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.
2020/06/02 18:59:38
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Then release that codex when you drop the new edition not a year ahead of that and reduce the current edution to play this codex or GTFO with winning and spend the next six months unbreaking the game from your mistakes.
Nah. They instead decided to push out whatever they had playtested to continue releasing stuff that was ready to go via PA so armies could get updated while the new edition was bring worked on.
I'm not saying what they did was the best option, just pointing out that C:SM is a clear turning point and wasnlikely written when they were deciding that the game needed a 9th ed instead of a living ed.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Sorry, but no. New editions take more time than that. They always talk about new editions taking several years. The Chaos SM copypasta would have been happening alongside 9th edition rules.
Under the old way where rules teams worked on several systems at the same time that may be true, but we saw Sisters come out inside of a year when that used to take 18 months minimum in the past.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/02 19:02:05
2020/06/02 19:02:08
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
It wasn't even that though. It consolidated some of the rules from a single book released at the same time. It didn't even properly consolidate all the errata, nor the rules for the new units released in the coinciding boxset.
Not to mention the issue with Obliterators having different points costs and unit sizes depending on where you looked...
2020/06/02 19:05:09
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Then release that codex when you drop the new edition not a year ahead of that and reduce the current edution to play this codex or GTFO with winning and spend the next six months unbreaking the game from your mistakes.
Nah. They instead decided to push out whatever they had playtested to continue releasing stuff that was ready to go via PA so armies could get updated while the new edition was bring worked on.
I'm not saying what they did was the best option, just pointing out that C:SM is a clear turning point and wasnlikely written when they were deciding that the game needed a 9th ed instead of a living ed..
I'm not sure why you think a 'living edition' was ever in the cards.
8th edition is looking more and more like a stopgap/ public playtest edition. The former to fill in with a deluge of books while they were refitting their factory, and the latter to deal with the mess they made trying to dig out of the 7th edition hole with new systems that they didn't take time to test in the office.
Under the old way where rules teams worked on several systems at the same time that may be true, but we saw Sisters come out inside of a year when that used to take 18 months minimum in the past.
What's this based on? Either old way/new way or anything to suggest that Sisters took less than a year.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/02 19:07:47
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/06/02 19:08:34
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
It wasn't even that though. It consolidated some of the rules from a single book released at the same time. It didn't even properly consolidate all the errata, nor the rules for the new units released in the coinciding boxset.
Not to mention the issue with Obliterators having different points costs and unit sizes depending on where you looked...
I suspect it was written in 2017 before most of those updates occured because of that actually.
2020/06/02 19:10:34
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Now obviously they changed that design goal because GW is consistent on not doing what they say, unless its raise prices.
Many of us though wanted to believe them as we saw merit in 8th edition after the darkness that was 7th. I'd hope to believe many are much wiser now when it comes to listening to what GW claim at this point.
2020/06/02 19:14:01
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/02 19:28:55
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/06/02 19:23:52
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
Yeah, I'd like to see that myself. Sounds like a rending pony to me. They'd never claim anything like that. Anyone who's been around the hobby knows how GW operates and it's disingenuous to act otherwise.
That's great and all, but you're not the only person ever to use Battlescribe. I've had far too many people try to use Battlescribe as a codex and list checker to ever trust anyone at this point throwing a list my way from it.
But if they've just written their list down on a bit of paper that's fine, you'll accept that it's legal.
2020/06/02 19:34:27
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...
Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.
Did you not read what I posted?
There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?
Hey, I got an even better idea for 9th edition. I call it "Army Points". First count the number of armies you're fielding. That's how many Army Points it costs! It's really fast for setting up pick-up games. But strangely enough it's not so good for ensuring balance. Kinda like Power Level.
Hey, up for a 1 point game? Sure! Let's play!
2020/06/02 19:38:12
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...
Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.
Did you not read what I posted?
There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?
Hey, I got an even better idea for 9th edition. I call it "Army Points". First count the number of armies you're fielding. That's how many Army Points it costs! It's really fast for setting up pick-up games. But strangely enough it's not so good for ensuring balance. Kinda like Power Level.
Hey, up for a 1 point game? Sure! Let's play!
Not to but in, but, wasn't that the first attempt at the age of sigmar ? I hear that worked out amazing for them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/02 19:41:11
2020/06/02 19:41:50
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/06/02 19:48:27
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
2020/06/02 19:52:26
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Now obviously they changed that design goal because GW is consistent on not doing what they say, unless its raise prices.
Many of us though wanted to believe them as we saw merit in 8th edition after the darkness that was 7th. I'd hope to believe many are much wiser now when it comes to listening to what GW claim at this point.
Eh they always say this is last ultimate edition. Would need to be new to gw gamns or fool to believe it.
Under the old way where rules teams worked on several systems at the same time that may be true, but we saw Sisters come out inside of a year when that used to take 18 months minimum in the past.
Eh they announced sister work started spring 2018. Big box came november 2019 with real launch 2020 january. How that is inside a year? That is minimum 18 to big boxset, 20 months for real launch.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/02 19:54:39
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2020/06/02 19:58:22
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
I'm not going to 'make you' do anything. But don't tell me I'm a 'flat earther' because you won't provide evidence to support your extraordinary (and frankly ridiculous) claim. That's exactly backwards, you're the one with a theory in need of support.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
I'm not going to 'make you' do anything. But don't tell me I'm a 'flat earther' because you won't provide evidence to support your extraordinary (and frankly ridiculous) claim. That's exactly backwards, you're the one with a theory in need of support.
They said it, believe it or not the choice is yours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/02 20:02:24
2020/06/02 20:03:37
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
The only thing I remember is that GW said that they will do regular updates with CA and then the forums explodes with 'living edition' and 'no new editions' theories but GW never stated this. And I followed the news closely.
2020/06/02 20:06:57
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
The only thing I remember is that GW said that they will do regular updates with CA and then the forums explodes with 'living edition' and 'no new editions' theories but GW never stated this. And I followed the news closely.
Ooh i got several responses for my post, including claiming i was paying no attention at all and that crusades were OPTIONAL.
maybe i wasn't clear enough.
I already knew that. I was just amused that over the last several months to maybe even a year I recall people claiming there was enough rules (specifically complaints about to many books), and im seeing excitement over this crusade system that is going to take up extra space in the rules documents, whether or not you want to use it. it makes me wonder if a codex price raise is coming or not for the extra pages to account for their addition as well, since they have said it will be in every codex.
It's not something ill likely be using either way on the basis ive played primarily blood bowl and mordheim variants, and unless they designed it really well with modern 40k lethality in mind, im not up to rolling whatever qualifies as an injury role every single game for whatever applies, because at this point overkill happens a lot from what i see.
Army: none currently.
2020/06/02 21:38:37
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Bdrone wrote: Ooh i got several responses for my post, including claiming i was paying no attention at all and that crusades were OPTIONAL.
maybe i wasn't clear enough.
I already knew that. I was just amused that over the last several months to maybe even a year I recall people claiming there was enough rules (specifically complaints about to many books), and im seeing excitement over this crusade system that is going to take up extra space in the rules documents, whether or not you want to use it. it makes me wonder if a codex price raise is coming or not for the extra pages to account for their addition as well, since they have said it will be in every codex.
It's not something ill likely be using either way on the basis ive played primarily blood bowl and mordheim variants, and unless they designed it really well with modern 40k lethality in mind, im not up to rolling whatever qualifies as an injury role every single game for whatever applies, because at this point overkill happens a lot from what i see.
Crusade exists becaude GW realized they didn't give any real tools to narrative and open play and they're correcting that. It's not like Path to Glory (AoS' escalation system) takes up more than a couple pages in a battletome, and this will likely be the same.
And no, AoS didn't up the cost of their books just because they put in a couple pages of escalation rules.
2020/06/02 21:46:30
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Crusade exists becaude GW realized they didn't give any real tools to narrative and open play and they're correcting that. It's not like Path to Glory (AoS' escalation system) takes up more than a couple pages in a battletome, and this will likely be the same.
And no, AoS didn't up the cost of their books just because they put in a couple pages of escalation rules.
Fair enough. we'll see how it turns out then.
Army: none currently.
2020/06/02 21:47:25
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
My LGS hosts a new campaign every 3 months to try to draw more blood into the fold or allow people to start new armies small with very little cost/time investment.
The manager does a very good job with the campaign system as it currently stands but to have a more detailed/clearly laid out campaign system that also allows people with Crusade armies to play against anyone, even if there is PL imbalance is a good thing.
Some of the players specifically look for certain size games so no, not everybody wanting to play their 2k army will want to convert it to PL and play against someone who has a force 1/2 their size but some might.
In my LGS even the long term veterans pull out 500 pts of their collection of 1,000's or 10's of 1,000's of point (one SM player has 30K points of SM's of his own Chapter and 6k of Ultramarines). He's participated in every Escalation League campaign the past 5 years.
2020/06/02 21:59:54
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
I'll be shocked if there isn't a price increase on codexes. Moreso from the added digital copy than any new content though.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2020/06/02 22:15:59
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
The thing is just taking a quick look at my top four(Ato Z)2000 pts lists. These are mainly competitive/semi competitive lists (one does include 3 wraithknigth though...)
These vary from 116 to 140 PL at 2000 pts... Please tell me how power level is balanced...when compared to pts... Its not balanced internally in the slightest.. so how is even remotely balanced against other armies.
Pts and PL just doesn't mesh. GW should have just dumped this idea but here we are..
If there is enough interest locally I will certainly do a "crusade" campaign but it will be only against people within the campaign. crusade vs matched play just seems like complete cluster buck..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/02 22:19:36
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Through 8th many points dropped.but PL where never adjusted. I assume that your lists will be closer to 100 PL after the first errata. But yeah, they are not ment to be 100% balanced.
2020/06/02 22:30:22
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Argive wrote: The thing is just taking a quick look at my top four(Ato Z)2000 pts lists. These are mainly competitive/semi competitive lists (one does include 3 wraithknigth though...)
These vary from 116 to 140 PL at 2000 pts... Please tell me how power level is balanced...when compared to pts... Its not balanced internally in the slightest.. so how is even remotely balanced against other armies.
Pts and PL just doesn't mesh. GW should have just dumped this idea but here we are..
If there is enough interest locally I will certainly do a "crusade" campaign but it will be only against people within the campaign. crusade vs matched play just seems like complete cluster buck..
We'll swap PL for PTS for the illusion of starting balance in Crusade (because basically we know pt vs pt, will never be balanced in 40k). But its better than PL.
After this, i think you might need to reassess what a system like this will be like after 5 games. Facing off against a match play list will be nothing compared to the disparity of what will likely be the case with special rules, buffs, debuffs etc for the Crusade armies. You are playing a narrative, and yes your army might totally suck and be underdogs in every game etc... thats kinda the point.
We play a lot of old school Necomunda at the minute. My gang got random slag territories when we started, so i get next to no income, i can't buy stuff. One of the guys gets about 3 times what i get a game and all his guys have sweet weapons. Before the lockdown we played a mission were I was not only outgunned but i had to start with less men than him! I won though some mad luck, clever tactics and it's been one of the best games played for me in a long while. Thats kinda the idea with Crusade i'd imagine. Your force develops a story around it. You imagine your gangers coming back to cheers for their victory, tempered by sadness when they relise they dont have the credits for food, maybe we'll attack their territory now they are weakened etc etc etc
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/02 22:33:40
2020/06/02 22:34:18
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
That's great and all, but you're not the only person ever to use Battlescribe. I've had far too many people try to use Battlescribe as a codex and list checker to ever trust anyone at this point throwing a list my way from it.
But if they've just written their list down on a bit of paper that's fine, you'll accept that it's legal.
I imagine the dislike for Battlescribe is down to the fact it's not official and stops some people spending money with GW on codices etc.
Btw: I'm actually one of the people that does always buy my rules/books, but programs that let me print out my army list are damn useful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/03 00:31:31
Currently most played: Silent Death, Mars Code Aurora, Battletech, Warcrow and Infinity.
2020/06/02 22:56:02
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
All the wailing about Crusade seems misplaced. We don't know enough about it to condemn it out right, other than to say that PL, as a system, isn't particularly useful and this does seem like GW going "Now they'll like it!". No, we like points. Points make things easier. Just use points.
Kanluwen wrote: Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And has nothing to do with the quality of Battlescribe. That's a player problem.
Battlescribe isn't "trash" Kan. You're just pissed off that some people cheated.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/02 23:10:14
Doing army lists on paper with a calculator is simply WAY too tedious these days. I have to trawl through like 3, sometimes 4, different books to find the points costs of everything, regularly referring back to the main book. It got real old real fast, and I was quite resistant to using battlescribe until maybe a yearish ago now.
Eldar- 4436 pts
