Switch Theme:

Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring  [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 ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Kanluwen wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Still better design than the current system of points.


it won't matter at all, since we are talking about gw.

Powerlevel design was just more stupid from the beginning which is because it is nu gw from the get go. Old points atleast came from a time where they had decent rules designer that tried... but since it's also nu gw...
why bother, NaCl is bound to follow out of gw regardless.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Still better design than the current system of points.

Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

Simping for PL is legit silly.


PL are just less granular points, points are not perfect either as shown in here. Both need a shot in the back of the head and starting again.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

What is the difference in game impact between Grey Hunters and tactical marines?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Still better design than the current system of points.

Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

Simping for PL is legit silly.


PL are just less granular points, points are not perfect either as shown in here. Both need a shot in the back of the head and starting again.

"Points aren't perfect so don't bother with granularity at all" is literally the worst argument you could've used to defend the Bolt Pistol costing the same as the Las Pistol.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Bolt pistols < grav pistols < plasma pistols. All 0 for Tacticals.
Tyel wrote:
If Wargear dramatically changes the purpose/output of a unit then that's different

Dramatic means very noticeable or surprising. Suppose you ask someone who never played before whether they'd rather upgrade their pistol or their gun to plasma, they might not always choose the gun because it won't benefit from FRF SRF and the plasma pistol would be handy in melee. But I think it's very noticeable when a weapon becomes strictly better. Obviously, I'd choose the strictly better weapon, it's dramatically better, it's straight up better rather than being sideways and upgrade that a meltagun is to a lasgun, how can I not notice that? How can I not notice that Wraiths with pistols are better than Wraiths without pistols? Why would I take Wraiths without pistols if they cost the same? You can't miss that they'd be better.

   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

-Cadians get a Vox, 2x Special Weapons(should be able to duplicate, but c'est la vie for the moment), and the unmodded hit rolls of 6s for Lasguns/Laspistols causing an additional hit--plus army special rules.

-Krieg get a Plasma Gun(can replace with a vox, y'know, if you want to?) plus 2x Special Weapons(again: should be able to dupe), ability to buy a medikit, and ability to shrug off Wound rolls of 1-2's--plus army special rules.

-Infantry Squads get to take a single Special and a HWT plus the army special rules

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/03/30 17:00:50


 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Kanluwen wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

-Cadians get a Vox, 2x Special Weapons(should be able to duplicate, but c'est la vie for the moment), and the unmodded hit rolls of 6s for Lasguns/Laspistols causing an additional hit--plus army special rules.

-Krieg get a Plasma Gun(can replace with a vox, y'know, if you want to?) plus 2x Special Weapons(again: should be able to dupe), ability to buy a medikit, and ability to shrug off Wound rolls of 1-2's--plus army special rules.

-Infantry Squads get to take a single Special and a HWT plus the army special rules.


ok, so no "meaningful impact on the game" then.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


true, GW is still treating 40k as if it was a skirmish game where individual guns need to be represented.


Probably because that's what the players demand. Abstraction of the weapons was one of the biggest complaints about the newest version of Apocalypse using the Epic rules.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Pretty meaningful impacts, actually.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Still better design than the current system of points.

Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

Simping for PL is legit silly.


PL are just less granular points, points are not perfect either as shown in here. Both need a shot in the back of the head and starting again.

"Points aren't perfect so don't bother with granularity at all" is literally the worst argument you could've used to defend the Bolt Pistol costing the same as the Las Pistol.


If you'd bothered reading the thread, I've repeatedly advocated either shuffling rules around to balance value or increasing granularity on all levels. It's not my fault you can't envisage anything beyond the now.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

-Cadians get a Vox, 2x Special Weapons(should be able to duplicate, but c'est la vie for the moment), and the unmodded hit rolls of 6s for Lasguns/Laspistols causing an additional hit--plus army special rules.

-Krieg get a Plasma Gun(can replace with a vox, y'know, if you want to?) plus 2x Special Weapons(again: should be able to dupe), ability to buy a medikit, and ability to shrug off Wound rolls of 1-2's--plus army special rules.

-Infantry Squads get to take a single Special and a HWT plus the army special rules

You forgot Catachans
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Tyel wrote:Yes, I suppose if I think there's no difference in laspistols and bolt pistols, I'm not impacted by bolt pistols being a 100 point upgrade and consequently never taken because they'd be a terrible option. But that's surely just the mirror of you not being impacted by the bolt pistol being zero - because if mathhammer dictates your decision making, you'll just always take that over the laspistol.


That's not a fair characterization at all.

We're not talking about four differently statted options and complaining that one is 3.72% more effective in 16.4% of use cases and therefore clearly the best choice.

We're talking about an option that is 'do you want to have S3 or S4?' and has literally no other impact. That's not a real choice, that's not mathhammer nerds turning a tactical game into boring statistics, that's a rhetorical question that has an obviously correct answer and an obviously incorrect answer and if someone hesitates it's because they're wondering what the catch is.

Tyel wrote:At its core the "bolt pistol debate" is a stand in for "free wargear".


I keep calling the 'bolt pistol debate' a red herring because the question of whether a near-worthless upgrade should be worth a point isn't at all the issue people are complaining about.

The actual issue is that there are two very different 'upgrade types' here that are both impacted negatively by free wargear.

One type is the ability to replace a poor weapon with a strictly better one. Upgrade your laspistol to a bolt pistol. Upgrade your chainsword to a power sword. Upgrade a tank with sponsons. If these are free, they're no-brainers. There's no real choice. You take the upgrade because there's no reason not to. The only reason this is something people are debating is because someone chose to hone in on the example of the bolt pistol, which is the weakest and most irrelevant upgrade possible and therefore hard to cost appropriately. But there's no question that you could set a price for power weapons or sponsons such that your choice isn't a binary 'obviously take it because it's free' or 'obviously don't take it because it's too expensive'.

The other type is the ability to take one of several options, like being able to pick between a meltagun, plasma gun, and flamer. The problem here is that if they're free but one option is superior to the others, again, there's no real choice. You take the best of them. It's far harder to balance statlines than to adjust costs, particularly when that statline is on a common weapon used across the game on a variety of platforms of differing capabilities.

Hyperfocusing on whether a bolt pistol should be free or 1pt is completely missing the forest for the trees and wasting time with an irrelevant discussion. The actual upgrades in contention, the things people are concerned with having free, are all ones that could plausibly have a cost somewhere in between 'free' and 'so high that it's never worthwhile', and the bolt pistol argument is basically reducing it to a false dichotomy of two extremes.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Platuan4th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


true, GW is still treating 40k as if it was a skirmish game where individual guns need to be represented.


Probably because that's what the players demand. Abstraction of the weapons was one of the biggest complaints about the newest version of Apocalypse using the Epic rules.

This is very true. Abstraction works well in game design theory, and often in practice too, but the playerbase we're talking about is less receptive to it. The biggest lesson to be taken from 8th ed is the importance of accessibility. And "accessibility" reaches far into multiple areas of design, from mechanics, to presentation, to gear representation. If people are trying to tell stories with their models in the 40k universe, all that specific gear can be a juicy part of the storytelling.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Insectum7 wrote:

This is very true. Abstraction works well in game design theory, and often in practice too, but the playerbase we're talking about is less receptive to it. The biggest lesson to be taken from 8th ed is the importance of accessibility. And "accessibility" reaches far into multiple areas of design, from mechanics, to presentation, to gear representation. If people are trying to tell stories with their models in the 40k universe, all that specific gear can be a juicy part of the storytelling.


the gear can still exist from a lore approach. Sure, your Infantry squad sergeant might only have a "pistol" in the rules, but in the fluff, you know its actually a Bolt/las pistol and can still get the same cinematic stuff you want.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

This is very true. Abstraction works well in game design theory, and often in practice too, but the playerbase we're talking about is less receptive to it. The biggest lesson to be taken from 8th ed is the importance of accessibility. And "accessibility" reaches far into multiple areas of design, from mechanics, to presentation, to gear representation. If people are trying to tell stories with their models in the 40k universe, all that specific gear can be a juicy part of the storytelling.


the gear can still exist from a lore approach. Sure, your Infantry squad sergeant might only have a "pistol" in the rules, but in the fluff, you know its actually a Bolt/las pistol and can still get the same cinematic stuff you want.
I understand what you're saying, believe me. But a huge array of people like their gear to have a bit more detail in the handling.

It's also not an either/or, it's finding the compromise between naming all the potential wargear and generifying.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





United Kingdom

 vict0988 wrote:
 Afrodactyl wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.


Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.


It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?

Do you want GW to balance anti-horde weapons around being competitive against Marines? That'd be a good way to ensure that only Marines get used in tournaments, because anything without a Marine profile would get annihilated by 1Damage weapons without AP-3.


You realise you've completely missed the point of what I was saying, right?

I'm not saying you need to balance every single weapon and unit to be good against marines. That's silly and you may as well just flip a coin and whoever gets heads is declared winner.

What I was saying is that if X is the most common profile in the game, both on paper and in practical tournament experience, why would you not account for that?

So armies need to be built around dealing with marines. They also need to deal with a gorrilion termagants and Knight spam. You need to account for every opponent.

If I were to build a list that has no way of dealing with a certain army, I shouldn't be surprised when I lose to that army. If I build a list that can't handle the T4 3+ W2 profile, IE marines, then I expect to lose to marines.

Marines are the most common army in the game, so you should probably account for them when deciding what you're bringing to a game if you like winning.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




But being good vs marines and generaly everything else too, is what GW is doing. If something clears 5-10 man marine squads and their vehicles, then it clears everything from the table, save from super efficient chaff or stuff that is overloaded with special rules aka undercosted for what they do.

The problem marine players face is the problem that they have to meta against marines and non marines, while non marine players can just build their armies vs marines and the list will work, even if they don't fight other marines. On top of that GW makes non marines very point efficient comparing to what marines have. Which in every edition means GW has to drop point values of marines stuff. And both times marines were made good, at the end of 8th and at the end of 9th, GW had to hand out free points to marine players. And even then aside for DA, there are no outliers for marines. At least as far as being good goes. Because even with the changes they still have DW or Imperial Fists, getting beaten with free extras and changes to doctrines.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think the issue is list building exactly - so much as having something to make a useful standard comparison against. You could measure things in terms of "how many Genestealers do you kill" - but it feels a bit contrived. Because Genestealers are very fragile for their points. Same for using say Repentia as the standard.

I'd argue even basic MEQ aren't that common - or at least not as common as you might think. By which I mean how often when you are facing some sort of Marine list are you trying to gun down basic "T4 3+ 2 wound guys" - as opposed to Terminators, regular guys but with Storm Shields, Sanguinary Guard have a 2+ save, Bladeguard with 3 wounds, Possessed are T5 with 3 wounds etc etc.

But you probably still see more "standard Marines" on tables than you do Genestealers.

Its like who in early 8th "T7 3+" was a standard monster/vehicle profile. This was therefore a good statline to compare anti-large weapons against. These days that profile isn't half as common in the wild. GW have tried to mess around with higher T, higher saves, more invuls, minus damage modifiers etc etc.
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




Not Online!!! wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Still better design than the current system of points.


it won't matter at all, since we are talking about gw.

Powerlevel design was just more stupid from the beginning which is because it is nu gw from the get go. Old points atleast came from a time where they had decent rules designer that tried... but since it's also nu gw...
why bother, NaCl is bound to follow out of gw regardless.


In fiction this is referred to as a 'self demonstrating article.'


 
   
Made in us
Black Templar Servitor Dragging Masonry




what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


You have that with the combat patrol system, but the main game will definitely become less balanced with a wider variety of units and rules.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


That's the plan/idea with "Combat Patrol" and "standard 40K".

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


You have that right now.
You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

ccs wrote:
Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


You have that right now.
You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.
unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wayniac wrote:
]unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself


Neither is this the fault of the current edition, nor will a new edition change this.

The inflexibility of other people in your play space has never been GW's fault.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/03 21:57:26


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

ccs wrote:
Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


You have that right now.
You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.


I've tried to bring in three new players to 40K during 9th. No stratagems, no FAQs or tournament packs, no subfactions, no warlord traits, no relics. Just the main rulebook and codices. All three bounced right off. We now play Battlefleet Gothic, Grimdark Future, and Alpha Strike instead.

It is painful watching new players hunt for the right codex entry, then have to check their army list to see what wargear option they have, then flip to the back of the codex to find the stat, then flip back to the unit entry to figure out what it hits on, then check a special rule only to be hit with some of the most obnoxious legalese I've ever seen in a tabletop game, and so on and so on.

It's really not just the layers of rules that make it hard. It's the presentation, layout, and organization. The game was not written with new players in mind- it does not start off small, or give you turn-by-turn play examples to ease you into how the rules are supposed to work.

Check out the Battletech Beginner Box for comparison. It's a similarly convoluted, clunky, still-rooted-in-the-80s game, but that starter box actually makes it approachable. It's all about how the rules are structured (basic vs advanced), how they're written (plain language with simple lookups, no legalese or numerical codes), how reference material is presented (all your stats on one sheet), and how the game guides you to gradually increase in scope and complexity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/03 23:06:58


   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Wayniac wrote:
ccs wrote:
Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


You have that right now.
You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.
unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself
Wolves.

Well that attitude is not going to change 3-4 months from now. Or a year from now. Or 2 years....
The same people who'll only play the most complex version of the game today aren't going to change.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 catbarf wrote:


It's really not just the layers of rules that make it hard. It's the presentation, layout, and organization. The game was not written with new players in mind- it does not start off small, or give you turn-by-turn play examples to ease you into how the rules are supposed to work.

Check out the Battletech Beginner Box for comparison. It's a similarly convoluted, clunky, still-rooted-in-the-80s game, but that starter box actually makes it approachable. It's all about how the rules are structured (basic vs advanced), how they're written (plain language with simple lookups, no legalese or numerical codes), how reference material is presented (all your stats on one sheet), and how the game guides you to gradually increase in scope and complexity.


It is not a question of layout or presentation. w40k is just not played with 4-12 models. If w40k was games of 20 marines and an HQ fighting vs 20 orks and a warboss, the game would be called clunky, but easy to understand too. It isn't because the basic size game, at which it is played and considered optimal is 2000pts. And we can talk a lot about playig patrol or boarding action, for which rules and boxes, in some places in the world, are impossible to get, but that it is not the core of how w40k is played. The core w40k or AoS expiriance is, sesonal rules, 2000pts, matched play. In both cases those are two systems tested by tournament gamers, giving tournament gamers feed back. When combined with the rules sell models and GW wanting people to never stop buying more models, it creates a loop, where a new player is being thrown in to a world where, unless a miracle happens, they are going to be told very fast what the regular game of w40k or AoS is.

And 10th will not change that. People say it will streamline and make stuff easier, that index will be a thing and rules bloat will be removed. How is having detachment stratagems, faction stratagems and special stratagems for the warlord different , numericaly, from what we have now?
And index will be streamlined, and boring to play, but codex are going to be coming out with more detachments, with more rules then the index ones, there is going to be updated unit profiles and new units will have more rules and rules interactions depending on the faction and detachment being played.

The names will be different, and maybe some rules are going to be in different places, but the game will stay the same as GW gaming philosophy goes.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:


And 10th will not change that. People say it will streamline and make stuff easier, that index will be a thing and rules bloat will be removed. How is having detachment stratagems, faction stratagems and special stratagems for the warlord different , numericaly, from what we have now?
And index will be streamlined, and boring to play, but codex are going to be coming out with more detachments, with more rules then the index ones, there is going to be updated unit profiles and new units will have more rules and rules interactions depending on the faction and detachment being played.

The names will be different, and maybe some rules are going to be in different places, but the game will stay the same as GW gaming philosophy goes.


You and I clearly have a different understanding of how all this is unfolding.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/04/04 01:38:25


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




How else is GW going to make people buy more stuff over and over again, on a sesonal aka quarterly schedul?

As soon as the codex start droping the race will be on again. And when we get past the initial marines books, the game will realy take up speed.

I remember how GW talked about index, streamlining of rules and how early 8th codex looked like, comparing to books that came out 6+ months later. Of coure now they are talking and telling people all the stuff they want to hear. New edition, buy in to it, the rules are free, but they never say the detachment rules crucial to matched play will be free. We streamline stuff, and then they list that each army will have faction stratagems, detachment stratagems and then special stratagems for the warlords and heroes. For my dudes that is more stratagems then we have right now, even if only half of them are good. And the assumption I think is that GW is not going to leave the "if you play vs eldar, and your unit of slanesh demons is within X", then you can do this one super conditional thing". and just leave and add the good stuff.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: