Sunny Side Up wrote:
I find alternating activation a pretty bad mechanic that makes for far poorer gameplay.

I get it, opinions differ. But if you like alternating activation, it's not like there's a scarcity of that on the market.

nfe wrote:
But why are knights in soup, most often? To get them a bunch of extra CP to spend powering their big lads.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.

tneva82 wrote:

nfe wrote:
But why are knights in soup, most often? To get them a bunch of extra CP to spend powering their big lads.

Yeah. And if you soup them up now you will burn CP.

If not give them more CP what other help you would be giving to mono knights? Cheaper knights?

You would need to be fanatical knight hater that just wants to kill knights completely to be against helping mono knights.

With this mono knights gets buff they deserve. They are underpowered as is.

Souping in future leads to same or worse. If they soup they will have less CP than without souping. I doubt souped up in 9th ed knights will have 14+ CP that much like they had in 8th ed.

This helps mono knights. Which is the way knights that are used that needs helps. Soup knights need less help but guess what? This doesnt' help soup knights because souping they pay CP rather than gain it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.

However, if it has some kind of 'multi-activation' system, then let's just say it'd be helpful against some of those armies that can just drench the field with gunfire and delete multiple units before they're even used.

Also, I kinda like the way Apocalypse does the 'everything dies at the end of the turn after both players have activated their units.

Because if you think that an overwhelming Alpha Strike in 40k isn't an absolute factor in determining how the game plays out- well, you're mistaken. If you think that the problem can be circumvented by some kind of 'deploy better' solution- then you're the exact person that makes me wonder if you actually play the game, or at least play it on more than one table with the same set of terrain.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I find alternating activation a pretty bad mechanic that makes for far poorer gameplay.

I get it, opinions differ. But if you like alternating activation, it's not like there's a scarcity of that on the market.

I just don’t know how it creates worse gameplay. I know opinions differ, so I’m curious about your opinion on it, I really want to enjoy 40k more and not just wish it had a different turn system.

nfe wrote:


I would argue that a key one is cheap CP banks souped into elite armies. This is a fairly widespread perspective. I suppose it can derive from two different angles, though, either you think it's bad because it allows elite armies to get lots of CP, or you think it's bad because elite armies are obliged to do it to get lots of CP.

If our inferences are correct about how this will work in practice, this doesn't help the problem if you believe it derived from the former issue, it just builds that CP generation into the core rules. If you think the problem comes from the second, then sure, it's fine.

macluvin wrote:
Imagine if there is already another game designed to be an alternate version of this game... without the bloat or constant supplements... and the rules are free... and not constantly in need of faqs or errata...https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/grimdark-future/

tneva82 wrote:

nfe wrote:


I would argue that a key one is cheap CP banks souped into elite armies. This is a fairly widespread perspective. I suppose it can derive from two different angles, though, either you think it's bad because it allows elite armies to get lots of CP, or you think it's bad because elite armies are obliged to do it to get lots of CP.

If our inferences are correct about how this will work in practice, this doesn't help the problem if you believe it derived from the former issue, it just builds that CP generation into the core rules. If you think the problem comes from the second, then sure, it's fine.

Problem is adding best of multiple factions at no drawback.

Now there's drawback to be had.

If somebody doesn't like that mono knights get much needed boost tough. Knight hating is boring.

Rules that encourage knights to play mono rather than souping up is good for the game evening up win rates. This doesn't help soup knights either. If anything has potential to hurt it. So boost where needed, doesn't help where doesn't need help or even gives bit of a nerfbat that's needed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL imagine playing those games and actually saying with a straight face 40k is better. Pray tell what it actually does better. This will be good.

Lol. Imagine playing a game and pursuing its evolution on the internet, when you're actually convinced it isn't the best and you could simply go get a (for you) better game off the shelve at any second. Now that sounds like some really twisted form of masochism.

That's not a whole lot of argument in there.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I feel like Dakka's news and rumors game would be stepped up if we had two separate threads, one that's locked from discussion and only gets updated for news updates, and a second thread for the actual discussion of the news.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I feel like Dakka's news and rumors game would be stepped up if we had two separate threads, one that's locked from discussion and only gets updated for news updates, and a second thread for the actual discussion of the news.

Agree.

Wakshaani wrote:
From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:

There will be a set number of Command Points for the point level of a game. For now, let's just say 1 CP per 100 pts of the game... so, 10 CP at 1000 points, 15 at 1500, 20 at 2000, and so on. This set level keeps things fair and allows for easy of figuring out certain costs.

NOTE: We don't know the formula yet, but it will be something along those lines.

Detachments don't seem to have changed in design (IE, a Patrol still has 1-2 HQ, 1-3 Troops, and 0-2 of Elite, Fast, and Heavy support) but instead of GENERATING CP, they instead COST CP, with possibly one being free.

So what you'll have is some kind of a shopping list, like:

Patrol - 1 CP
Battalion - 3 CP
Brigade - 5 CP
Vanguard - 4 CP
Spearhead - 4 CP
Outrider - 4 CP
Supreme Command - 5 CP
Super Heavy - 5 CP
Air Wing - 3 CP
Super Heavy Auxillary - 2 CP
Fortification Network - 1 CP
Auxillary Support - 1 CP

"One for free" will be worked in somehow, possibly based on points. 0-999: Free Patrol. 1000-1999: Free Batallion 2000+ Free Brigade Any you want beyond that will have a cost.

So, in a 2000 point game, if you just wanted three Spearheads, you could, but that would set you back 12 of your 20 CP, giving your opponent more strategic options.

So, you'd still be encouraged to take troops, since the three Troop-heavy detachments would be cheaper than the specialized ones, but would carry a 'troop tax' of a sort as a balance.

Obvviously, I don't have the exact numbers but that really rough layout up above will let you see how it should work, based on what we know, and let you play around a bit unill we get the actual rules, to see how your own forces can be laid out.

Maybe you know your force sneeds a TON of CP, like Orks, so you just plan on a pair of REALLY FAT Batalions, leaving you 17 CP.

Maybe you want the raw POWAH of a bunch of heavy choices, but all those Spearheads leave you short on CP for upgrades, rerolls, and so on, so you have to rely on the big guns getting it done.

It's just spending some pre-game, just like you do to get more Relics or upgrade a Psycher, only it gives you more slots to stick units into.

Obviously, this is just based on what we know at this stage and it could change (For instance, they cold ditch detachments and just do a straight CP to buy 1 slot (2 if troops)) and, most important, the exact numbers are unknown to us, but, it'll work as a guidepost.

So there ya go.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.

However, if it has some kind of 'multi-activation' system, then let's just say it'd be helpful against some of those armies that can just drench the field with gunfire and delete multiple units before they're even used.

Also, I kinda like the way Apocalypse does the 'everything dies at the end of the turn after both players have activated their units.

Because if you think that an overwhelming Alpha Strike in 40k isn't an absolute factor in determining how the game plays out- well, you're mistaken. If you think that the problem can be circumvented by some kind of 'deploy better' solution- then you're the exact person that makes me wonder if you actually play the game, or at least play it on more than one table with the same set of terrain.

 Galas wrote:
Never would I have tought that something most people hated, the stacking of negative modifiers would be defended by people when they talk about removing them.

I can agree with some interactions that should remain, like, if you are moving with a heavy weapon and fire a enemy with a -1 you would be shooting at -2. But stacking negative modifiers was just a bad mechanic that was palatable because it was the only way to make things work in a competitive setting with such high lethality, but nobody that faced a eldar flyer spam list can say with a straight face it was a good mechanic, or Lord Discordants with -4 to hit.

And answering a question other poster said: A Miasma of Pestilence in a Alpha Legion army can be casted in anything that has not the -1 to hit , like demon engines, vehicles, etc...

nfe wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

nfe wrote:


I would argue that a key one is cheap CP banks souped into elite armies. This is a fairly widespread perspective. I suppose it can derive from two different angles, though, either you think it's bad because it allows elite armies to get lots of CP, or you think it's bad because elite armies are obliged to do it to get lots of CP.

If our inferences are correct about how this will work in practice, this doesn't help the problem if you believe it derived from the former issue, it just builds that CP generation into the core rules. If you think the problem comes from the second, then sure, it's fine.

Problem is adding best of multiple factions at no drawback.

Now there's drawback to be had.

If somebody doesn't like that mono knights get much needed boost tough. Knight hating is boring.

Rules that encourage knights to play mono rather than souping up is good for the game evening up win rates. This doesn't help soup knights either. If anything has potential to hurt it. So boost where needed, doesn't help where doesn't need help or even gives bit of a nerfbat that's needed.

I get that you obviously run knights (so do I) but I'm not sure why you think this is only about them?

That said, largely killing soup is a big boost to knights in and of itself. They're only poor relative to soup. If soup wasn't such a big part of the game, they'd be in a much better place without any other buffs.

Wakshaani wrote:
From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:

Fortification Network - 1 CP

nfe wrote:
I get that you obviously run knights (so do I) but I'm not sure why you think this is only about them?

That said, largely killing soup is a big boost to knights in and of itself. They're only poor relative to soup. If soup wasn't such a big part of the game, they'd be in a much better place without any other buffs.

 Galas wrote:
Never would I have tought that something most people hated, the stacking of negative modifiers would be defended by people when they talk about removing them.

I can agree with some interactions that should remain, like, if you are moving with a heavy weapon and fire a enemy with a -1 you would be shooting at -2. But stacking negative modifiers was just a bad mechanic that was palatable because it was the only way to make things work in a competitive setting with such high lethality, but nobody that faced a eldar flyer spam list can say with a straight face it was a good mechanic, or Lord Discordants with -4 to hit.

And answering a question other poster said: A Miasma of Pestilence in a Alpha Legion army can be casted in anything that has not the -1 to hit , like demon engines, vehicles, etc...

tneva82 wrote:

nfe wrote:
I get that you obviously run knights (so do I) but I'm not sure why you think this is only about them?

That said, largely killing soup is a big boost to knights in and of itself. They're only poor relative to soup. If soup wasn't such a big part of the game, they'd be in a much better place without any other buffs.

Eh not really. I ran knight army last time like 2 years ago. 1 knight for 1 tournament 2 months ago.

What I want is balance. Mono knights are hardly overpowered(they are very much underpowered) so when complaining about change is "but wouldn't knights benefit from it?" it just shows it's case of either person having no up to date idea of state of game balance or is "knights should be removed from case complely" kind of type.

Tyel wrote:
Perhaps my biggest concern though is this idea that terrain can save us.
I know a lot of people really, really love terrain and dislike the dumbed down 8th edition rules for it.
But the realities of playing at tournaments, FLGS, even the average player's kitchen, make me very suspect. I can understand fully that the game isn't meant to be played on planet bowling ball - but covering a board with loads of terrain is a considerable expense. GW can happily declare you should just spend a fortune buying their terrain (or get some polystyrene bricks) - but... meh.
Admittedly just making most terrain act like ITC first floor ruins (i.e. block line of site despite the fact you can clearly see through loads of holes, infantry can however still jog through) could be an interesting development. Also a potential source of disagreements.

Wakshaani wrote:
From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:

There will be a set number of Command Points for the point level of a game. For now, let's just say 1 CP per 100 pts of the game... so, 10 CP at 1000 points, 15 at 1500, 20 at 2000, and so on. This set level keeps things fair and allows for easy of figuring out certain costs.

NOTE: We don't know the formula yet, but it will be something along those lines.

Detachments don't seem to have changed in design (IE, a Patrol still has 1-2 HQ, 1-3 Troops, and 0-2 of Elite, Fast, and Heavy support) but instead of GENERATING CP, they instead COST CP, with possibly one being free.

So what you'll have is some kind of a shopping list, like:

Patrol - 1 CP
Battalion - 3 CP
Brigade - 5 CP
Vanguard - 4 CP
Spearhead - 4 CP
Outrider - 4 CP
Supreme Command - 5 CP
Super Heavy - 5 CP
Air Wing - 3 CP
Super Heavy Auxillary - 2 CP
Fortification Network - 1 CP
Auxillary Support - 1 CP

"One for free" will be worked in somehow, possibly based on points. 0-999: Free Patrol. 1000-1999: Free Batallion 2000+ Free Brigade Any you want beyond that will have a cost.

So, in a 2000 point game, if you just wanted three Spearheads, you could, but that would set you back 12 of your 20 CP, giving your opponent more strategic options.

So, you'd still be encouraged to take troops, since the three Troop-heavy detachments would be cheaper than the specialized ones, but would carry a 'troop tax' of a sort as a balance.

Obvviously, I don't have the exact numbers but that really rough layout up above will let you see how it should work, based on what we know, and let you play around a bit unill we get the actual rules, to see how your own forces can be laid out.

Maybe you know your force sneeds a TON of CP, like Orks, so you just plan on a pair of REALLY FAT Batalions, leaving you 17 CP.

Maybe you want the raw POWAH of a bunch of heavy choices, but all those Spearheads leave you short on CP for upgrades, rerolls, and so on, so you have to rely on the big guns getting it done.

It's just spending some pre-game, just like you do to get more Relics or upgrade a Psycher, only it gives you more slots to stick units into.

Obviously, this is just based on what we know at this stage and it could change (For instance, they cold ditch detachments and just do a straight CP to buy 1 slot (2 if troops)) and, most important, the exact numbers are unknown to us, but, it'll work as a guidepost.

So there ya go.