What would you like to see for 40K in 2019-2020?

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.

**SHUPPET**

I think luck is a good thing and important for this game to be good. Things like randoming a mission that makes it impossible to win however, is not.

**Apple fox**

bullyboy wrote:
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.

For me, I would say it is not any fun, is bad design and leads to poor narrative in games. I do not even watch bat reps that use the malestrom stuff.

**Not Online!!!**

Apple fox wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.

For me, I would say it is not any fun, is bad design and leads to poor narrative in games. I do not even watch bat reps that use the malestrom stuff.

And? Some would say that scions are gak Design too so that is Pretty much subjective.

Consider hearthstone which has more luck involved via random effects that can hugely swing. This is what makes the game enteraining and shows good players skill due to their better capability of predicting and using these cards for maximum effect.
Now compare to steams artifact.

**Karol**

Not Online!!! 775499 10467255 wrote:

Consider hearthstone which has more luck involved via random effects that can hugely swing. This is what makes the game enteraining and shows good players skill due to their better capability of predicting and using these cards for maximum effect.
Now compare to steams artifact.

Only heartstone from what I understand can be played FtP, and does not require you to buy a 800$ deck to begin with. getting random loses sucks, it is like paying for a trip to germany for an event and getting disqualified for using the wrong type of chalk for your hands.

**Not Online!!!**

Karol wrote:
Not Online!!! 775499 10467255 wrote:

Consider hearthstone which has more luck involved via random effects that can hugely swing. This is what makes the game enteraining and shows good players skill due to their better capability of predicting and using these cards for maximum effect.
Now compare to steams artifact.

Only heartstone from what I understand can be played FtP, and does not require you to buy a 800$ deck to begin with. getting random loses sucks, it is like paying for a trip to germany for an event and getting disqualified for using the wrong type of chalk for your hands.

considering how many cards you need for competitive decks to state it is FtP it is more WtP, as in wait to play.

**CthuluIsSpy**

SHUPPET wrote:
I think luck is a good thing and important for this game to be good. Things like randoming a mission that makes it impossible to win however, is not.

Good thing you have the option to discard it after your turn then.
It would be nice if they gave you the option to immediately get rid of any cards that are impossible to do, but still, you do have an option.

They could probably simplify the missions so that instead of randomly drawing cards, the objective you get depends on in-game conditions.

Something like -

If Objective X is controlled by enemy --> Remove enemy from objective = 1VP
If Objective X is uncontrolled --> Take and hold objective until end of game = 1VP
If enemy character is alive --> Incapacite enemy character = 1VP
If enemy has at least one vehicle --> Destroy at least 1 vehicle = 1 VP
If enemy squad killed a unit --> Destroy offending unit = 1VP

etc etc, you get the idea.

**Karol**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Karol wrote:
Not Online!!! 775499 10467255 wrote:

Consider hearthstone which has more luck involved via random effects that can hugely swing. This is what makes the game enteraining and shows good players skill due to their better capability of predicting and using these cards for maximum effect.
Now compare to steams artifact.

Only heartstone from what I understand can be played FtP, and does not require you to buy a 800$ deck to begin with. getting random loses sucks, it is like paying for a trip to germany for an event and getting disqualified for using the wrong type of chalk for your hands.

considering how many cards you need for competitive decks to state it is FtP it is more WtP, as in wait to play.

It is still nothing comparing to the investment, just the initial one, to start playing w40k. The books alone can be a substential amount of money. 1-2 codex, WD to use assasins and the newest CA. Some games can be bought for as much as w40k books cost.

Good thing you have the option to discard it after your turn then.
It would be nice if they gave you the option to immediately get rid of any cards that are impossible to do, but still, you do have an option.

Cool. Lets say we start I get the cast psychic powers and take objectives that are in my or close to my deployment. My opponents gets to kill flyers I don't have and take my objectives. He discards one. Next turn I get some kill objectives and some take and holds, and he now gets to cast his own psychic powers with his tau army. You may as well restart the game after 2 turns like that.

**Apple fox**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.

For me, I would say it is not any fun, is bad design and leads to poor narrative in games. I do not even watch bat reps that use the malestrom stuff.

And? Some would say that scions are gak Design too so that is Pretty much subjective.

Consider hearthstone which has more luck involved via random effects that can hugely swing. This is what makes the game enteraining and shows good players skill due to their better capability of predicting and using these cards for maximum effect.
Now compare to steams artifact.

I was giving a response and My Opinion to the question and statement. Basically the entirety of the discussion within this hobby could be taken as subjective.

I do not even understand your point, Hearthstone for quite some time now has been losing momentum due to the stale feeling that the random elements have bring about. And from the games own design not having much outside of the board state itself.
This includes a very primitive form of counters and spells you can cast outside of your turn.
Compare to Valves Artifact, as steam is the platform not the devs. How ? Less random so less fun or Competitive ? Or that Artifact is far less Entertaining. Honestly what are you even talking about with this. Artifact mostly made poor marketing choices and ran itself into the ground coming into a market that is way less thoughtful about how these games extract money from the players and probably a more old school busness model

Playing hearthstone, my decks and the decks i face try to eliminate RNG as much as possible, and the only ones used are those that tend to only swing games into your favor and only vary in how lucky you can be.
But this is way off of topic.
So to pull it back in, The reason things like the malestrom missions are poor design is that they offer little to a game that seems to be struggling with Balance already and from a naritive they are at best GW Forge the Naritive. In that put as little work into it, and then say things are cool after.
I want to See GW use there time to put in good quality rules, and support narrative play well. Rather than waste time with products that really only exist to have another thing to sell to players.

And people can have great fun with low effort products, so it has really nothing to do with that. There are people that think the new starwars films are fantastic, I like them. But i could defenatly see places i think they could be better in a lot of ways.

Also, I really hate visiting there Website, it feels so clunky and poorly organized >.< So General wish for 2020 would be to make some improvements.

**Apple Peel**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.

For me, I would say it is not any fun, is bad design and leads to poor narrative in games. I do not even watch bat reps that use the malestrom stuff.

And? Some would say that scions are gak Design too so that is Pretty much subjective.

Oof, he didn’t respond for this. Did you think that he was I by only looking at the “Apple” bit?

**Grimtuff**

SHUPPET wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I find that insisting on not allowing free discards for impossible stuff is the easiest way to get someone off maelstrom.

Let's wait for the inevitable "bUt YoUr'E nOt PlAyInG fOrTy KaY tHeN..." response to those damnable house rules.

Oh yes. And as always, spoken by people who have no idea of what it means to play 40k.

For the record, I do kinda abhor the maelstrom cards and will avoid them at all costs but when I have to play them everyone has played with the above house rule, myself included. It just makes them more tolerable from my standpoint.

**Not Online!!!**

Apple Peel wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.

For me, I would say it is not any fun, is bad design and leads to poor narrative in games. I do not even watch bat reps that use the malestrom stuff.

And? Some would say that scions are gak Design too so that is Pretty much subjective.

Oof, he didn’t respond for this. Did you think that he was I by only looking at the “Apple” bit?

no i meant that as in, i know people that really distaste Scions, however it is completely subjective.

**Caprican**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Togusa wrote:
Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.

Spoiler:

Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.

All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.

Peregrine wrote:
Togusa wrote:
Killing competitive 40K would go a long way to fixing this game in all honesty.

Lolwut? Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
What about armies that have HQs as their only good stuff.

All GK players will be executed and turned into servitors, if I'm understanding the Polish 40k rules correctly.

Akar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Aside from the absurdity of excluding an entire section of the community and GW's customer base competitive play is doing nothing to hurt anyone else. The things that make 40k a better competitive game also make it better for casual/narrative/whatever games, so it's a win/win for everyone.
So you find it acceptable that the ITC community excludes an entire section of GW’s customer base?

Your statement operates under the assumption that the ITC, and other Alt-40k formats, is making improvements to the game. Which is only true when you cater to individuals who dislike the rules changes. This is BRILLIANT on the ITC part, since there is profit to be made off of creating an environment to provide for those who feel the same way. It also means that the ITC, specifically its ranking system, is only relevant to the ITC community. Same applies to all of the Alt-40k formats, but the ITC is probably the lead contender.

The TRUE absurdity is the belief that any Alt-40k format is somehow superior to the 40k format by default, or that the changes made are for the good of the community as a whole, and not just limited to their respective formats. This elitism is what is dividing the 40k community and has created a very Toxic environment. It doesn’t matter where the pro-40k players voice their views, there is always someone trying to shut them down, rather than trying to find ways to include them. What’s odd is that the ‘You will be assimilated’ attitude of the Alt-40k community is NOT one that Reecius, and probably a majority of the FLG team, push or even support. Reecius himself has said on several occasions that players can play how they want, something the ITC/Alt-40k community needs to adopt. There are Competetive players out there who don’t participate in Alt-40k events, like the ITC.

Competetive 40k itself has become problematic, since it no longer means what it’s supposed to. The strictest definition should be, ‘Those who play 40k in a competition setting’. The Alt-40k community has restricted its application to those who support their respective formats. Comments of lists, units, Armies, missions, etc, as not being ‘competetive’ plague every social aspect of the game. Trying to find Battle Reports, List advice, even answers to some rules questions, that AREN’T influenced by the Alt-40k community is not impossible, but is more difficult than it should be.

[spoiler]The ITC has been the biggest detriment to Competetive 40k for sometime. I’m sure this applies to other Alt-40k groups, but the ITC is the most active one in my area, so can only base my observations on them. From 6th to 7th, GW underestimated how big of a monster the ITC had become. They did listen to the community at the time and gave us Maelstrom in response to the stale EW missions in tournament play, and Allies to give narrative a boost. We also got Death Stars addressed to a degree and then there was the Formations to encourage themed play. All of which the ITC cherry picked what to include.

That loss of control was a huge factor in us getting 8th, but that’s just my gut feeling on it. This time GW was smart, and included the ITC in their playtesting, feedback, and development of what is still their game. The release of 8th should’ve brought the ITC/Alt-40k community back in line with what they want 40k to be. Instead, they gave GW the finger and kept to their old ways.

Chapter Approved and the FAQs come along, still including the ITC, showing a level of activity never seen before on GWs part. We don’t have to wait for updates on codexes before we see points changes. We have a concrete release of FAQs clarifying what the intent is. Most importantly, we’ve gotten a yearly update of the missions that GW wants us to play. These are influenced by the inclusion of the ITC community. There are technically 36 missions the are instructing us how they want the game played, with the most current 12 reflect the influence of Alt-40k. Of these, the ITC has still given the finger to GW and refuse to play the game, even after they’ve been included.

GW will eventually need to do something to bring the community back together. If NOT, then they need to release a statement showing that each FAQ/CA mission update will push the game closer to what the Alt-40k wants. That way, we can decide to sell off our armies before the ITC drives the company into the ground.

**catbarf**

Caprican wrote:
How does ITC completely change the game?

My experience has been that ITC allows and greatly encourages min-maxing that you have a harder time getting away with in the GW missions. The ability to choose objectives that specifically benefit your army rewards optimizing towards one gimmick. A lot of the complaints regarding balance, eg the Loyal 32/Smash Captain/Castellan meta, stem in part from how ITC makes these builds viable.

The GW tournament results have recently shown a greater diversity in the lists that made the top ten.

Caprican wrote:
Kinda sounds like someone doesn't know how to play a combat army :/ No amount of rules changes is going to fix the fact that you don't know how to wrap a unit.

I really liked how 8th got rid of the silly, fiddly elements to positioning individual models to minimize the effects of blast weapons or dictate the order of casualty removal.

Geometric positioning in melee to prevent enemies from being trivially able to escape feels like a holdover from the way things used to be.

**Caprican**

Argive wrote:
As per tradition, every such thread needs the obvious: Less imperium, More xenos & Plastic aspects/new aspects. Maybe someone at GW will stumble across dakka....

Also need to point out the obvious here, Imperium is much more than marines, Xenos is much more than Eldar. I'm upset that Tau didn't get anything this year, and that Space Wolves didn't get anything good, but seriously, Orkz and GSC (Both Xenos) had ENORMOUS releases last year! They need less primaris, not less Imperium, or at the very least start working on specialized primaris (thunderwolves cough cough)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

catbarf wrote:
Caprican wrote:
How does ITC completely change the game?

My experience has been that ITC allows and greatly encourages min-maxing that you have a harder time getting away with in the GW missions. The ability to choose objectives that specifically benefit your army rewards optimizing towards one gimmick. A lot of the complaints regarding balance, eg the Loyal 32/Smash Captain/Castellan meta, stem in part from how ITC makes these builds viable.

The GW tournament results have recently shown a greater diversity in the lists that made the top ten.

Caprican wrote:
Kinda sounds like someone doesn't know how to play a combat army :/ No amount of rules changes is going to fix the fact that you don't know how to wrap a unit.

I really liked how 8th got rid of the silly, fiddly elements to positioning individual models to minimize the effects of blast weapons or dictate the order of casualty removal.

Geometric positioning in melee to prevent enemies from being trivially able to escape feels like a holdover from the way things used to be.

It's called strategy, that's why there is a consolidation move, you're closing in on the enemy. While it may seem cheeky in a game standpoint, it actually makes sense strategically. Not being able to shoot is a huge detriment already for an army that relies solely on shooting. I've played both ends of the spectrum, and its frustrating on both ends. It is fairly balanced, if terrain is set up correctly. If terrain is not set up correctly then yes, shooting armies will have a huge advantage. There is plenty of variance in meta, but I'm coming from a few games where you'd have 2, maybe 3 different decks/lists dominating literally every event. Optimization will always be a thing, unless they perfectly balance rules like Bolt Action where everything is equivalent. I do think allies should be limited to 1 other faction, though its hard because of fluff reasons.

**Racerguy180**

Caprican wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:

Wow... is it that hard to find non ITC events in your area? I've never seen such vitriol directed at the ITC. ITC can be stale at times, but it is the healthiest way to competitively play the game. Random Mission draws are completely crap, and unless organizers spend hours developing a new mission packet every time they want to run an event, GW has nothing but the crap they put in their books.

How does ITC completely change the game? Chessclocks fix the I'll play 2 1/2 hrs of this 3 hr game and you'll play 30 mins. It takes some getting used to but Chessclocks are also completely optional, as are ALL of the ITC rules. Theyre guidelines. What ruins the game is when you go to a GW run event and its very clear they don't even play their own game. Bowling ball world at every table, 2 pieces of cover, no line of sight blocking, at least in the US. ITC changes only scenery rules? which are pretty spotty to begin with. You cant claim ITC completely changing 40k without actually playing it. IF YOU don't like to play ITC events, DONT GO! No one is forcing you to go to ITC scoring events. People wouldn't run them if there wasn't demand. I'd like to see your explanation because I bet it is hilarious .

you're kinda implying that the only way to play is competitive, which is not the case. I never said anything about competitive, I'm talking about friendly pickup game @flgs. There are 10ish people in my group that prefer ITC & almost exclusively play those missions. So if I go to play on Thursday nights & they are the only ones there, I know what kind of game I'm gonna get and it's not the kind of game I want to invest my time into. So I'll paint instead, which is equally fine by me.

The GW missions are plenty balanced for pickup games(not tourney practice) which should accommodate the broadest range of players. If you minmax with the GW spectrum of scenarios you can get bit in the ass with the twist and ruse cards. So a broader range of factory scenarios leads to a greater dispersion of units/type of armies.

I hope GW comes up with a dedicated ruleset for tourney play. maybe once everything is homogenized @ the source, the playtesting & related data can be generated and effect the game as designed, rather than and end run around the "factory" rules.

**Peregrine**

Caprican wrote:
It's called strategy

No, it's called obsessing over tiny differences in positioning. It's not like there's anything deep or innovative about the correct way to surround a unit and prevent them from falling back, all you have to do is move the models appropriately. Just like how 2" coherency in previous editions was an incredibly obvious and straightforward thing to do, it just took a bunch of extra time to arrange everything perfectly. If there needs to be a way to prevent models from falling back then it should just be part of the normal rules that falling back is impossible or requires a leadership test or whatever, not something that depends on if you measured all of your moves precisely enough.

But this is a symptom of a greater problem with 40k and many of its fans: confusing strategy with correct execution of needlessly convoluted rules. Strategy involves coming up with long-term plans and exchanges of move and counter-move, bluff and investigation, until you have outmaneuvered your opponent and win. What 40k gives you is a very shallow game from a strategic point of view that rewards you for carefully studying all of the rules and identifying the correct way to optimize your actions. All you have to do is obsessively read the rules and discussion of the rules and then you can feel smug as you execute the perfect use of some obscure and probably counterintuitive and/or anti-fluffy combination of rules that gives you an advantage.

**Karol**

Peregrine wrote:
Caprican wrote:
It's called strategy

No, it's called obsessing over tiny differences in positioning. It's not like there's anything deep or innovative about the correct way to surround a unit and prevent them from falling back, all you have to do is move the models appropriately. Just like how 2" coherency in previous editions was an incredibly obvious and straightforward thing to do, it just took a bunch of extra time to arrange everything perfectly. If there needs to be a way to prevent models from falling back then it should just be part of the normal rules that falling back is impossible or requires a leadership test or whatever, not something that depends on if you measured all of your moves precisely enough.

Well every games that is good requires simple manual things to do. If you remove them, then you may as well be playing chess. I mean what would stop people from saying, I land my unit 9,5" away from your dudes, but no range checking was done, and the models would just be ploped down on the table? Would be like playing LoL with skill shot auto targeting.

**SHUPPET**

"there's no strategy in placing your models to surround a unit"

*ignores all the preceding strategy in making the call on how aggressively to position your models to get that surround, whether it's worth deploying as such to get the surround in the first place, how much to use terrain for defense at the cost of distance, how best to support that unit to allow it to do its job, how to force your opponent to deal with something else allowing you to execute this, how to build a list with these elements, how to weave multiple layers of gameplan into a list most efficiently, how to deploy and execute this plan without overextending into a gunline, or without allowing it to get caught up by a guy with his own melee threat trying to do it to YOU, how to prioritise where on the board to direct your threat and which threat to surround with it first, knowing which will be the most reliable, but also recognising which will have the most payoff and making the call on which one you need to go for to win the match, deciding which play will allow you to control objectives or deny your opponent the hardest, which threat will allow you the most opportunity to chain into your melee guys into more of their army next turn, etc etc*

You know, by all accounts Peregrine, I've come to suspect that you just aren't very good at 40k. Which shouldn't come as any surprise, considering you don't even play the game. You are moving pieces up and down the board without actually comprehending the strategic impact those seemingly "empty" decisions are having on the game outcome. There's a reason the same people are able to consistently win events at the highest level, and there's even MORE strategy there too as you need to take into account the risks you need to take to get the points for the event, simply winning games isn't enough. These decisions have weight, you just don't have your fingertips in the right place to feel it.

**Caprican**

SHUPPET wrote:
"there's no strategy in placing your models to surround a unit"

*ignores all the preceding strategy in making the call on how aggressively to position your models to get that surround, whether it's worth deploying as such to get the surround in the first place, how much to use terrain for defense at the cost of distance, how best to support that unit to allow it to do its job, how to force your opponent to deal with something else allowing you to execute this, how to build a list with these elements, how to weave multiple layers of gameplan into a list most efficiently, how to deploy and execute this plan without overextending into a gunline, or without allowing it to get caught up by a guy with his own melee threat trying to do it to YOU, how to prioritise where on the board to direct your threat and which threat to surround with it first, knowing which will be the most reliable, but also recognising which will have the most payoff and making the call on which one you need to go for to win the match, deciding which play will allow you to control objectives or deny your opponent the hardest, which threat will allow you the most opportunity to chain into your melee guys into more of their army next turn, etc etc*

You know, by all accounts Peregrine, I've come to suspect that you just aren't very good at 40k. Which shouldn't come as any surprise, considering you don't even play the game. You are moving pieces up and down the board without actually comprehending the strategic impact those seemingly "empty" decisions are having on the game outcome. There's a reason the same people are able to consistently win events at the highest level, and there's even MORE strategy there too as you need to take into account the risks you need to take to get the points for the event, simply winning games isn't enough. These decisions have weight, you just don't have your fingertips in the right place to feel it.

Also, its significantly harder to swarm a swarm in combat, or a decently placed unit. I would make arguments for being able to shoot into an existing combat, at a penalty and a good chance to hit your own units, but that would be even more rules convolution. I've come to the conclusion that Akar is just a troll and has no idea what he's posting or talking about. Reecius specifically said you can play however you want, and he's saying that he said that he doesn't like ITC. He never said that, ever. Re-read it. He says it is not his PREFERRED version of 40k. Tournament scene isn't my preferred version either, but I still like it. You can prefer something over another, and still like the other thing. You're essentially saying that you don't like Hazelnut Coffee, because it isn't Coffee as intended, so NO ONE SHOULD EVER MAKE HAZELNUT COFFEE OR DRINK IT CUZ I DONT LIKE IT. People prefer things over other things, but you cannot dictate what other people can or cannot do because you simply don't agree. Akar, please leave my Hazelnut Coffee alone. I decided to go with this strange analogy over a more politicized one, because I don't want to get into politics on Dakka.

Literally NO ONE is stopping you from playing your version of 40k. So stop trying to squash what we want to play.

Anyways, I lost track of the topic and what I want to see in 2020 is an 8.5 Rulebook with fixed rules, all the FAQs, and everything included. Secondly, I want Sisters to have a flyer and more options for characters, and units. Mounted/Speeder units would be cool. I would like to see more comprehensive terrain rules and less TLOS rules (no, you cant shoot Santa Claus because you can see the tip of his frigging cape, sorry, or my favorite, my Basalisk/Wyvern is behind this building, but the tip of my mortar/missile can see you, so my heavy bolters can all shoot you.) They did a good job of simplifying the game, but there are some things that are just too oversimplified. I would like to see a new Xenos faction (not another branch of eldar either) and either a rework of Thunderwolves and Space Wolves as a whole, or Primaris Versions of their special units, as much as I hate primaris. I want Sisters of Silence to be playable outside of an Aux Detachment. I want them to rework any faction that got shafted with the FAQs and New Rules (Grey Knights in particular). Integrating Forge World into GW Rules wise is a Pipe Dream, but those guys are even worse at writing rules than GW, its like they've never played Warhammer in any edition ever. There are so many things I would like to see but I honestly think that the game is in a relatively healthy spot from where it was only a few years ago. This is by far the best edition of the game ever.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

G00fySmiley wrote:
same thing i always want. an army builder app by GW that is good and an algorithm that reads match data and adjusts points according to unit performance.

allow users to log in and actually keep track of casualties on the app itself to get all of the performance data. heavily weigh in tournament results over pick up games, but do not ignore pick up games altogether. adjust points for units quarterly based on performance and before to long we would actually have a balanced game. playtesters and rules writers are human, they might be the place to get us the jumping off point but they will always have imperical bias. they may roll bad a few tiems on a unit and decide it is needing to be lower in cost to points, or (and i am assumign it has happened to orks a lot) they may roll hot on say a stompa and decide it is worth the 1k points it currently costs when it just isn't.

The problem with lowering points on a unit that has a high ceiling and high variance is that if they make it too cheap, people will spam them. I agree that the Stompa is a little overcosted, but it is 40 wounds or whatever. I personally love the flavor of orkz but I consciously made the decision to not play them because of their variance. When you roll hot in shooting they are AWESOME, almost oppressively so. They are a very variance faction and if you've played orkz long enough you just have to accept that you are only looking for 5s or 6s, every other roll is a blank.

I agree on the App, Battlescribe is good, but only because it is the only thing out there. The logic that people wont buy books if they give the Datasheets out for free is flawed. They do it in AOS and people buy the books anyways.

**Dysartes**

Caprican wrote:
Integrating Forge World into GW Rules wise is a Pipe Dream, but those guys are even worse at writing rules than GW, its like they've never played Warhammer in any edition ever. There are so many things I would like to see but I honestly think that the game is in a relatively healthy spot from where it was only a few years ago. This is by far the best edition of the game ever.

Just to address the FW rules point - this was a question that came up in the seminar at UK Games Expo at the weekend. Studio Head Guy (whose name I have already forgotten) confirmed that the core studio has taken over rules duties for FW stuff in 40k, but they are currently looking at what needs doing, and the best way to then release the material, be that a new Imperial Armour series, updated Indexes, or whatever.

Would suggest if there is a seminar with a Q&A in about three months or so that the question gets raised again.

**Caprican**

On the subject of GW Missions, at least they fixed the bonus for going first, I always hated "You go first so you get a free point for first slain unit of the game". But even still, some of their missions are far more narrative, even in maelstrom and eternal war. Deployment Type is a donut in the middle for your army and your opponent gets to place their models at the edge of any field... great, balanced gameplay.

These are all fine and fun in the right scenarios, but they are not suited for tournament or competitive play. Armies are already different enough that the game can become unbalanced, we don't need another random generator that kills you before turn 1.

**ERJAK**

Apple fox wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.

For me, I would say it is not any fun, is bad design and leads to poor narrative in games. I do not even watch bat reps that use the malestrom stuff.

I feel the same way about eternal war mission. 'Do nothing for 5 turns then whoever has faster units left wins'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SHUPPET wrote:
"there's no strategy in placing your models to surround a unit"

*ignores all the preceding strategy in making the call on how aggressively to position your models to get that surround, whether it's worth deploying as such to get the surround in the first place, how much to use terrain for defense at the cost of distance, how best to support that unit to allow it to do its job, how to force your opponent to deal with something else allowing you to execute this, how to build a list with these elements, how to weave multiple layers of gameplan into a list most efficiently, how to deploy and execute this plan without overextending into a gunline, or without allowing it to get caught up by a guy with his own melee threat trying to do it to YOU, how to prioritise where on the board to direct your threat and which threat to surround with it first, knowing which will be the most reliable, but also recognising which will have the most payoff and making the call on which one you need to go for to win the match, deciding which play will allow you to control objectives or deny your opponent the hardest, which threat will allow you the most opportunity to chain into your melee guys into more of their army next turn, etc etc*

You know, by all accounts Peregrine, I've come to suspect that you just aren't very good at 40k. Which shouldn't come as any surprise, considering you don't even play the game. You are moving pieces up and down the board without actually comprehending the strategic impact those seemingly "empty" decisions are having on the game outcome. There's a reason the same people are able to consistently win events at the highest level, and there's even MORE strategy there too as you need to take into account the risks you need to take to get the points for the event, simply winning games isn't enough. These decisions have weight, you just don't have your fingertips in the right place to feel it.

Peregrine in an NFL thread:

THE PATRIOTS NEED TO SACK THEIR SECOND STRIKER, EXPAND THEIR BULLPEN, AND GET SOME BIG MEN IN THE PAINT! THEY CAN'T KEEP RELYING ON THEIR 3 IRON FOR ACES!!!

**Martel732**

Wrapping units is not zero skill.

**Apple fox**

ERJAK wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
What's the purpose of the game to you? If it's to have fun, why is it a problem to have random elements in a game out of your control, keeps it interesting.
I've had some great Malestrom games, some of my most fun. Now you can discard up to 6 cards at beginning so makes it easier to get rid of cards you can't achieve.

For me, I would say it is not any fun, is bad design and leads to poor narrative in games. I do not even watch bat reps that use the malestrom stuff.

I feel the same way about eternal war mission. 'Do nothing for 5 turns then whoever has faster units left wins'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SHUPPET wrote:
"there's no strategy in placing your models to surround a unit"

*ignores all the preceding strategy in making the call on how aggressively to position your models to get that surround, whether it's worth deploying as such to get the surround in the first place, how much to use terrain for defense at the cost of distance, how best to support that unit to allow it to do its job, how to force your opponent to deal with something else allowing you to execute this, how to build a list with these elements, how to weave multiple layers of gameplan into a list most efficiently, how to deploy and execute this plan without overextending into a gunline, or without allowing it to get caught up by a guy with his own melee threat trying to do it to YOU, how to prioritise where on the board to direct your threat and which threat to surround with it first, knowing which will be the most reliable, but also recognising which will have the most payoff and making the call on which one you need to go for to win the match, deciding which play will allow you to control objectives or deny your opponent the hardest, which threat will allow you the most opportunity to chain into your melee guys into more of their army next turn, etc etc*

You know, by all accounts Peregrine, I've come to suspect that you just aren't very good at 40k. Which shouldn't come as any surprise, considering you don't even play the game. You are moving pieces up and down the board without actually comprehending the strategic impact those seemingly "empty" decisions are having on the game outcome. There's a reason the same people are able to consistently win events at the highest level, and there's even MORE strategy there too as you need to take into account the risks you need to take to get the points for the event, simply winning games isn't enough. These decisions have weight, you just don't have your fingertips in the right place to feel it.

Peregrine in an NFL thread:

THE PATRIOTS NEED TO SACK THEIR SECOND STRIKER, EXPAND THEIR BULLPEN, AND GET SOME BIG MEN IN THE PAINT! THEY CAN'T KEEP RELYING ON THEIR 3 IRON FOR ACES!!!

Just a reply to the first bit

But i think the Eternal war missions are bad as well. There was a stage we where running modified missions from warmachine since most people where familiar with them here and they seem to do the job better for the light narrative.
So, Yes. Eternal war could be better as well !

**Crablezworth**

Some sort of universal special rules would be nice

**Jidmah**

ERJAK wrote:
I feel the same way about eternal war mission. 'Do nothing for 5 turns then whoever has faster units left wins'.

I suggest trying the eternal war missions from the most recent CA at least once. You might be surprised in a good way.

**Karol**

Beachead is maybe ok, but the rest are just as meh to play as normal missions. All favour cheap armies, ton of bodies, and being able to run more then 3 characters in an army.

**Jidmah**

Oh, you mean just like every other format in existence?

To cut your argument short, GK are going to suck no matter what mission play.

**Karol**

Well then the new CA missions are not better then the old ones, and the only suprise one can get is one that is not good.

**SHUPPET**

Karol wrote:
Well then the new CA missions are not better then the old ones, and the only suprise one can get is one that is not good.

that wasn't the complaint about the old missions. God, do you even read or are you just too busy trying to turn every. Single. Thread. Into a GK whine fest?