsters and moving them around a table (I say this with my tongue in my cheek)!

Consider for a second that some people do not even care to paint their own armies and realise that what is a hobby to you, is just a game for some, and is a combination of both for others. Standardized/static rules are very important to a lot of people who enjoy the strategy side of the game, I'd genuinely rather not play than "make the rules up as I go along" there is zero fun in that for me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/25 14:02:05


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in ca
Mutilatin' Mad Dok





People complaining in the thread about these books that they know absolutely nothing about.

We don't know how much they'll cost: we don't know what's going to be in the books: we don't know what books will be required for playing 8th. What are you complaining about, other than things you made up yourself?

And all that, considering they have outright said the core rules will be freely available...

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

Pretty much agreed with you (though I do enjoy campaign or thematic games). The ''3 ways to play'' is one of the lamest marketing spin I have ever seen considering that, as you pointed out, we already have this. Makes you realize that the old cliche of 'GW groupies mindlessly drinking the Kool-aid 'has more than a shred of truth to it.

Wow, you really had your mind made up already on this didn't you? There is no possible way any rational human being could hold an opinion different to your own! They must be BRAINWASHED!

Maybe it's not some sinister 'spin' (said as if that's something weird for a company to do in the first place: are they not allowed to try to control the narrative of the product they made? that's what MARKETING is!), maybe it's just not at all a big deal in terms of what should factor into your value statement about the game?
   
Made in gb
Stealthy Grot Snipa






UK

Personally I'm psyched-we'll download FREE rules and scratch build our own minis and see what happens. Nothing ventured but a little bit of time.

As for the "unbound" play style, it's a great way to learn the game. I learnt 40k with the minis from Space Crusade and WHFB with the HeroQuest ones- they didn't follow FOCs..

Skinflint Games- war gaming in the age of austerity

https://skinflintgames.wordpress.com/

 
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





Yeah I remember 2nd ed was pretty much unbound and people didn't have issues..

there was a % requirement but that required thinking so I know a lot of people ignored that.

But I know I am fully looking forward to these new rules, and I am just hoping my Tyranid force is able to come back out.. while I get my GSC army up to scratch
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block





Free rules, app with everything on it, and a community page that you can give feed back for changes?

Amazing. Anyone against this is just dense or backwards.
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 TheIronCrow wrote:
Free rules, app with everything on it, and a community page that you can give feed back for changes?

Amazing. Anyone against this is just dense or backwards.

I feel like this thread would be just fine if this was the only response in it. Couldn't have summed it up better

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in au
Hissing Hybrid Metamorph





'Straya... Mate.

 TheIronCrow wrote:
Free rules, app with everything on it, and a community page that you can give feed back for changes?

Amazing. Anyone against this is just dense or backwards.

Welcome to the internet, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

People will find something to complain about, and if there is nothing, they will invent something.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 03:47:16


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

I'm kind of sad that templates are going away. I mean I understand how they're tough to use in a competitive setting, so I can appreciate reducing any chance for an argument. But, as someone who didn't really have arguments related to scatter dice, i'm going to miss it.

Still looking forward to 8th edition.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





I am on the Hype train.. wish they would just release the rules already
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Did everyone here actually miss the statement where they said there was two different point systems?

Open play (Toss whatever models you want on table and play)
Narrative play (Use either point system 1 or Point system 2 or build set armies for your campaign/scenerios)
Match Play (Depending on agreed rules of match use Point system 1 or Point system 2, this also includes extra rules for deployment, scenarios with objectives and reserves)

Point system 1: Units cost X amount and you get upgrades based off the warscroll.
Point System 2 Units cost a base amount and must pay for all upgrades seperately.
   
Made in au
Hissing Hybrid Metamorph





'Straya... Mate.

Youn wrote:
Did everyone here actually miss the statement where they said there was two different point systems?

Open play (Toss whatever models you want on table and play)
Narrative play (Use either point system 1 or Point system 2 or build set armies for your campaign/scenerios)
Match Play (Depending on agreed rules of match use Point system 1 or Point system 2, this also includes extra rules for deployment, scenarios with objectives and reserves)

Point system 1: Units cost X amount and you get upgrades based off the warscroll.
Point System 2 Units cost a base amount and must pay for all upgrades seperately.

I think you might have misinterpreted what they meant here (unless I did).

Point system 1 goes with Open Play/Narrative Play
Point system 2 goes with Match Play

That was my understanding.

Edit: in which case no one "actually missed the statement where they said there was two different point systems"

Edit 2: I think I am right, this is according to warhammer community site:

"Matched play is the final type of play-style. This system will be very familiar to those of you who play Warhammer 40,000 regularly now. Like the game today, it is based around one of two mission tables of 6 possible battles – either Eternal War, or Maelstrom of War, though the missions briefs have all been updated a little.

Your armies for matched play games will always be Battle-forged (more on that in future) and use points values to help ensure a balanced game. Rules and points for every single model in the game are being realigned for the new edition – so expect to see many units that might have been absent from competitive play make a welcome return. Army selection is still quite open though, and if you have a Battle-forged army for the current edition of Warhammer 40,000, you’ll be able to build a Battle-forged army for the new edition as well."

Edit 3: From the FAQ;

"Are you getting rid of points?
Not at all. There will be a full points system, for use in matched play – one of three ways to play covered in the rulebook." (I bolded the "a" but it is hard to see)

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 04:15:41


 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





Northern California

I have to say, I'm pretty excited about the changes that 8th edition will bring. What with all the balance issues and rules problems the current form of 40k has, any sort of streamlining would be welcome.

It's worth keeping in mind that GW isn't just hoping to fix what are (in their mind) the problems with 40k in the new edition. GW wants to attract new players to the game. If the YMDC section has conclusively proven anything over the years, its that Warhammer 40,000 is a very complex game with a not entirely intuitive ruleset. As long as the core spirit of the game is preserved, I can only see benefits in making tha game simpler to allow for an easier learning experience for new players.

And now for six pages of collected multi-quotes!
Roknar wrote:God I hope they drastically change the psychic phase.

I liked the concept of the 7th edition Psychic phase; lord knows it was an improvement in implementation over 6th edition psychic rules. The problems were with being able to cast the same spell multiple times per phase with different casters (allowing summoning shenanigans) and not capping the dice that could be generated per turn (making some armies utterly dominant beyond any hope of resistance in the psychic phase).
Roknar wrote:I hope the books aren't too far behind though. I find digital rulebooks a pain in the ass to use for anything other than a quick reference on the go. I find it faster and more convenient to flick a few pages back and forth once you know where to look for stuff. Plus I miss the tactile experience and how it looks on your book shelf.

I agree about the superiority of physical vs. digital media for wargaming. Having your army list on a phone or tablet is fine (as long as you let me look it over/have it handy for questions), but a digital rulebook is IMO much slower to look up information than a physical rulebook.

On the other hand, nothing appears to be stopping anyone from simply printing out copies of the Warscrolls (or whatever they end up being called) out onto paper for reference.
TheIronCrow wrote:I'm really enjoying watching people freak out over AoS game mechanics because its obvious they have never tried AoS. Since the GHB came out I've played 40k once mostly because 40k is trash and filled to the brim with intolerable win-bro ITC douches.

Watching ITC people whining over the thought of formations getting points as well as some formations disappearing and the rule of one being put in for matched play has been fantastic.

TL;DR: A player at an ITC event beat the luch money out of you and now you don't like the entire competitive 40k scene. If you weren't expecting to lose, and lose badly, why did you even attend a tournament?

The ITC were about the only people attempting to balance 6th and 7th editions, at least in the USA. They weren't perfect, but their rules did cut down on some of the more absurdly broken shenanigans and combos that could be brought to the table. With any luck they'll keep on holding events and making FAQs if balance problems arise.
TheIronCrow wrote:Likely Lords of War will be 0-1 per 2000pts, and they'll have degrading charts

Likely it'll be something like

1-2 HQ
3-6 Troops
0-3 Elites
0-3 Fast
0-3 Heavy Support

With increases in points as you go and all detachments removed.

Supposedly everything will have wounds and most all vehicles/MCs will get penalties as they get more wounded.

I don't think detachments are going away. If the FAQ is to be believed there will be equivalents of detachments for every army.
Kanluwen wrote:
 TheIronCrow wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
 ProwlerPC wrote:
Orks and Eldar grouped together? I'm fascinated. My big me just needs to dial his shokk attack gun to panzee and I'll get right on making a conversion with the upper torso of a howling banshee trying not to get sucked in all the way.

I wouldn't read too much into the groupings of the various Xenos races together, beyond them all potentially getting(if they go the keyword route) "Xenos" as a keyword like how the various flavors of Orc, Ogre, and Giants all have the keyword "Destruction" in Age of Sigmar.

It would make it so that you could have things like Deathwatch getting bonuses against "Xenos" without having to name out all the books, while Grey Knights might get bonuses versus "Daemons" without getting bonuses against Chaos Marines or things like that.


Keywords are going to be a big thing in 40k, I highly doubt eldar and orks will be in the same "grand alliance"

As of right now, it's broken into:
Imperium
Chaos
Xenos

Eldar and Orks are currently in the same "Grand Alliance".

It seems like less of a "Grand Alliance" and more of a way of organizing the various different factions into exclusive groups that can then be further sub-divided.
wuestenfux wrote:
 commander dante wrote:
Ahh i dunno
As long as i can field 3 Kytan Deamon Engines (Replacing Lord of Skulls) in a LEGAL Competitive list, ill be happy

But the "Your books are now Obsolete" is a HUGE slap in the face

I guess all formations are gone. Decurion, Gladius and whatnot.
Not a bad thing.

Totally unfounded speculation: Formations and detachments will return; but not in their current form. The various Decurion-style detachments from 7th might be carried over as a way of organizing what units each faction can take. What sort of bonuses these detachments will give, as well as whether formations will cost points like in Sigmar remains to be seen.
EnTyme wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Just noticed that points will only be used in "Matched Play". So one can only assume your average PUG will be "I'll put whatever I want on the table, and you do the same."

Barf. This is why AoS is a joke. I didn't believe they do it, but they did it.


Indeed. The sky if falling. Please retire to your designated emergency shelter. The rest of us will just stay here and discuss what the world will be like after Plastic Armageddon.

If I could Exalt a post twice, I would!
frozenwastes wrote:I'd say the majority of 40k gamers don't actually know how to make a scenario or campaign system that works, so the support for Narrative play is valuable just in the form of pre made scenarios, campaign rules and the approximation points system they are adding to help in scenario design is reason enough to see "3 ways to play" as more than marketing spin. It's real content lots of people are going to find useful.

If the campaign tools are structured enough to give players enough guidance for how to string together their games, I would expect it to succeed. Other games have done this before; look at Armada or Infinity. Up until now GW has given expansions in the rules and models for various armies in the campaign books, but no real campaign structure to speak of.

~3000 (Fully Painted)
Coming Soon!
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





The ITC were about the only people attempting to balance 6th and 7th editions, at least in the USA. They weren't perfect, but their rules did cut down on some of the more absurdly broken shenanigans and combos that could be brought to the table. With any luck they'll keep on holding events and making FAQs if balance problems arise


in fairness 99% of the cheese was first discovered, published and pushed by tourny goers. I garentee you, casual narritive basement players wheren't even thinking of dragio/cent star.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





Northern California

BrianDavion wrote:
The ITC were about the only people attempting to balance 6th and 7th editions, at least in the USA. They weren't perfect, but their rules did cut down on some of the more absurdly broken shenanigans and combos that could be brought to the table. With any luck they'll keep on holding events and making FAQs if balance problems arise


in fairness 99% of the cheese was first discovered, published and pushed by tourny goers. I garentee you, casual narritive basement players wheren't even thinking of dragio/cent star.

You can't blame the player for breaking the game. You bring the best possible list to a tournament, and do whatever you need to do to make that list the best. If anything, the party ultimately at fault for broken unit combinations is the writer of the rules for the game.

At least GW will (hopefully) move toward a more balanced and streamlined rules set in the next edition.

~3000 (Fully Painted)
Coming Soon!
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

 TheNewBlood wrote:
You can't blame the player for breaking the game.


You most certainly can.

Game design is about trade offs. When GW decided to allow allies and mixing units from different space marine chapters, it was to allow people to broaden their collection and to encourage the purchase of a wider range of new releases by each customer. It wasn't to make a game with cross faction deathstars like Tigerius and Azrael holding hands while taking fifty dogs for a walk.

"They should have known" or "they should have errata'd it!" or whatever.

Nah, people were just doing something with the game the designers never intended and then blaming the designers for it. Like exceeding the load limit of a bridge and blaming the engineers when it collapses.

-

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 08:38:30


Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 frozenwastes wrote:
 TheNewBlood wrote:
You can't blame the player for breaking the game.


You most certainly can.

Game design is about trade offs. When GW decided to allow allies and mixing units from different space marine chapters, it was to allow people to broaden their collection and to encourage the purchase of a wider range of new releases by each customer. It wasn't to make a game with cross faction deathstars like Tigerius and Azrael holding hands while taking fifty dogs for a walk.

"They should have known" or "they should have errata'd it!" or whatever.

Nah, people were just doing something with the game the designers never intended and then blaming the designers for it. Like exceeding the load limit of a bridge and blaming the engineers when it collapses.

-



Yes, well.... video games have a fix for that, don't they?

The faqd of the matter is that GW missed a ton of opportunities to release FAQs that would've nipped those ridiculous problems in the bud.

But since they didn't, those exploits were allowed to continue indefinitely, and that's definitely something they're now doing something about, which is awesome.
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

morgoth wrote:

The faqd of the matter is that GW missed a ton of opportunities to release FAQs that would've nipped those ridiculous problems in the bud.

But since they didn't, those exploits were allowed to continue indefinitely, and that's definitely something they're now doing something about, which is awesome.


Yep. That's definitely the faqd of the matter.

While it's true that game designers can indeed fix a lot of things, I think the idea that GW has ever been about really balanced rules sets is a bit of misconception about what their design team is for. I really hope this new edition involves a change for the better. An actual willingness to spend some staff hours adjusting things rather than prioritizing working on the rules for the next release.

The problems were definitely fixable, but I think GW simply chose not to because fixing tournament play in the current edition just wasn't a priority for them when they could concentrate on making competitive play better in the next edition. The designers probably feel the best solution to cross faction synergy outstripping everything else was the adoption of AoS style keywords. And that effectively requires a new edition.

I believe GW when they say in the FAQ that all current armies will be legal. That you'll still be able to take Tigerius, Azrael and all the Fenrisian wolves in the world. Their abilities just won't do anything because they'll be missing the chapter specific keywords. Or have totally different abilities. But it will still technically be legal.

In the 90s White Dwarf provided a semi-regular reminder of the fix for any balance issue caused by players pushing things further than the game designers intended to the detriment of an individual's enjoyment of the game. I wonder how many years it has been since "don't play with gits" appeared in the pages of White Dwarf.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 11:02:09


Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: