Switch Theme:

What are people making of the new CA mission pack?  [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 us
Fixture of Dakka





GW seems to be pushing this as a book usable withing the competitive arena. Most of it seems centered around using the new terrain and having players bring terrain to a tournament rather than terrain being supplied by the organizer.

There's also a "pipeway access point" on the featured piece, which sounds interesting, but i'm not at all keen on buying specific terrain for rules.

Beyond that there are additional secondaries, which could be useful and a mission that also looks to allow you to put your home objective in terrain and dictates where you must place some terrain.

I'm pretty lukewarm until I can understand how it all comes together more, but has anyone seen any enthusiasm for this among competitive arenas?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/23/prepare-to-deploy-tactically/

   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick





I'm sure the big and up-and-coming tournaments who desperately want Daddy GW to notice them will be all over it. For everybody else, it's probably adding too much convoluted, bloated rules on top of bloated rules.

I'm not paying £20 for DLC Mission Packs that should've already been in the rulebook released barely two months ago and I've no interest in lugging around official GW(tm) Approved terrain with me, as well as everything else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/23 16:11:54


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW seems to be pushing this as a book usable withing the competitive arena. Most of it seems centered around using the new terrain and having players bring terrain to a tournament rather than terrain being supplied by the organizer.

There's also a "pipeway access point" on the featured piece, which sounds interesting, but i'm not at all keen on buying specific terrain for rules.

Beyond that there are additional secondaries, which could be useful and a mission that also looks to allow you to put your home objective in terrain and dictates where you must place some terrain.

I'm pretty lukewarm until I can understand how it all comes together more, but has anyone seen any enthusiasm for this among competitive arenas?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/23/prepare-to-deploy-tactically/


Every terrain piece they've previewed so far has utterly defeated the purpose terrain has on the battlefield: Making the game less deadly.

as such, I anticipate I will give the entire thing a miss.

The fact that I can drive my ding dang tank into a building and it doesn't matter one single bit to how difficult it is to kill my vehicle, but, somehow, being now parked inside a damn building makes my vehicle reroll 1s to hit, is the height of stupidity to me.

"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 gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

I'd be happier with stuff like Storage Fane (ammo dumps) if they could explode...

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Unless the rules drop for this shows a far different theme than has been previewed so far, this is a hard pass for our gaming group. Just with what we have seen so far, even assuming the rules are fantastic, there are 3 issues we've identified that would make implementing this on a tournament basis "problematic" to say the least.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in gb
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest





Stevenage, UK

I'm not a fan of the approach... as has been stated, adding convoluted rules for individual pieces of terrain is the worst culprit here, no-one's going to remember the terrain rules on top of all their unit rules, Stratagems, psychic powers, Warlord trait, and primary and secondary objectives...

There is one really great idea here that I hope does stick around, though - the idea of having a certain amount of terrain "points" to suit the size of battle. It's often been discussed how having too much or too little terrain can seriously mess with balance depending on the armies turning up - setting a decent expectation here would be a big help.

"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch  
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

It’s a nope from me and from our group tbh.

 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"
 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Executing Exarch





Edinburgh, UK

I think the general consensus has been "no".

All of these new missions and terrain rules are brilliant for all games of Warhammer 40,000, but they really shine when it comes to competitive play. No longer will you be at the mercy of random terrain placement – you’ll now bring your own and have just what you need when you deploy your army. Choose the exact terrain you want to complement the units in your force and lead your army to tournament glory!


Yes, let me game the hell out of this game even more than people are already doing. Random terrain forces you to work with what you have on the board. Or, play ITC which had a pretty standard and reasonably fair terrain layout.

5000 Fir Farillecassion Eldar W/L/D 4th Ed Codex - 14/7/1 6th Ed Codex - 9/1/0 7th Ed Codex - 4/1/1 8th Ed Codex - 20/6/2 9th Ed - 2/1/0
2000 Hive Fleet Zenith
Excavating eBay: My blog of eBay finds and the pile of shame!
Instagram, follow if you dare!
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






I like the idea of different themed battle zones where the terrain has some advanced functionality; but for narrative play games.

That said, am I going to lug my terrain around? Hell no!

I think it's fair to say that this is a gimmick so sell their terrain kits.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 oni wrote:
I think it's fair to say that this is a gimmick so sell their terrain kits.


Yea that was my feeling as well. I wasn't eager to jump in and looks like everyone feels the same so far. Thanks all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/23 17:03:16


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Terrain is my fav thing in the hobby. I no longer like building miniatures, but I love building terrain. I own tables of the stuff.

And this expansion is a hard pass.

Ruins thematic tables, limited only to Official™ Citadel™ Terrain™, and then it's a bunch of boxy buildings with different rules.

Cities of Death did this with counters. We didn't need "terrain points" and data cards for each building.

   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






I think the efforts put into this 'mission pack' (if you can even call it that) should have been put towards revising Cities of Death, Planetstrike and Stronghold Assault or better yet...

A new version of the greatest book ever made for W40K... Planetary Onslaught.

   
Made in gb
Wicked Canoptek Wraith




UK

Pushing this as being "Competitive-ready" and not including any obvious references to proper sizes and dimensions on the datasheets for the pieces feels, uhhhhhhhh, a little silly. Even using the official models, there's plenty of opportunities for abuse.

And really, it's fine that GW wants to push their terrain, but this whole thing just feels like a giant wasted opportunity.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Bosskelot wrote:
And really, it's fine that GW wants to push their terrain, but this whole thing just feels like a giant wasted opportunity.
I've said it dozens of times, but GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Terrain is my fav thing in the hobby. I no longer like building miniatures, but I love building terrain. I own tables of the stuff.

And this expansion is a hard pass.

Ruins thematic tables, limited only to Official™ Citadel™ Terrain™, and then it's a bunch of boxy buildings with different rules.

Cities of Death did this with counters. We didn't need "terrain points" and data cards for each building.


Agreed. Terrain should be set dressing and nothing more. The only rules it should grant are whatever is printed in the relevant rulebook, not some convoluted rubbish where it is essentially part of your army.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Spawn of Chaos





Looks pretty lackluster, IMO. The terrain piece looks pretty non descript to me, what about it screams "ammunition storage"?
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





Hard pass from me. It brings nothing to the game that is needed IMHO. Time could have been better spent elsewhere.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Good for narrative and fun games for a twist. Its more of a way to help locals with borrowed terrain and a way to sell more terrain basically.

15k+
:harlequin: 4k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

I'm not against various terrain pieces having specific rules.....
I mean, we've been doing this for decades already. Sometimes a game system will define something (either generically or specific), sometimes we'll specify something while setting the table.

I don't mind GW wanting to push their terrain. Personally though I buy/build terrain based upon looks or theme. So it doesn't matter what rules they attach.

I don't mind bringing some terrain with me. Depending upon where/what we play my group already does this (for ex; when we do WWI I'm the guy who supplies the trenches. And in AoS some of our armies have terrain pieces).

More missions? Sure.

So I'll give this thing a look when it comes out.
I'm not expecting it to be a work of genius though.... Afterall, what's the point of highlighting that ammo dump having an access hatch - when two sides of the thing are open/broken walls??

And you know what? If it includes the rules for the terrain? I can build my own versions & skip GWs overpriced stuff it it doesn't meet my standards.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Amishprn86 wrote:
Good for narrative and fun games for a twist. Its more of a way to help locals with borrowed terrain and a way to sell more terrain basically.


I think its great for TOs who lack terrain, but I'm not sure I like the rules dynamics.

   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
And really, it's fine that GW wants to push their terrain, but this whole thing just feels like a giant wasted opportunity.
I've said it dozens of times, but GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


You silver tongued devil you...

Sums it up well.

If it was just something that could be a thing in your games like cities of death and put in a WD or something? sure I would support it. I still wouldn't buy it or use it personally but I appreciate the effort of adding an extra layer of stuff (however shallow it actually is in reality) for those that want it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/23 21:55:53


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




My issue? They make core units a thing because they get rerolls are oppressive on some units.... then highlight a new terrain feature that gives rerolls to anyone able to fit inside. :p lame.

And while i am all down for new missions the one they showcased isn't all that new...
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Azuza001 wrote:
And while i am all down for new missions the one they showcased isn't all that new...


Dynamically not much different, but it does have an interesting layout and features we don't see elsewhere. That mission secondary is quite workable it seems.

   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Bosskelot wrote:
Pushing this as being "Competitive-ready" and not including any obvious references to proper sizes and dimensions on the datasheets for the pieces feels, uhhhhhhhh, a little silly. Even using the official models, there's plenty of opportunities for abuse.

And really, it's fine that GW wants to push their terrain, but this whole thing just feels like a giant wasted opportunity.


There's footprint for each piece in the datasheet. Albeit height is still issue but since it's for official kits you can get it from those.

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
4663
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Grimtuff wrote:


Agreed. Terrain should be set dressing and nothing more. The only rules it should grant are whatever is printed in the relevant rulebook, not some convoluted rubbish where it is essentially part of your army.


Some of the stuff has been kind of fun in the past, like that plasma conduit thing. Things that make terrain worth fighting over, potentially making them objectives could be a decent thing.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Canoptek Wraith




UK

tneva82 wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
Pushing this as being "Competitive-ready" and not including any obvious references to proper sizes and dimensions on the datasheets for the pieces feels, uhhhhhhhh, a little silly. Even using the official models, there's plenty of opportunities for abuse.

And really, it's fine that GW wants to push their terrain, but this whole thing just feels like a giant wasted opportunity.


There's footprint for each piece in the datasheet. Albeit height is still issue but since it's for official kits you can get it from those.


Those are just pictures printed on a tiny card. They give no actual dimensions in inches.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's a little worrying that GW are pushing this kind of thing before they've even managed to get a single Codex out for 9th. It's already ringing alarm bells that the bloat in this edition is likely to come from an increasing number of tournament packs, all with rules nobody asked for.

These rules seem really uninspired in general, provide yet another way for players to attempt to game the system, potentially fragment the player base and don't seem practical given the problems with transporting terrain to and from events.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Abel





Washington State

I say "meh", because I really don't care. No one is likely to use it. I've only ever seen two players pay points and bring terrain to a table- and it did nothing for them. I guess that could change, but bringing your own terrain has always been frowned on in 40K.

Missions don't matter. If you can make an army list, you can make a mission/scenario. The rule book already had over a dozen different missions in it, and most people don't even play all those. Adding more... is just more missions few, if anyone, will play.

The real sticking point to me- ITC didn't publish a missions pack this year. Or, I should say they did, and they provided a nice, handy link to the GW Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack. If the requirement to play in an ITC tournament is now to have another over costed book that you will be forced to buy every year... yeah, that will suck.

Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's a terrible cash grab attempt that undermines the whole history of the hobby. Who wants to play on half-and-half tables gamed for advantage by both players at the explicit invitation of GW? Half ice world planet bowling ball and half jungle world necromunda? Ad mech healing a vehicle 3D3 a turn thanks to a conveniently placed ruin? Terrain that gives you rerolls? Seriously?

This is one of the worst things GW has put out in a long time. It's even worse than the IH debacle IMO because that was just terrible execution, not a deliberate attempt to undermine one of the core aspects of the hobby in order to sell more plastic junk.

The good thing is that the community seems to be 95% treating it with the scorn it deserves. This needs to flop hard because GW needs to get the message that undermining the hobby to sell its expensive branded terrain is not an acceptable thing to do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/24 17:09:10


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Daedalus81 wrote:

What are people making of the new CA mission pack?


The only correct answer is 'we're making fun of the new CA mission pack'.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: