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.

 kodos wrote:


For that very reason, Space Marines should have been S5, T5, BS/WS2+ and W2 right from the beginning

No reason why a significantly more durable, due new organs and overall genetic modification should end up the same as an Imperial Guard veteran soldier (going back when both had S/T4)

This whole thing does not work out well and if there is no significant difference between human veterans and genetic modified super soldiers (except their equipment) why should there be the same bg difference between the older and newer super soldier

I remember discussing in the beginning of 8th that the unlocking of stats over 10 could have given them so much room to play with. Make Marines T5/6 and Terminators T8/9. Lascannons could be S12 or whatever. Basically the new curve for To Wound allows them to rebalance everything rather then keep it all at the bottom of the scale and really show us that Marines are better then regular humans.

 Imateria wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I make my locals suffer thru 1k pt tournaments. That way they actually get games finished instead of having time called on turn three.

Your locals must be increadibly slow playing then, I have no problems getting through 5+ turns at a tournament at 2K.

That said, 1000 point tournaments on 4' by 4' tables and 90 minute rounds similar to how Warhammer World does it are such so much more streamable, e-sports-esque and with far less downtime. Not to mention you could play a 6 round GT on a Saturday and a 9-10 Round Major on a Saturday and Sunday with everybody comfortably back at the airport or whereever by 5 pm no problem.

 Malkyr wrote:

 kodos wrote:


For that very reason, Space Marines should have been S5, T5, BS/WS2+ and W2 right from the beginning

No reason why a significantly more durable, due new organs and overall genetic modification should end up the same as an Imperial Guard veteran soldier (going back when both had S/T4)

This whole thing does not work out well and if there is no significant difference between human veterans and genetic modified super soldiers (except their equipment) why should there be the same bg difference between the older and newer super soldier

I remember discussing in the beginning of 8th that the unlocking of stats over 10 could have given them so much room to play with. Make Marines T5/6 and Terminators T8/9. Lascannons could be S12 or whatever. Basically the new curve for To Wound allows them to rebalance everything rather then keep it all at the bottom of the scale and really show us that Marines are better then regular humans.

Sadly, the new wounding system means that as toughness and strength get even up to moderate levels, gak gets silly. There's no meaningful difference between S6 and S9 if the target is T5. There's no meaningful difference between S8 and S13 if the target is T7. And if you have a T9 target, hope you don't care if your weapon is S10 or S17....

Yeah. I don't think that'll happen.

If anything, a 9th or 10th Edition or whatever of 40K might do something similar to AoS/Apoc with the wound-roll fixed on the datasheet, possibly 2 target numbers vs. "soft-targets/infantry-equivalents" and vs. "hard-targets/vehicle-or-monster-equivalents" as the most recent Apoc did.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Malkyr wrote:

 kodos wrote:


For that very reason, Space Marines should have been S5, T5, BS/WS2+ and W2 right from the beginning

No reason why a significantly more durable, due new organs and overall genetic modification should end up the same as an Imperial Guard veteran soldier (going back when both had S/T4)

This whole thing does not work out well and if there is no significant difference between human veterans and genetic modified super soldiers (except their equipment) why should there be the same bg difference between the older and newer super soldier

I remember discussing in the beginning of 8th that the unlocking of stats over 10 could have given them so much room to play with. Make Marines T5/6 and Terminators T8/9. Lascannons could be S12 or whatever. Basically the new curve for To Wound allows them to rebalance everything rather then keep it all at the bottom of the scale and really show us that Marines are better then regular humans.

Sadly, the new wounding system means that as toughness and strength get even up to moderate levels, gak gets silly. There's no meaningful difference between S6 and S9 if the target is T5. There's no meaningful difference between S8 and S13 if the target is T7. And if you have a T9 target, hope you don't care if your weapon is S10 or S17....

Then the old wound table would come in handy, but that's a discussion for another topic.

Please, let's keep this thread for CA2019 rumours and leaks, they should come out very soon (preorders on Saturday means that a lot of content creators that will receive their advance/review copy over the next three days).

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yeah. I don't think that'll happen.

If anything, a 9th or 10th Edition or whatever of 40K might do something similar to AoS/Apoc with the wound-roll fixed on the datasheet, possibly 2 target numbers vs. "soft-targets/infantry-equivalents" and vs. "hard-targets/vehicle-or-monster-equivalents" as the most recent Apoc did.

This would be a cool thing. I’d love for that to happen, plus alternate activation, but I don’t see either happening unfortunately. Just doesn’t seem like the direction they want to take 40k.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I make my locals suffer thru 1k pt tournaments. That way they actually get games finished instead of having time called on turn three.

Your locals must be increadibly slow playing then, I have no problems getting through 5+ turns at a tournament at 2K.

Think it largely comes down to what I'm playing against and that tends to be the deciding factor in a game going to time or not.

Still sounds like slow playing, we held an ITC 2K tournament at my local this Sunday just gone and the Orks vs Orks game went all 6 turns in less than 3 hours no problem, nor did I have any time problems facing off agaisnt GSC/Nids. I find that in a tournament setting I am much more aware of the timing constraints and play faster, in casual games everything is much more relaxed and half the time can end being spent on chatting with friends so things just naturally take longer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I make my locals suffer thru 1k pt tournaments. That way they actually get games finished instead of having time called on turn three.

Your locals must be increadibly slow playing then, I have no problems getting through 5+ turns at a tournament at 2K.

That said, 1000 point tournaments on 4' by 4' tables and 90 minute rounds similar to how Warhammer World does it are such so much more streamable, e-sports-esque and with far less downtime. Not to mention you could play a 6 round GT on a Saturday and a 9-10 Round Major on a Saturday and Sunday with everybody comfortably back at the airport or whereever by 5 pm no problem.

Thats not how WHW runs it's tournaments though, they're 1750 on 6x4's, and if I've got to go to Nottingham for a tournament, I don't particualrly want to spend 2 hours in the car in the morning and the same at night. I also find 4x4's really small, even when playing at 1k, it was part of the reason why my group stopped playing at the local GW store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aenar wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Malkyr wrote:

 kodos wrote:


For that very reason, Space Marines should have been S5, T5, BS/WS2+ and W2 right from the beginning

No reason why a significantly more durable, due new organs and overall genetic modification should end up the same as an Imperial Guard veteran soldier (going back when both had S/T4)

This whole thing does not work out well and if there is no significant difference between human veterans and genetic modified super soldiers (except their equipment) why should there be the same bg difference between the older and newer super soldier

I remember discussing in the beginning of 8th that the unlocking of stats over 10 could have given them so much room to play with. Make Marines T5/6 and Terminators T8/9. Lascannons could be S12 or whatever. Basically the new curve for To Wound allows them to rebalance everything rather then keep it all at the bottom of the scale and really show us that Marines are better then regular humans.

Sadly, the new wounding system means that as toughness and strength get even up to moderate levels, gak gets silly. There's no meaningful difference between S6 and S9 if the target is T5. There's no meaningful difference between S8 and S13 if the target is T7. And if you have a T9 target, hope you don't care if your weapon is S10 or S17....

Then the old wound table would come in handy, but that's a discussion for another topic.

Please, let's keep this thread for CA2019 rumours and leaks, they should come out very soon (preorders on Saturday means that a lot of content creators that will receive their advance/review copy over the next three days).

The old wound table wouldn't have been much different though, against a T8 target the difference between S10 and S17 would also be none existent, though I'd hope a weapon that warrants S17 would have suitably large enough damage output to differentiate it from a S10 weapon. In this respect I'm really liking the Apocalypse system of weapons having a fixed wound roll with split SAP/SAT stats, you don't get the problem that wound tables will innevitably have of some weapons ending up being good against everything.

As for CA, it's rather surprising just how little information we currently have, by this time last year the whole thing had pretty much been leaked, currently the only thing we know is the two short WarCom articles and info graphic GW themselves have released.

Has it been confirmed either way whether the Cult CSMs are going up to two wounds apiece in this CA?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/27/chapter-approved-2019-three-ways-to-make-your-next-club-night-awesomegw-homepage-post-4/

Next article is up. Talks about new ways to play.

Waaaghbert wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/27/chapter-approved-2019-three-ways-to-make-your-next-club-night-awesomegw-homepage-post-4/

Next article is up. Talks about new ways to play.

I got excited for a moment that they were going to revamp Match/Narrative/Open, hoping that Narrative play using Power levels might be viable somehow. Was disappointed

It's basically, "Ya know how most forms of play are organized and even? Forget all that, you can now have RANDOM units and play UNEVEN points against each other"

-

Seriously, it's like an article telling you that you can paint your army how you want, only it's telling you you can play how you want... No Sh*t

This is the type of rubbish they should be giving for free on the community site, not using as padding to justify a charged item.

Pretty lame article today.

So.. umm... what?

Here’s an idea sure to shake up your next game – Chapter Approved 2019 includes an Army Generator, a system where you can randomly generate forces in moments. Why not have everyone in your club pool their models, then randomly generate a Power Level 60 army for each?

Sure, you might be a pretty good general – but just how would you secure victory with a Land Raider, a pack of Acolyte Hybrids and an Astropath? This year’s Chapter Approved could be your chance to find out.

I'm not shy about criticizing GW for all manner of decisions that have shaped 8th ed and I think open/narrative play are pretty pointless in the way they are implemented, but in previous years they filled that space with design your own Land Raider and character rules that even if you don't belong to the majority of people playing matched play and would like something, umm, reasonably solid, you get rules and/or suggestions that are at least fun and can work if you're not into abusing the hell out of those rules.

This, though? This is just weird. and not wacky good fun weird. More like we don't even know what to do with our own game anymore weird.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Seriously, it's like an article telling you that you can paint your army how you want, only it's telling you you can play how you want... No Sh*t

This is the type of rubbish they should be giving for free on the community site, not using as padding to justify a charged item.

Pretty lame article today.

Idk my interest is piqued by the Parallel play. The idea of having a system for a larger ground battle going on while say a zone mortalis game going simultaneously and affecting each other could lead to some fun Star Wars-like battles.

Yeah, that parallel battle sounds potentially interesting.

Parralel battles are fun but don't really need a separate section for it. The other ideas are awful and lazy.

Using the phobos units to do commando raids on a shield generator etc, or orbital weapons platform. On main table, player gets orbital strike ea turn until batteries silenced. So many great ways to play 40k outside of ITC mirror missions all day long.

 Geifer wrote:
So.. umm... what?

Here’s an idea sure to shake up your next game – Chapter Approved 2019 includes an Army Generator, a system where you can randomly generate forces in moments. Why not have everyone in your club pool their models, then randomly generate a Power Level 60 army for each?

Sure, you might be a pretty good general – but just how would you secure victory with a Land Raider, a pack of Acolyte Hybrids and an Astropath? This year’s Chapter Approved could be your chance to find out.

I'm not shy about criticizing GW for all manner of decisions that have shaped 8th ed and I think open/narrative play are pretty pointless in the way they are implemented, but in previous years they filled that space with design your own Land Raider and character rules that even if you don't belong to the majority of people playing matched play and would like something, umm, reasonably solid, you get rules and/or suggestions that are at least fun and can work if you're not into abusing the hell out of those rules.

This, though? This is just weird. and not wacky good fun weird. More like we don't even know what to do with our own game anymore weird.

Honestly,in a flgs, nope.

In a tight group of friends? Ehhh probably.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Seriously, it's like an article telling you that you can paint your army how you want, only it's telling you you can play how you want... No Sh*t

This is the type of rubbish they should be giving for free on the community site, not using as padding to justify a charged item.

Pretty lame article today.

The worse in my opinion, is that type of content take place of other things a lot of people would be eager to have.

Beta-but-legal rules like stratagems, relics, warlord traits (CA17 had these, before the codexes). Changes to datasheets, new stratagems, or specialised detachments for factions without one would be better for a lot of people.

Instead they put theses rules in another books like Psychic Awakening leaving the only useful content to the point values pages.

 Galef wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/27/chapter-approved-2019-three-ways-to-make-your-next-club-night-awesomegw-homepage-post-4/

Next article is up. Talks about new ways to play.

I got excited for a moment that they were going to revamp Match/Narrative/Open, hoping that Narrative play using Power levels might be viable somehow. Was disappointed

It's basically, "Ya know how most forms of play are organized and even? Forget all that, you can now have RANDOM units and play UNEVEN points against each other"

-

Wow! Revolutionary!

I think the Army Draft looks pretty fun actually. I get a strong sense that it could lead to some very fun, off-the-wall type games which also tend to be the most memorable games.


Edit:
I bet it would pair well with the Open War cards.

Anyone who doesn't occasionally use the Open War cards is missing out on some great fun. You're robbing yourself of enjoyment.

Parallel Battles seem really cool

Galef wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/27/chapter-approved-2019-three-ways-to-make-your-next-club-night-awesomegw-homepage-post-4/

Next article is up. Talks about new ways to play.

I got excited for a moment that they were going to revamp Match/Narrative/Open, hoping that Narrative play using Power levels might be viable somehow. Was disappointed

It's basically, "Ya know how most forms of play are organized and even? Forget all that, you can now have RANDOM units and play UNEVEN points against each other"

-

war isnt fair.

I'm actually looking forward to see what else is in it.

 bullyboy wrote:
Parralel battles are fun but don't really need a separate section for it. The other ideas are awful and lazy.

Using the phobos units to do commando raids on a shield generator etc, or orbital weapons platform. On main table, player gets orbital strike ea turn until batteries silenced. So many great ways to play 40k outside of ITC mirror missions all day long.

I would think it might need a little bit of balancing how the turns go. For ever 40k Round, you play two Turns of Kill team to try and make it feel like the Kill team game is a rush/really on the clock.
That's just an idea, and honestly, I do want this to see what kind of framework they might have. Of course this reminds me of another book that came out years ago. Skies of Fire or something?
I wasn't a fan of the dogfighting supplement back in the day that required a whole other 4x4, but playing 40k on a table and having a separate kitchentableesque set up for kill team nearby might be fine ...

So is CA2019 out yet?

Waaaghbert wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/27/chapter-approved-2019-three-ways-to-make-your-next-club-night-awesomegw-homepage-post-4/

Next article is up. Talks about new ways to play.

'New,' yeah. The 1980s want their white dwarf articles back.

Even more reason for the point values not to be saddled with this junk. Anyone who wanted to do this stuff didn't need GW to sell them a book.

That content is really grasping at straws for new stuff they could fill the book with. Honestly, Voss is right. You could get this sort of content from an old White Dwarf, and for some of the ideas in it, you don't need to book at all.

 Geifer wrote:
So.. umm... what?

Here’s an idea sure to shake up your next game – Chapter Approved 2019 includes an Army Generator, a system where you can randomly generate forces in moments. Why not have everyone in your club pool their models, then randomly generate a Power Level 60 army for each?

Sure, you might be a pretty good general – but just how would you secure victory with a Land Raider, a pack of Acolyte Hybrids and an Astropath? This year’s Chapter Approved could be your chance to find out.

I'm not shy about criticizing GW for all manner of decisions that have shaped 8th ed and I think open/narrative play are pretty pointless in the way they are implemented, but in previous years they filled that space with design your own Land Raider and character rules that even if you don't belong to the majority of people playing matched play and would like something, umm, reasonably solid, you get rules and/or suggestions that are at least fun and can work if you're not into abusing the hell out of those rules.

This, though? This is just weird. and not wacky good fun weird. More like we don't even know what to do with our own game anymore weird.

This is so much better than having Legion Traits that work on my vehicles. Thanks, GW.

I've run parallel battles before, and I tried to get my community interested in a "draft" version of 40k before. The first one IS fun, the second one - no one was interested. Like at all.

Parallel battles are easy to set up. All you do is time the turns together, and set objectives that impact other games. My biggest one I ever ran had the following games going in parallel:

Table 1 (Feature Table):
- Big shield has a ton of wounds. Units inside the shield can't be harmed until the shield is brought down.
- Army inside the shield has 2000 points.
- Army outside the shield has 6000 points.

Table 2 (Missile Table):
- Two armies fight for control of an Aquila Strongpoint. Its vortex missiles can fire at targets on other tables.
- Special rule that allow infantry to assault units inside the strongpoint, and whomever has the most models inside controls it.

Table 3 (Reinforcement Table):
- As units die, they are given to a player from each team on this table. These units have to exit the battlefield off the opposite table edge.
- When units leave this table, they can arrive as reinforcements for either Table 1 or Table 2.
- All units that are being held in reserves start on this table.

Table 4 (Kill Team - High Orbit):
- Battle on a Space Hulk for command of a space cannon. No reinforcements here.
- Good for players with small collections.

I know it wasn't the same as previous editions but back at my local GW they had 1k points nights. We would show up around 6-6:30 and would be able to get a couple games in.

It just provides a different level of strategy. At 2k you can take options to deal with every situation. At 1k you have to make sacrifices. tough and medium T vehicles tend to excel a little better.

Some armies also perform a little better.

This was 4th edition at the time.

Very similar to one I ran many years ago. Big table game as normal. Side table had 3 basilisks firing on main table as other side tried to destroy them
Third table had 2 fast armies dueling. Any units escaping off opposite table edge could be added to main game as reinforcements

mhalko1 wrote:
I know it wasn't the same as previous editions but back at my local GW they had 1k points nights. We would show up around 6-6:30 and would be able to get a couple games in.

It just provides a different level of strategy. At 2k you can take options to deal with every situation. At 1k you have to make sacrifices. tough and medium T vehicles tend to excel a little better.

Some armies also perform a little better.

This was 4th edition at the time.

At the beginning of the edition Sisters were almost impossible to beat at 1k. Celestine could wipe out 600ish points in that type of game by herself.