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.
I would like to underline that GW changed this
into this:
Grey Knights, too, have seen some sweeping points reductions to a bunch of core units, including Paladins and Purifiers, as well as the Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight. If you collect Grey Knights, you’ll have loads more flexibility when building your lists and may well find units you previously overlooked to be much more appealing.
TROLLING level over 9000.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 18:47:47
Danarc wrote: I would like to underline that GW changed this
into this:
Grey Knights, too, have seen some sweeping points reductions to a bunch of core units, including Paladins and Purifiers, as well as the Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight. If you collect Grey Knights, you’ll have loads more flexibility when building your lists and may well find units you previously overlooked to be much more appealing.
TROLLING level over 9000.
No. They didn't. You're citing a different source. You would figure people would be more rigorous with their outlandish claims.
Fen wrote: There is also a 70 point drop for the castigator since its bolt cannon went from 120 to 60 points
The version I've seen is basically unreadable for the Castigator's gun. No idea what that says. However, it does look like it's getting its price cut to where it doesn't cost much more than a warden, which is odd as it's strictly better. Guess I'll have to wait for Saturday to see for certain, but it would be nice to give my Castellan a run out.
I was actually considering a lancer anyway, because it has an invulnerable in cc. Now it's getting a really big price drop it might be worth a purchase. I can't say I need one though. It's a bit over-specialised.
The Castigator lacks the options a Warden has, and it's blade isn't quite what it used to be.
Though I don't think it's as important, you don't have to shoot what you charge anymore, right? I've been playing so infrequently this edition it makes me a bit forgetful :(
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Crazyterran wrote: The Castigator lacks the options a Warden has, and it's blade isn't quite what it used to be.
Though I don't think it's as important, you don't have to shoot what you charge anymore, right? I've been playing so infrequently this edition it makes me a bit forgetful :(
Thankfully they did away with that nonsense in 8th (along with can't charge after firing RF weapons).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So do we have more information for the custom characters? I'm actually mildly intrigued what kinda system they went with.
According to the Twitch stream you'll be able to add abilities from a (random D66?) table, increase (random?) characteristics, and add +1 to various (random?) weapons stats. So, you could make a character with an extra +1T, holding a weapon with, say +1D, and with some kind of special ability (they gave no examples of this, but I suppose something not too powerful).
Sigh. Why does GW bother publishing stuff if they don't want people to use it?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Sigh. Why does GW bother publishing stuff if they don't want people to use it?
Well it will be used by someone. I can see it being adapted for narrative play easily. It is just that online 40k representation is heavily skewed towards matched play. Plenty of people use the other formats, they just aren't as likely to post on forums.
tneva82 wrote: Maybe because people are using open play.
Lol. CAAC players maybe, but I'm not sure they count as "people" except by the most generous definitions.
Oh come on. There are plenty of people who just play casually for fun. No need to insult a large number of perfectly normal people, just because they don't take a hobby as seriously as we do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 09:29:25
tneva82 wrote: Maybe because people are using open play.
Lol. CAAC players maybe, but I'm not sure they count as "people" except by the most generous definitions.
Oh come on. There are plenty of people who just play casually for fun. No need to insult a large number of perfectly normal people, just because they don't take a hobby as seriously as we do.
Or a group of friends running a campaign to create cool fluff for our armies with actual battles. Create a character and battle honors fit right in.
tneva82 wrote: Maybe because people are using open play.
Lol. CAAC players maybe, but I'm not sure they count as "people" except by the most generous definitions.
Jusgt because you might be WAAC 2000 matched play only doesn't mean others have as boring view of how to play. Others do something else than just 2000 pts tournament styled games.
"hey let's play 1500 pts and use the character creation rules". Done. They are in use.
Maybe open up eyes and look at the bigger world outside very narrow spectrum of playing and consider SHOCK HORROR talking to your opponents. What a novel concept. Talking to opponent in social game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 09:41:24
tneva82 wrote: "hey let's play 1500 pts and use the character creation rules". Done. They are in use.
How do you use them in a 1500 point game if no points are included?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: Oh come on. There are plenty of people who just play casually for fun. No need to insult a large number of perfectly normal people, just because they don't take a hobby as seriously as we do.
I doubt even "casual" players are playing open play as GW defines it. In my experience even the people who aren't playing tournament-type games are still using points and building normal armies, they aren't throwing a bunch of random stuff on the table and going LOLOLOLOL FORGE A NARRATIVE. So far the only interest I've seen in open play has been from CAAC players who seem to do it for the sole purpose of bragging about how far from competitive play they are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 09:49:42
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Can we not have another “Peregrine vs the internet” thread?
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
They also said something along the lines of "Everyone knows how to convert power into points, the formula is not that advanced, so if you want to use them in a points game there is nothing stopping you (but agree with your opponent first)"
(it might have been in relation to the looted tank rules, I can't quite rememer, but the same principle should apply to the custom characters)
Oguhmek wrote: They also said something along the lines of "Everyone knows how to convert power into points, the formula is not that advanced, so if you want to use them in a points game there is nothing stopping you (but agree with your opponent first)"
That's funny, when the main argument against PL as a point system is that the PL to conventional points ratio can vary considerably depending on how you equip your units. There might be nothing stopping you from guessing at a ratio and converting PL to normal points, but there's also nothing stopping GW from releasing normal points in addition to PL and making it a standard part of the game. I mean, they managed to do a similar thing with the new "narrative" formations, so why not with the new character rules?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I doubt even "casual" players are playing open play as GW defines it. In my experience even the people who aren't playing tournament-type games are still using points and building normal armies, they aren't throwing a bunch of random stuff on the table and going LOLOLOLOL FORGE A NARRATIVE. So far the only interest I've seen in open play has been from CAAC players who seem to do it for the sole purpose of bragging about how far from competitive play they are.
Open play is something squarely targeted at new and/or younger players just starting out with miniatures or wargaming in general. They're playing with school friends using whatever armies they can cobble together with pocket money, which may well involve lop-sided forces and generous rounding with power levels. They're picking up Conquest week by week and wanting to use models without waiting 6 months for a matched play legal army. Open play is a way to do something with your models when you've yet to build up enough fluff knowledge for narrative play and don't have the luxury to ensuring both players have exactly 1000, 1500 or 2000pts a side. Twelve-year-old me & my friends playing 2nd edition absolutely would have used open play, power levels, design your own land raider, character customisation, everything. That's who this is primarily for.
It may also surprise you that these players are also less likely to:
a) Show up at local clubs, as they're playing at friends houses instead
b) Post lots on the Internet about what they're up to
Yet they still exist. GW caters for them exactly as they catered for me and my friends with similar content in the 90's.
It's cool how you feel the need to come online and rage that these "aren't people", like some kind of hobby police telling everyone that the only approved way to have fun is the way you do it and no other way.
Sorry I said "cool" by mistake. I meant "'really condescending, unwarranted and unjustifiable". Wind your neck in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 10:43:34
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/12/12 12:58:23
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Then why are they throwing a complicated character advancement system at people who are still trying to learn the game? A special "learn the game" mode should be a stripped-down version of the rules, simplified as much as possible to avoid overwhelming new players with stuff they don't understand and don't really need yet. Character advancement rules should be aimed primarily at narrative play, and have point values because points are the default (and superior option in every way) for narrative play and it also lets the system be available for tournament-style games. Targeting this at open play makes no sense at all.
It's not that complicated, and certainly no different from making a Necromunda gang or Blood Bowl team. When you're slowly building an army through pocket money or Conquest, then rules like this are a great way to add some creative depth to your new Lieutenant or Plaguecaster model.
Assigning points values stifles creative content like this and is totally unnecessary. It's lose/lose for GW as they inevitably either end up with something unbalanced that grognards rage about, or waste resources in test-playing something with an infinite number of possibilities and still get raged at for it being a bit less unbalanced. Why can't they just provide casual cool stuff for people who want to use casual cool stuff without the requirement that the mathhammer spreadsheets are perfectly balanced?
Why are you suddenly the arbiter of all things wargaming and the Right Way to Have Fun?
If GW is in fact putting a "this is a book for 12 year olds" label on the cover of CA, well, I think that says very clearly how it's a garbage product that doesn't deserve our money.
It's a book for 40k players. There's matched play points and a beta-test codex for players who care about tournament play, there's narrative content for those players, and there's open play stuff too. Something for all audiences. This isn't hard.
Peregrine wrote: CAAC players are not people, they're a plague on the hobby. There are alternative ways to have fun, including things I don't really enjoy, but CAAC behavior is not one of them.
At the risk of derailing the thread, which I feel is inevitable at this point, how exactly do you define the terms WAAC and CAAC? I have seen the definition broaden vastly over time and become largely useless. I think the key part would be "all". You need to be quite extreme to be at "all" costs. Someone who is just annoyingly into fluff or really competitive isn't AAC.
With regards to being people, all people are people. That is sort of the point. They may be horrible, or objectionable, or downright evil, but they are still people. That is what humanity is, a broad spectrum of good and bad. To treat those that you object to as not people is to forget what humans are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/12 11:51:07
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
