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.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Repeatable missions are sort of the thing plaguing 40k atm for me. I’m not saying maelstrom of war but a big table of missions requiring different elements would be interesting, as well as decreasing secondaries. I think a lot of meta lists would struggle for points in this type of thing.

This is where I prefer as well - doing the same mission over and over quite frankly sucks. It is also easy to game.

However meta lists will just evolve to be whatever is best at everything in the most mathematical possible. They will be more generalized... which means not as overbearing, but the meta will as always adapt to whatever the powergaming paradigm is based on the static parameters given. (granted if you have a list of missions that are all different and there are enough of them it becomes VERY difficult to make a list good at them all, which is where sideboarding will be strongly desired so that you can sideboard and stay optimal)

When elements of a system become predictable it becomes easier to exploit those elements.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!

This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.

You do know that the base Eternal War Mission Pack has 3 Combat Patrol missions with differing deployment zones and primary/secondary objective rules, right?

Combat Patrol is a valid way to play and is a valid Matched Play option.

Now, the Grand Tournament books are only Strike Force and Incursion specific because those are the two competitive circuits, although, everyone ignores Incursion anyway.

 oni wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward.

You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?

Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.

Of that list he's only responsible for the fixed terrain layouts. While I'm not a fan of those I can at least understand the desire to have a standardised set of terrain for the official GW tournaments.

The other things you list are much more inspired by ITC rules, which he had no hand in at all. In fact, the NOVA Open, which he ran, was notable for being one of the biggest tournaments that didn't use the standard ITC mission pack when almost everyone else was running it.

 oni wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward.

You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?

Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.

Okay but Matt Ward was disliked by some because his rule were borne of over-enthusiasm. They were dynamic, fun and imaginative and the problem was he often took things too far and made stuff over-powered conpared to other authors efforts at the time. Its seems like your problem with Brandt is that he makes everything samey and stagnant. Also if he only works on scenarios and tournament stuff how does that effect the balance of armies?

I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them

 Aenar wrote:
I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them

Whilst I do think there are valid complaints to be made about the missions, you are definitely on the money here.

Auticus doesn't even play the game!

 Sim-Life wrote:


Okay but Matt Ward was disliked by some because his rule were borne of over-enthusiasm. They were dynamic, fun and imaginative and the problem was he often took things too far and made stuff over-powered conpared to other authors efforts at the time. Its seems like your problem with Brandt is that he makes everything samey and stagnant. Also if he only works on scenarios and tournament stuff how does that effect the balance of armies?

Doesn't that just mean that Ward wrote fun books to play, but because he didn't write 100% of them, those that got to enjoy those writen by other designers had to both play vs stuff which was good and fun, while playing with something that was the opposite?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward.

You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?

Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.

Okay but Matt Ward was disliked by some because his rule were borne of over-enthusiasm. They were dynamic, fun and imaginative and the problem was he often took things too far and made stuff over-powered conpared to other authors efforts at the time. Its seems like your problem with Brandt is that he makes everything samey and stagnant. Also if he only works on scenarios and tournament stuff how does that effect the balance of armies?

Because they're basing the balancing and design of the armies around Mike's mission packets. Note i don't play in tournaments nor use the torunament mission packs but to pinch some of the rules for casual games, but I also understand and appreciate that to get balance he's trying to create missions that suit different forms of play and maps/objective layouts that aren't immediately wonky throwfests. If your missions are stable and consistent then to a degree it makes the variance in army performances easier to narrow down.

 Blackie wrote:
I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.

I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.

It just kills multiple detachment armies. It’s not a nerf to stratagems it’s crippling to army construction.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.

I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.

It just kills multiple detachment armies. It’s not a nerf to stratagems it’s crippling to army construction.

No, it just cripples them as it should be. At the moment there's little disadvantage in taking multiple detachments, it's mostly just benefits.

I play two detachments for -3CPs and I praise the change.

 Aenar wrote:
I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them

My LGS has a weekly game night post-hours and we used to follow the GT missions, we recently realised that most of our complaints were based on the missions all being the same and we've gone back to playing goofy fun missions instead (still waiting on a second shipment of tempest of war to use).

Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?

 Blackie wrote:


No, it just cripples them as it should be. At the moment there's little disadvantage in taking multiple detachments, it's mostly just benefits.

I play two detachments for -3CPs and I praise the change.

When an army was designed and advertised as to be played with a mix of detachments, and then the option gets taken away, then it affect armies who were not designed with such a need in mind much different.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.

I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.

It just kills multiple detachment armies. It’s not a nerf to stratagems it’s crippling to army construction.

And also, again, any Heretic Astartes/Loyalist Scum armies using the "wrong models". This makes the Martial Legacy nerf hit all the harder.

Dudeface wrote:
Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?

Not yet - maybe that contingent is taking a couple of days off...

Well those are resin models. It's feature. Not bug. Gw doesn't want you to buy resin if you want power when plastic is out there.

This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Have we had the wailing about the doom of the Ork faction yet?

Not yet - maybe that contingent is taking a couple of days off...

I mean we have blood axes to kinda try and mitigate it, it’s going to spell doom for Goff lists imo.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.

People in general don't care much about armies they don't play or own. It really has to be some special instance for it to be a thing.

Karol wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.

People in general don't care much about armies they don't play or own. It really has to be some special instance for it to be a thing.

I care about the overall game more than a specific army

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is killer to low model count armies like Custodes or Knights, who depend on early cp use to strike hard. Not that anyone here cares about bad news for those armies.

People in general don't care much about armies they don't play or own. It really has to be some special instance for it to be a thing.

I care about the overall game more than a specific army

And if the overall game requires someone else's army to be deleted or nerfed into unusability, so be it!

I think that would either would require the ownership of most w40k faction or being forced to play against friends or family, whose armies combined are a spread over all w40k factions.

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And yet people keep reminding you that that tends to not be how people play. People tend to play with whatever the latest update is.

And people keep thinking the only way to play is with the latest GT mission pack because people keep perpetuating the narrative. So how do you suppose we break that narrative hm?

Find people who want to play the same way as you. If everyone in your local meta wants to play with the latest GT mission pack, I don't think an organized propaganda campaign to show them the error of their ways is the appropriate response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:


Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!
Maybe this is their attempt to bring folks to lower sized games.

The game doesn't work very well at low points and isn't really designed to. They have Kill Team, Warcry, Underworlds, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Titanicus and Aeronautica Imperialis for that. 40k is a mass battle game about HQs, troops, elites, heavy support, and fast attack units working together to accomplish multiple objectives. That doesn't play well at 500 pts because you basically get an HQ, a troop or two, and one big model or powerful unit.

Toofast wrote:
Find people who want to play the same way as you. If everyone in your local meta wants to play with the latest GT mission pack, I don't think an organized propaganda campaign to show them the error of their ways is the appropriate response.

As we've already seen the internet has a massive pull on what is and is not the "right" way to play 40k. I simply suggest that people mention that rules are part of optional mission packs instead of implying they are core rules. It's hardly a propaganda campaign when it's just telling people the truth. I'd argue the effort to make comp 40k rules seem like the core 40k rules is more in line with that idea.

Slipspace wrote:

The other things you list are much more inspired by ITC rules, which he had no hand in at all. In fact, the NOVA Open, which he ran, was notable for being one of the biggest tournaments that didn't use the standard ITC mission pack when almost everyone else was running it.

My local group was playing the nova mission pack a lot during 7th. The BRB missions were too stale and static, maelstrom was just crazy random even with the universal house rule. Nova missions were a great balance, dynamic objectives that made you think ahead but you could still plan for. Not just "oh I drew 'kill a psyker' and my enemy doesn't have them, guess i don't score this turn."

 AnomanderRake wrote:

And if the overall game requires someone else's army to be deleted or nerfed into unusability, so be it!

More like : If the overall game requires someone's army to need to be reworked so it functions better, so be it!

I play thousand sons, the removal of monofaction souping affected me but i realised it was a better change for the overall game.
If a faction becomes truly unplayable with changes, then GW needs to go back to it and fix the specific problems with that faction instead of sacrificing the whole game.

Umbros wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
I wonder how many times all those who complain about "the same set of competitive missions" have played them

Whilst I do think there are valid complaints to be made about the missions, you are definitely on the money here.

Auticus doesn't even play the game!

Auticus played the game for over 20 years and had to play in an environment that was only matched / tournament scenarios day in day out.

I highly doubt that the game and matched play conditions in those regards changed drastically in the 3 years that I stepped out or if the missions somehow since 2019 that these missions become these dynamic ever changing things, especially since I can go read them with my own eyes and see what the state of the game is myself.

 Gert wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Find people who want to play the same way as you. If everyone in your local meta wants to play with the latest GT mission pack, I don't think an organized propaganda campaign to show them the error of their ways is the appropriate response.

As we've already seen the internet has a massive pull on what is and is not the "right" way to play 40k. I simply suggest that people mention that rules are part of optional mission packs instead of implying they are core rules. It's hardly a propaganda campaign when it's just telling people the truth. I'd argue the effort to make comp 40k rules seem like the core 40k rules is more in line with that idea.

We need to remember to confiscate the shirts from such people, issue them with MC Hammer trousers and masks, and remind them that branding is optional, but recommended.

After all, need to make sure these Cultists are WYSIWYG...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

And if the overall game requires someone else's army to be deleted or nerfed into unusability, so be it!

More like : If the overall game requires someone's army to need to be reworked so it functions better, so be it!

I play thousand sons, the removal of monofaction souping affected me but i realised it was a better change for the overall game.
If a faction becomes truly unplayable with changes, then GW needs to go back to it and fix the specific problems with that faction instead of sacrificing the whole game.

But GW doesn't do that. They maybe do it for marines, but even then 2.0 marines are often very different from what prior marine armies were.