Switch Theme:

How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
How do you feel about the State of 40k?
Very Positive - the game is in a great place
Positive - the game is good but could improve
Neutral - don't feel strongly one way or another
Negative - something about the state of 40k is bad
Very Negative - 40k is in an awful place right now
I just like to vote on polls but don't have an opinion

View results
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 us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 the_scotsman wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins


Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)


Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.


I remember in 5th playing what was effectively a pickup game with a friend where we decided, based on the terrain we had, that a certain part of the board had a weird psychic anomaly happening. My opponent's Dark Eldar wanted to see it happen because lol why not, and my Grey Knights wanted to shut it down because Emperor's Tarot yadda yadda bad Daemons.
We quickly discovered that a mission where a raider full of incubi needed to merely move and unleash on some hapless GK defending a location is not very well balanced but hey it was a fun half hour.

Queue playing a Narrative Campaign in 8th with the same friend who railed against the custom mission I had designed (basically get the explorator in a freshly-activated Necron tomb and get it back to the table edge while tomb defense systems attacked your units + the enemy also wanted said explorator) because it was unbalanced.

Sigh.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

Tycho wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

This feels like the most overt "it changed so it sucks" take I've seen.

The biggest change to missions was making them less kill focused which arguably fits the lore better since territory control, resource gain/denial, and resource recovery are the reason 40k has so many ground wars instead of just glassing the enemy from orbit.

And anything you play over and over again is going to feel repetetive. That's how repetition works.


I don't think that's necessarily fair. Older editions did have a lot more "tactical depth" (for 40k anyway, simulation fans need not @me) than the current edition, and 8th and 9th DO have a lot of CCG style in-game power ups and combos that feel a bit "arcade-like" for lack of a better term that I can see not being appealing to some. Additionally, the missions for 9th are based on actual tournament style systems, so if you don't like that kind of play, I can see not feeling positive towards the edition. Sure, at that point it's on you to work out what style to play instead, and the tools are there for that, but I don't see that post as being as bad as you feel it was.

I never said anything about tactical depth. I was talking about narrative depth.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".


Possibly true of Matched play, which is one third of what GW gave you, yet is strangely the only thing anyone cares about, despite the fact that another third of what GW gave you would solve many of the problems.

 oni wrote:
Negative.
The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.


Because Missions are only part of the game, since neither secondaries nor agendas are contained in the mission rules. I won't speak about secondaries specifically as I don't play matched and others can do it more intelligently than I, but most agendas in dexes are interesting and fluffy, and many involve battlefield actions and some are completely de-coupled from and exist in dynamic tension with objectives.

   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tycho wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

This feels like the most overt "it changed so it sucks" take I've seen.

The biggest change to missions was making them less kill focused which arguably fits the lore better since territory control, resource gain/denial, and resource recovery are the reason 40k has so many ground wars instead of just glassing the enemy from orbit.

And anything you play over and over again is going to feel repetetive. That's how repetition works.


I don't think that's necessarily fair. Older editions did have a lot more "tactical depth" (for 40k anyway, simulation fans need not @me) than the current edition, and 8th and 9th DO have a lot of CCG style in-game power ups and combos that feel a bit "arcade-like" for lack of a better term that I can see not being appealing to some. Additionally, the missions for 9th are based on actual tournament style systems, so if you don't like that kind of play, I can see not feeling positive towards the edition. Sure, at that point it's on you to work out what style to play instead, and the tools are there for that, but I don't see that post as being as bad as you feel it was.

I never said anything about tactical depth. I was talking about narrative depth.



I don't see anything about "narrative" depth in your post. It seemed aimed at tactics but fair enough if I misunderstood you. It still feels a bit harsh. The post you were responding to wasn't one of those "RAAAARGH! One unit in my army changed ever so slightly and now my army is invalidated, so feth GW" kind of posts. Seemed like a reasonable take to me.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

I talked about how the missions fit the lore better. How is that not narrative?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 17:48:24


 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 ClockworkZion wrote:
I talked about how the missions fit the lore better. How is that not narrative?


Like I said, I didn't see it.

I did miss that.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

edit

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 17:54:09


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantasy, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 18:43:19


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Galas wrote:
9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantash, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

I feel like the missions aren't the problem, it's the repetition that kills the fun.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Galas wrote:
9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantash, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

I feel like the missions aren't the problem, it's the repetition that kills the fun.

Well, the missions are designed with competitive play in mind, and competitive players like consistent win conditions. So, you get repetition.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Galas wrote:
9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantash, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

I feel like the missions aren't the problem, it's the repetition that kills the fun.

Well, the missions are designed with competitive play in mind, and competitive players like consistent win conditions. So, you get repetition.

I won't disagree with that. I'm just saying that the base game getting played to death is more the issue than the design of the missions.

Which reminds me, did Plague War or Book of Rust add narrative missions? I have yet to look at those books.
   
Made in ie
Pustulating Plague Priest





 the_scotsman wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins


Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)


Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.


This is a weird post because its implying that the older players changed, rather than the focus of the newer players changing to a more static rules set because its what convenient. Theres more FLGSs around now, meaning more games with strangers which is why you'd want the convenience of a static rule set whereas nostalgial players generally played with friends at each others houses (or Garagehammer), which made it easy to agree and play house rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 19:07:26



 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






The thing about the current mission pack is that they're one dimensional. Everyone will always select the same secondary objectives that their army is best suited to achieve. And because you can always select the same Secondary Objectives every time, you can evaluate and formulate during army construction to better accomplish them. Hence why so many people say that the game is won during the "list building phase". There is no mechanic to force the players to consider a victory condition that hasn't been premeditated.

I like the 8th edition missions the best. Particularly the Eternal War and Maelstrom of War missions. And they were all getting refined and very good towards the end of 8th's life cycle via Chapter Approved.

A primary reason why the 8th edition missions are great is that you did not know what the victory condition would be going into the game. This forced players to consider ALL options and assemble an army that was more diversified.
Another reason the 8th edition Eternal War missions are great is that both players are working towards a common victory condition.
With the 9th edition missions the game feels disjointed because you're each working towards different goals. This can really cut down on counter play. The 9th edition missions actually remove critical thinking and tactical depth from the game because the armies become somewhat autonomous; always working to achieve the same objectives each and every time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 19:54:58


 
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






 oni wrote:

Another reason the 8th edition Eternal War missions are great is that both players are working towards a common victory condition.
With the 9th edition missions the game feels disjointed because you're each working towards different goals. This can really cut down on counter play. The 9th edition missions actually remove critical thinking and tactical depth from the game because the armies become somewhat autonomous; always working to achieve the same objectives each and every time.


Hard disagree. Asymmetric objectives do the exact opposite in general, they promote counterplay that isn't simply "try harder to achieve your main goal". When both players shoot for the same goal, you just have to do that thing better than the other side. With asymmetry, you have to think about achieving yours and also partitioning some forces to harry and disrupt the other guy from achieving theirs. Tension between these factors allows for interesting play. 40k doesn't do that in any particularily commendable fashion, but that isn't really the objectives' fault.

I do agree with your point about the less predictable missions being preferable, though. Loved the later CA's of 8th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 20:00:52


#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sim-Life wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins


Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)


Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.


This is a weird post because its implying that the older players changed, rather than the focus of the newer players changing to a more static rules set because its what convenient. Theres more FLGSs around now, meaning more games with strangers which is why you'd want the convenience of a static rule set whereas nostalgial players generally played with friends at each others houses (or Garagehammer), which made it easy to agree and play house rules.


Mostly what im accusing the nostalgia crowd of is going to pickup games at a store and having a bad time when what they used to do was play a small group of friends.

Why not play with a small group of likeminded folks?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I think that it is interesting that only 40% are positive on the game, according to this poll at this time. Dakka has some reputation, but the people here all are here because they love or loved something... I was brought in by people who loved what they were doing and wouldn’t have stayed if 60% of the fans I met were nostalgic for better days or suspicious of bloat in the form of supplement spam or gamey weirdness. Likeminded folks. That is the majority, if also counting the neutral “meh” voters. Nah, I might have stayed into Man o War, but skipped 40k if that were the atmosphere.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 ClockworkZion wrote:


Which reminds me, did Plague War or Book of Rust add narrative
missions? I have yet to look at those books.


The 3 Missions in the BoR are fairly narrative in nature, but there are only 3. There are also some ideas and suggestions about how to fit them into the provided campaign structure (these parts are very vague and loose; it's obvious they did this because they didn't want to trap players into a my-way or the highway campaign system, but I felt they should have offered more guidance). Strangely, there is more Crusade content in the BoR than there is in Plague Purge, which was billed as a Crusade Mission pack. Beyond the veil was far better than Plague Purge, but even it was a bit light.

I find the WD Flashpoints to actually be one of the better sources for Narrative content. Each includes three theatres of war- these aren't missions- they modify missions. But there's also a narrative overview of multiple battles in each Theatre. There's also usually a short story, and they throw in a few relics as prizes. When you combine these with the BoR, you get a really fulsome campaign.

I was sure I started a thread where I laid out a full 30 game campaign arc for Charadon combining missions with theatres and the campaign system, but I can't find it anywhere. There are a near infinite number of combinations- no two BoR campaigns will ever be the same if you actually use all the content. But as other's have pointed out, the weakness is that if you only use a single source, you don't really get the whole thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 21:35:59


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:
And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 ClockworkZion wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.

Yes, but some might consider that boring, or, "repetitive".
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Which is a shame, as it means you lose out on dynamic missions like, say, Lockdown, which was easily my fav from CA2019.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Open war deck gives you all the variety you need. The variance in missions/objectives/etc is great...unless you want the unobtainable "balance".

But that goes against S.O.P. for competitive focused players.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:
And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.


Eh. When GW decided to get more "creative" with the 8e missions they did things like making a king of the hill objective that turned Invulnerable saves off if you got anywhere near it. I'm all for more variance in mission design, but I don't think 8e is a great example to hold up here.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Really, terrain should be creating enough variance in the basic missions.
I think it’s a huge 40k issue here with that.
Enabling them to put effort into some really good alternative missions as well.

But I also think the competitive scene is one of the worst around for player driven content. They seem intent to strangle any fun out of the missions sometimes.
And tournament packs and missions are part of game design.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.

Yes, but some might consider that boring, or, "repetitive".

Which has been my point. It's a side effect of GW pushing matched play to be the more competitive play experience. I asked about the missions for the campaign supplements because I'm hoping they put the more interesting missions there. Like the old Meatgrinder that put the defender in the middle for a set number of turns and gave the attacker a lower number of points but infinitely respawning units.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.


No, that's absolutely not how competitive play works. If that were true, we'd have only one mission, because that is the easiest to balance. Competitive play is certainly about balance, but it's also about variety, because ability to cope with different situations is a test of skill just as much as ability to execute perfectly on an unchanging set of victory conditions is a test of skill. The game wouldn't be better competitively with only one mission, it would be worse.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 05:13:40


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

yukishiro1 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.


No, that's absolutely not how competitive play works. If that were true, we'd have only one mission, because that is the most balanced of all. Competitive play is certainly about balance, but it's also about variety, because ability to cope with different situations is a test of skill just as much as ability to executive perfectly on an unchanging set of victory conditions is a test of skill.

I think the only reason they tried to have a variety of missions is because we don't have one play style across all armies, so a variety gives a fairer shake across the board.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 05:14:21


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




...if you just keep going with that thought a bit further...
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

yukishiro1 wrote:
...if you just keep going with that thought a bit further...

Point is that the missions are less randomly generated than the old ones because it evens the playing field. They more than likely worked with Reese and the ITC people to try and pick a good mix of missions that are balanced between both players but give a reasonable amount of variety for different playstyles to make the game more skill focused but not driving it down one particular play style.

That said, it's repetive when you boil down the game to so few mission types and then play them over and over with no change to deployment zones.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: