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.

"Stu's Space Marine Army has lost one unit"

That's kind of open-ended, isn't it?

From "Lost one five-man unit of scots" to "Lost a 10-man Hellblaster squad" is a wide range.

(Mind you, I lean more towards the former, but.)

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Jesus how many weeks are they going to try to drag out things over streams like this. What a bore

9th was never coming in june so plenty time.

Hopefully we get more sauce in half hour?

1.5k to 2k point games are up to 3 hours long?
Oof, and I was hoping games would be faster.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Nah, no streams on the weekend.

I wasn't being serious about "tomorrow" I was making fun of GW's incredibly boring approach to previews.

They're not exactly drowning us in detail.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
1.5k to 2k point games are up to 3 hours long?
Oof, and I was hoping games would be faster.

This is honestly a bizarre complaint to me. If you want a fast game, do Kill Team or Necromunda!

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 xttz wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
5*17=85
5*20=100
100-85=15

10*4=40
10*6=60
60-40=20

No. No they did not.

Fair enough. No math before caffeine for me then.

Well to be fair, we don't know the final cost of Intercessors, only that the base cost has gone back to 20pts. Their main weapon options could have been changed just as substantially as Cultists for the same reason.

True.

We can guess armies are going to lose a squad of Space Marines though, so about ~200pts of a current 2k army I guess?

Minimum for a Squad if Intercessors is 85 points in 8th edition terms and that's chumpchange to the 60+% win ratio almost everyone else is going to have to make some serious gains out of these changes to have a chance against Marines.

When Stu said "squad" I was thinking "full squad" but you're right, it might be smaller than that.

Id be fine with a faster game if gws solution to that wasnt always "everything dies way faster"

new article up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/

So apparently WarCom has way more detail than the preview videos. Might skip them from now on, 'cause:


Hey look - actual new information. Wow!


Strange sizes right? I mean, why not just be 48"x72"... on wait two of their KT boards would be 44x60.

So even table size now is codified to Citadel™ Products™.

tneva82 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Or you can be an optimist and assume that everything was rebalanced, just around a higher points baseline.

They've been fething it up for 30 years but this time will be different

Oh it's been working as intended for 30 years. Its not balanced because that's how gw prefers it

I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.

And even then people would complain it's not balanced.

GW has had balance issues in the past *COUGHWRAITHKNIGHTCOUGH* that were based on selling models, but on the whole the designers have been trying to get the game as balanced as possible while allowing for far more options everywhere.

Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.

Interesting about the min sizes.

thats 5ft by 3.6666*ft for 2k.

No one is gonna stop playing 6 by 4 though

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Nah, no streams on the weekend.

I wasn't being serious about "tomorrow" I was making fun of GW's incredibly boring approach to previews.

They're not exactly drowning us in detail.

Fair enough. In their limited defense, that's what happens when you need to stretch this over 4+ weeks with 5 videos a week.

The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?

Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.

I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.

And, presumably, you can show evidence of this, yes?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.

Ah, there's the classic strawman: "perfect balance". Perfect balance is impossible, but at the same time, there are so many glaring holes in 40K that it's obvious what needs to be done.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:



Strange sizes right? I mean, why not just be 48"x72"... on wait two of their KT boards would be 44x60.

So even table size now is codified to Citadel™ Products™.

I think the Patrol size is to fit on an average coffee table.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I do wonder why they reduced the table size though.

Because they sell products in that size! What other reason could their possibly be besides that?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Fair enough. In their limited defense, that's what happens when you need to stretch this over 4+ weeks with 5 videos a week.

You're trying to tell me that there isn't enough depth and new stuff in the new 40K to stretch over 4 weeks, so much so that they have to give us these incredibly sparse previews that tell us almost nothing because if they didn't they'd run out of stuff to talk about???

That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been

Haha, good to know that the tables are intended to be even smaller in 2k games. More trivialisation of movement, more!!!

I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?

seems easy to get the max 15.

What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?

 vim_the_good wrote:
That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been

Oh if it's minimum that's fine. Just a guideline to let you know how much space you'll need if you deploy that many models then.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.

And, presumably, you can show evidence of this, yes?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.

Ah, there's the classic strawman: "perfect balance". Perfect balance is impossible, but at the same time, there are so many glaring holes in 40K that it's obvious what needs to be done.

To balance 40k as well as, say Warmachine, we'd need to strip out a lot of that customization. Fixed unit sizes and wargear loadouts so you can better dial in the cost of models and units for every interaction.

And I'm not talking perfect balance. The thing is there isn't even a chance in hell we'd come close to hitting perfect balance in this game. There are too many interactions to do it. Too many options. 8th as at least shown that they're trying to get the game more balanced and while the initial C:SM threw that off (though it got nerfed, we just haven't seen if those nerfs were enough or not) GW seems to be trying to get armies somewhere close to what I've heard called "the fat middle". Hopefully 9th will give armies enough tools to actually hit that more successfully.

 vim_the_good wrote:
That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been

Of course it does, because they cannot dictate the size of people's tables, as they don't have that level of control (yet!*). But they've added min-sizes that are literally their own map products put together.

Amazing... I'm almost speechless at that.

Citadel Miniatures - Buy All Our Playsets & Toys!™



*puts on tinfoil had!

 Latro_ wrote:
I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?

seems easy to get the max 15.

What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?

No, it’s progressive like the others so you can keep scoring it. Unlike the primary objective though, it can be scored first turn if you have one of those armies that can DS turn 1, and your opponent is also an idiot.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I do wonder why they reduced the table size though.

Because they sell products in that size! What other reason could their possibly be besides that?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Fair enough. In their limited defense, that's what happens when you need to stretch this over 4+ weeks with 5 videos a week.

You're trying to tell me that there isn't enough depth and new stuff in the new 40K to stretch over 4 weeks, so much so that they have to give us these incredibly sparse previews that tell us almost nothing because if they didn't they'd run out of stuff to talk about???

Let's be honest, when we saw edition changes from 5th to 6th or 6th to 7th you could fit all the changes on a single sheet of paper. Might need both sides at most. And with how generally they keep speaking about the concepts and the small amount of info we keep seeing I suspect that and the end of the day, the core rule changes will be about the same.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
To balance 40k as well as, say Warmachine, we'd need to strip out a lot of that customization. Fixed unit sizes and wargear loadouts so you can better dial in the cost of models and units for every interaction.

Restating your argument is not the same as providing evidence for said argument.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And I'm not talking perfect balance.

You literally said "even AAA competitive vidieo games... don't have perfect balance..." as if said "perfect balance" was the desired end goal.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The thing is there isn't even a chance in hell we'd come close to hitting perfect balance in this game. There are too many interactions to do it. Too many options.

And you just did it again!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
8th as at least shown that they're trying to get the game more balanced and while the initial C:SM threw that off (though it got nerfed, we just haven't seen if those nerfs were enough or not) GW seems to be trying to get armies somewhere close to what I've heard called "the fat middle". Hopefully 9th will give armies enough tools to actually hit that more successfully.

Trying, maybe. Failing, certainly.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?

Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.

I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?

Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4

 Latro_ wrote:
I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?

seems easy to get the max 15.

What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?

Primary is limited to 15 points per turn in yoir command phase.
75 points can be scored via primary mission objectives if you max score every turn

Secondarys can be scored upto 15 and their is 2 or 3, so maximum score from 3 secondary mission objectives is 45 points.

You can score upto 120 victory points in a game your more likely to score around 60-90 but theoretically (very theroy hammer) it should be possible between both players to score 225 victory points in a game so it keeps the winning and loosing of the game much more in doubt till the game is over.

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?

Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.

I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?

Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4

It is recommended MIN size as stated in the article. It is not a rule. It even talks about using 6x4 to play on. There has never been a rule on what size the battle space should be.

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?

Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.

I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?

Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4

Yeah was about to say it's pretty close to the size of my dinningroom/kitchen table.
Though most people I know use Game tables at clubs etc which are 6 by4 or larger and arn't likely to be trying to shave a foot off just because.