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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It wasn't the results of the events, AFAIK, that were so influential but rather the 'in-person feedback' they got from select individuals.

Then those "select individuals" have too much influence.

They really haven't done much wrong outside how Doctrines are being done so...

Nerfing the Commissars and the addition of "Raw Recruits" rather than just adding the "Militarum Auxilla" keyword to Conscripts immediately springs to mind as an example of the feedback. Doctrines aren't really an issue, IMO, given that they presented a drawback(having anything that isn't Astartes disables them) and a benefit...unless you'd like to suggest for doctrines giving a flat -1AP as the issue, in which case I'd agree and I would have liked to see something far more interesting.

Psst: If your drawback puts you at the same level as basically every other army in the entire game, it's not a real drawback.

This is like in 7th when people were arguing the decurion was fair when it first came out because to get it you had to construct your necron army and if you didn't you lost the decurion benefits.

 Galas wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kdash wrote:
If i'm honest, things like this don't really bother me too much. It might not be realistic, but, it does make things easy and simple. I'd rather not go back to the days of weapon arcs and vehicle facings.

Manoeuvre and positioning should have meaning. If you can shoot anything just by seeing a sliver of a wing-tip, antennae, banner pole, claw, tail, etc., then it makes things too simplistic.

I agree but at the same time it is very hard to define facings and in general it makes vehicles much less desirable when unlike everything else on the game they can't fire all the weapons they are paying for. Specially when GW makes vehicles by how cool they are and puts weapons everywhere.
And, yeah, with boxy imperial vehicles is easy to define facings but with eldar, dark eldar, tau ones, etc... is harder, and then arguing comes.

Best would be to reduce base movement, increase effects of intervening terrain to effectively reduce weapon ranges and mechanized infantry to emphasize speed of transport with again realism in terrain and scale to reduce the effectiveness of some units. This is looking way back, but it seems that there is a legacy of GW rules that could be assembled to support multiple ways of playing. For instance, I would prefer a game with limited card-based, command point freebie and upgrade trickery, while others could plug that in, and I like a more realistic interaction between model and model environment, while others may want to take this stuff out. GW should be able to use its own history to assemble a sort of universal rule book with different things, like terrain interaction rules, that can be plugged in as a sort of module. So, one might play something like KillTeam on an 8x4 table with 4" base troop movement and all of the extra stuff, and others might play Armageddon style games on different tables around the world on webcam. Same rules base, with house-rules built in...

If this were the announcement, I would be excited enough to buy a new airbrush compressor.

I'm hoping it's a revised edition a la AOS 2.0. They might fix things like detachments and CP generation. I'd love to see things like cultists, poxwalkers, drones, conscripts, ripper swarms etc have a rule preventing them from holding objectives or count as less or something (no objective secured equivalent maybe), ANYTHING, to get away from the "quantity > quality" approach to list building you see now where the most effective thing is to spam tons of cheap bodies in detachments to maximize CP.

It's too late for them to get away from focusing on stratagems as a core mechanic rather than a bonus sadly.

Wayniac wrote:
I'm hoping it's a revised edition a la AOS 2.0. They might fix things like detachments and CP generation. I'd love to see things like cultists, poxwalkers, drones, conscripts, ripper swarms etc have a rule preventing them from holding objectives or count as less or something (no objective secured equivalent maybe), ANYTHING, to get away from the "quantity > quality" approach to list building you see now where the most effective thing is to spam tons of cheap bodies in detachments to maximize CP.

It's too late for them to get away from focusing on stratagems as a core mechanic rather than a bonus sadly.

Problem is when you look at it it's precisely less trained things that have been used to hold ground...

One way to deal with CP would still be make each detachment DOCK you CP rather than grant. Start with X, each battalion removes Y, each vanquard Z etc. Brigade would dock least etc. This means spamming multiple battalions isn't essential unless you run out of slots(in otherwords you are encouraged to actually USE those slots you have rather than go for another near empty detachment) and would give some incentive to stay mono even without marine style mono bonus. Each ally force needing own detachment would dock you of CP's. You soup up, play with less CP's. IG wouldn't be CP battery anymore as loyal 32 would actually reduce your CP's...

That's been my dream for CP system pretty much through 8th ed.

 Togusa wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Yes, how wonderful - I get a whole new army of Necrons with my new Space Marines. Two armies - two for the price of two - because to get the units for my army I also need to buy the units for another army. Please do this again GW.

Just wait 6 months and the models will be separated.


...Kids these days think they're entitled to what they want right this instant.

The Gravis Captain would like a word.

Wayniac wrote:
I'm hoping it's a revised edition a la AOS 2.0. They might fix things like detachments and CP generation. I'd love to see things like cultists, poxwalkers, drones, conscripts, ripper swarms etc have a rule preventing them from holding objectives or count as less or something (no objective secured equivalent maybe), ANYTHING, to get away from the "quantity > quality" approach to list building you see now where the most effective thing is to spam tons of cheap bodies in detachments to maximize CP.

It's too late for them to get away from focusing on stratagems as a core mechanic rather than a bonus sadly.

Fix the CP generation and it becomes a bonus as much as a core mechanic. Cheap crap hordes should get a bonus for being a cheap crap horde, that bonus is the number you have to shift. It's not like you have units of 10 intercessors wiping a unit of 20-30 cultists a turn for no losses anyway.

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I'm hoping it's a revised edition a la AOS 2.0. They might fix things like detachments and CP generation. I'd love to see things like cultists, poxwalkers, drones, conscripts, ripper swarms etc have a rule preventing them from holding objectives or count as less or something (no objective secured equivalent maybe), ANYTHING, to get away from the "quantity > quality" approach to list building you see now where the most effective thing is to spam tons of cheap bodies in detachments to maximize CP.

It's too late for them to get away from focusing on stratagems as a core mechanic rather than a bonus sadly.

Problem is when you look at it it's precisely less trained things that have been used to hold ground...

One way to deal with CP would still be make each detachment DOCK you CP rather than grant. Start with X, each battalion removes Y, each vanquard Z etc. Brigade would dock least etc. This means spamming multiple battalions isn't essential unless you run out of slots(in otherwords you are encouraged to actually USE those slots you have rather than go for another near empty detachment) and would give some incentive to stay mono even without marine style mono bonus. Each ally force needing own detachment would dock you of CP's. You soup up, play with less CP's. IG wouldn't be CP battery anymore as loyal 32 would actually reduce your CP's...

That's been my dream for CP system pretty much through 8th ed.

So much this.

The Newman wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Yes, how wonderful - I get a whole new army of Necrons with my new Space Marines. Two armies - two for the price of two - because to get the units for my army I also need to buy the units for another army. Please do this again GW.

Just wait 6 months and the models will be separated.


...Kids these days think they're entitled to what they want right this instant.

The Gravis Captain would like a word.

Dark Imperium is still in print.

Not sure why youd want that fugly model anyways, the Ancient is the only good SM exclusive in that box.

I mean the sword and pistol lieutenant is pretty badass.

If this is a new edition with starter box you can bet that the models in DI will come out in Start Collecting boxes. Death Guard are currently conspicuously absent.

 jeff white wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kdash wrote:
If i'm honest, things like this don't really bother me too much. It might not be realistic, but, it does make things easy and simple. I'd rather not go back to the days of weapon arcs and vehicle facings.

Manoeuvre and positioning should have meaning. If you can shoot anything just by seeing a sliver of a wing-tip, antennae, banner pole, claw, tail, etc., then it makes things too simplistic.

I agree but at the same time it is very hard to define facings and in general it makes vehicles much less desirable when unlike everything else on the game they can't fire all the weapons they are paying for. Specially when GW makes vehicles by how cool they are and puts weapons everywhere.
And, yeah, with boxy imperial vehicles is easy to define facings but with eldar, dark eldar, tau ones, etc... is harder, and then arguing comes.

Best would be to reduce base movement, increase effects of intervening terrain to effectively reduce weapon ranges and mechanized infantry to emphasize speed of transport with again realism in terrain and scale to reduce the effectiveness of some units. This is looking way back, but it seems that there is a legacy of GW rules that could be assembled to support multiple ways of playing. For instance, I would prefer a game with limited card-based, command point freebie and upgrade trickery, while others could plug that in, and I like a more realistic interaction between model and model environment, while others may want to take this stuff out. GW should be able to use its own history to assemble a sort of universal rule book with different things, like terrain interaction rules, that can be plugged in as a sort of module. So, one might play something like KillTeam on an 8x4 table with 4" base troop movement and all of the extra stuff, and others might play Armageddon style games on different tables around the world on webcam. Same rules base, with house-rules built in...

If this were the announcement, I would be excited enough to buy a new airbrush compressor.

What currently stops you from playing a game with removed or limited command points and "Freebies"? Certainly seems like stuff like detachment-wide rules, stratagems and whatnot would be perfectly easy to play without. The game does not need them to function.

This is like me saying that I wish GW would design the game to allow me to play ITC missions. I can currently play ITC missions. Many do. Why do I need GW to tell me I can? GW currently tells people they can play Open Play, and next to nobody chooses to. I would hazard to bet that ITC, while not endorsed by GW officially, is less popular than GW-endorsed Open Play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Some terrain rules that make sense would be welcome. This kinda gak has to go away, pronto.

Man, last time terrain had any significant meaning was 4th, and GW has been moving very deliberately further away with each edition. Small chance they'll reverse that course.

It has nothing to do with the game at all. They signed with HBO to create a multi-season Commissar Cain series.




Yeah ok, maybe not, but one can dream; its probably more Space Marines. :(

Though if they said 2020 will be the "Year of the Xenos", I'd still be happy (even happier for a new guard release, but that's unlikely too!)

 Kcalehc wrote:
It has nothing to do with the game at all. They signed with HBO to create a multi-season Commissar Cain series.




Yeah ok, maybe not, but one can dream; its probably more Space Marines. :(

Though if they said 2020 will be the "Year of the Xenos", I'd still be happy (even happier for a new guard release, but that's unlikely too!)

Considering what HBO did to Game of Thrones its probably best if they don't touch Commissar Cain.

It's best nobody touch the garbage that is Commissar Cain.

You take that back right now!

Cain is ace!

 zend wrote:
...the Ancient is the only good SM exclusive in that box.

 Galas wrote:
I mean the sword and pistol lieutenant is pretty badass.

I don't like Primaris Marines... yet these are the exact two that I own (and the Phobos Libby).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You take that back right now!

Cain is ace!

Yeah...no. It ain't.

If it's all done from the POV of the Inquisitor and the people around him, and played as Mr. Bean the Commissar? Sure, I'd be down for that. But otherwise nah.

It has been a few months since a marine release...

If 9th turns out to be version 8.5 I will wait until the renamed 10th: Asmodee's 40k Infinity Edition

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
It has nothing to do with the game at all. They signed with HBO to create a multi-season Commissar Cain series.




Yeah ok, maybe not, but one can dream; its probably more Space Marines. :(

Though if they said 2020 will be the "Year of the Xenos", I'd still be happy (even happier for a new guard release, but that's unlikely too!)

Considering what HBO did to Game of Thrones its probably best if they don't touch Commissar Cain.

I've yet to see Series 8 but isn't the common consensus that HBO shouldn't be allowed to make a Series 7 or 8.

Thanks to their initial investment and time, Game Of Thrones did become a world wide TV phenomenon.

I'm struggling to understand where everyone got the idea that the Silent King will be released. I've seen the vid and I'm getting the vibes of something big, but my gut feeling is that it'll just be the proper announcement and overview of the new Szeras model, perhaps another infantry kit, possible even Pariahs, but not the Silent King.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I'm struggling to understand where everyone got the idea that the Silent King will be released. I've seen the vid and I'm getting the vibes of something big, but my gut feeling is that it'll just be the proper announcement and overview of the new Szeras model, perhaps another infantry kit, possible even Pariahs, but not the Silent King.

Really? It's a video about the Silent King and him returning and you are wondering where people get the idea that he will be released?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You take that back right now!

Cain is ace!

Yeah...no. It ain't.

If it's all done from the POV of the Inquisitor and the people around him, and played as Mr. Bean the Commissar? Sure, I'd be down for that. But otherwise nah.

And with these statements, we have confirmation that there is something wrong with Kan's taste.

Nah, I just am not a fan of the Cain stuff. I also don't feel like it would be a good 'intro' piece for 40k.

Wayniac wrote:
I'm hoping it's a revised edition a la AOS 2.0. They might fix things like detachments and CP generation. I'd love to see things like cultists, poxwalkers, drones, conscripts, ripper swarms etc have a rule preventing them from holding objectives or count as less or something (no objective secured equivalent maybe), ANYTHING, to get away from the "quantity > quality" approach to list building you see now where the most effective thing is to spam tons of cheap bodies in detachments to maximize CP.

It's too late for them to get away from focusing on stratagems as a core mechanic rather than a bonus sadly.

What if you literally only have 2 troop choices, one of which basically constricts your list building to a really boring style of play? (Orks)

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
* A lot of people seem to be stuck in 7th-to-8th mindset. Before that we had 6th-7th which was a minor change except for battalions that came in the codexes.

And before that we had 5->6, 4->5 and 3->4 which were also minor without invalidating codexes. Wonder if you could even use 3rd ed codex technically in 5th? 6th? 7th? (apart from sucking up big time)

In 40k there's been 2 editions where all previous codexes were invalidated. In FB that happened once(5->6th). In AOS so far never.

Codex invalidations are very rare for GW.

V2 of the 3rd Ed Dark Eldar codex was still valid until mid 5th and still performing ok (albeit it was pretty limited in builds).

And that was a late 3rd update (similar to the V2 CSM in 8th) to the 2nd codex released in 3rd!

tulun wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I'm hoping it's a revised edition a la AOS 2.0. They might fix things like detachments and CP generation. I'd love to see things like cultists, poxwalkers, drones, conscripts, ripper swarms etc have a rule preventing them from holding objectives or count as less or something (no objective secured equivalent maybe), ANYTHING, to get away from the "quantity > quality" approach to list building you see now where the most effective thing is to spam tons of cheap bodies in detachments to maximize CP.

It's too late for them to get away from focusing on stratagems as a core mechanic rather than a bonus sadly.

What if you literally only have 2 troop choices, one of which basically constricts your list building to a really boring style of play? (Orks)

Double the choice of Sisters of Battle - we just have one, a good one but just the one

on the fiction element - I really enjoyed the Cities of Sigmar snippets from BL authors - more stuff like that would be nice, at least better than the same old recylced lore. Cain I really enjoy but obviously some don;t

 Sasori wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
I'm struggling to understand where everyone got the idea that the Silent King will be released. I've seen the vid and I'm getting the vibes of something big, but my gut feeling is that it'll just be the proper announcement and overview of the new Szeras model, perhaps another infantry kit, possible even Pariahs, but not the Silent King.

Really? It's a video about the Silent King and him returning and you are wondering where people get the idea that he will be released?

It could be some totally different person who also led the Necrons and then exiled himself.

BrianDavion wrote:
why would death watch make any more or less sense then any other chapter. the DW are hardly the only chapter to have fought Necrons.

heck last time we got a big Marines vs Necrons incident it was Ultramarines vs Necrons.

I'd prefer to see a vanilla chapter so that GW doesn't give a buncha sculpted shoulderpads etc that are a pain to convert. that said of the big name chapters, I think Blood Angels are due something. I'm operating from memory here but since 6th edition started (which is arbitary I agree) we've seen the following sets

2 Ultramarines (Dark Imperium and it's varients and one of the vigilius sets)
2 Space Wolves
2 Death Watch
1 Dark Angels (Dark Vengence)
1 Blood Angels. (they got something vs 'nids yeah?)

So yeah both blood angels and dark angels are proably due something.

Deathwatch are the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos, the wing of the Inquisition whose exclusive job is the destruction of aliens. As such, they are (supposed to be) the best at killing aliens. This is reflected in game by variable ammo, and strats that buff both offense and defense with each Xeno species in the game. No other chapter has that.

Now it's true that there aren't enough Deathwatch Marines to be a part of every battle against Xenos. DW tend to show up when other Imperial Forces are beginning to lose the battle, and they are often the ones who turn the tide.

And if you think about it, there's always a story to the release of each box, and it's usually framed as a high stakes Epic struggle. That's exactly the place where you would expect forces of last resort, such as the Deathwatch, to show up. And the fact that PA is seeing the release of Xenos Inquisitor and a Necron right before we expect the new box?

Well, does kinda make sense, right?