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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You say that like there is an incentive to buy a start collecting box for its terrain. There isn't.

You mean that nobody buys start collecting sets for the terrain that isn't in there?!

Wow, shocking.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You say that like there is an incentive to buy a start collecting box for its terrain. There isn't.

You mean that nobody buys start collecting sets for the terrain that isn't in there?!

Wow, shocking.

Most people don't buy terrain very often normally. Why would they go out of their way to get a start just for terrain when terrain purchases aren't that high to start with?

It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.

Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.

 Stormonu wrote:
It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.

Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.

This would be a fair compromise in my view.

 Stormonu wrote:
It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.

Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.

It would be an excellent solution to the growing problem of marine-on-marine violence.

Sounds like a rule that'd only work in Narrative.

 Stormonu wrote:
It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.

Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.

They tried this once. LotR official tournament rules said "every game must be good vs. evil, so everyone bring a good army and an evil army". Everyone hated it and didn't bother going to GW events.

Any chance we can get this thread back on the subject?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but could all this secondary shenanigans imply that First Strike/Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker would be secondaries that aren't standard, but something you could choose?

I mean, I can see the problem with that already (why would you not take First Strike - a point for killing something on turn one? Why not!), but it does seem like a better way than just having those be the default in basically every mission.

I would expect the binary secondary objectives of old to disappear. Look at the sample secondaries they revealed (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/). There is so much space in those for varying player points value that there seems little need for tie-breaker points.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.

There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.

This forces shooting to be directed to those units. While characters are great you won't cover the whole board well enough and you want to be casting / attacking with them.

Not a simple solution, which is great.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They do that, which is why the other half of the starter is Necrons this time.

Marines will always be half the starter to maximize sales. The other half will appeal to a smaller niche or get Marine players to try the other army and possibly expand out.

And as someone who does play the other faction in these starter boxes... there is clearly not an even split in what people want here. It was incredibly easy to find cheap Forgebane Necrons because everybody wanted the mini-knights for their Imperium armies and I had someone willing to split the 9th starter box with me the moment it was revealed Necrons would be in it and I'd be interested in the less desirable half.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The siphoning unit has to survive through your opponent's turn. A horde of chaff units, especially with the new blast rules, might just die before scoring the objective. The best siphoners are probably characters, not troops.

There is also the fact that this objective is a completely optional choice - if your army isn't well suited to the siphoning action, pick a different one.

This forces shooting to be directed to those units. While characters are great you won't cover the whole board well enough and you want to be casting / attacking with them.

Not a simple solution, which is great.

Oh, I absolutely agree. My hope is that this incentivizes tough units that aren't great at killing more, but play time will be required to see if that actually works.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They do that, which is why the other half of the starter is Necrons this time.

Marines will always be half the starter to maximize sales. The other half will appeal to a smaller niche or get Marine players to try the other army and possibly expand out.

And as someone who does play the other faction in these starter boxes... there is clearly not an even split in what people want here. It was incredibly easy to find cheap Forgebane Necrons because everybody wanted the mini-knights for their Imperium armies and I had someone willing to split the 9th starter box with me the moment it was revealed Necrons would be in it and I'd be interested in the less desirable half.

I agree the split isn't even, which is why I scoffed at the idea of a starter without Marines. Cutting off the largest sales target in a major release like this just seems counter-productive from a business standpoint no matter how much a vocal minority pitches a fit.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.

Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.

They tried this once. LotR official tournament rules said "every game must be good vs. evil, so everyone bring a good army and an evil army". Everyone hated it and didn't bother going to GW events.

It has nothing to do with tournament rules, it's one of the base rules of the game. Because of logistical reasons some tournaments decide to house rule that away. It's one of the reasons I don't do Lotr tournaments, really.

 alextroy wrote:
Any chance we can get this thread back on the subject?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but could all this secondary shenanigans imply that First Strike/Blood, Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker would be secondaries that aren't standard, but something you could choose?

I mean, I can see the problem with that already (why would you not take First Strike - a point for killing something on turn one? Why not!), but it does seem like a better way than just having those be the default in basically every mission.

I would expect the binary secondary objectives of old to disappear. Look at the sample secondaries they revealed (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/). There is so much space in those for varying player points value that there seems little need for tie-breaker points.

I expect the old objectives like slay the warlord to disappear too, but they might roll them into a different secondary objective.

Maybe something like this:

Slay the warlord could become
Character hunter (progressive) Each time you kill an enemy Character, score 3 VP. If the Character is the enemy warlord score an additional 3 VP. A maximum of 15 VP can be score with this objective.

Line Breaker could be:
Infiltration (progressive) score 3 VP for each of your units that is over half strength and wholly within the enemy deployment zone at the end of your turn. A maximum of 15 VP can be scored with this objective.

Alternatively, something like first strike/slay the warlord could be used as a tie-breaker (unlikely I think).

Edit:

Regarding Actions, it seems that if a unit carries out an action (siphoning one of the pillars for instance) it can't do anything else until it's next movement phase. How do you think this will interact with melee? I assume that the unit won't be able to overwatch, but do you think if it is charged it automatically stops the action and fights, or will it be a choice to continue carrying out the action and just stand there getting hit without hitting back?

Regarding Actions, it seems that if a unit carries out an action (siphoning one of the pillars for instance) it can't do anything else until it's next movement phase. How do you think this will interact with melee? I assume that the unit won't be able to overwatch, but do you think if it is charged it automatically stops the action and fights, or will it be a choice to continue carrying out the action and just stand there getting hit without hitting back?

I think that syphonic happens on your own turn. So you would be able to both overwatch and do melee on your opponent turn. If it isn't ,armies with fewer numbers, are going to be in real trouble. Because engaging an army with 4-5 units is going to be real easy.

Karol wrote:

Regarding Actions, it seems that if a unit carries out an action (siphoning one of the pillars for instance) it can't do anything else until it's next movement phase. How do you think this will interact with melee? I assume that the unit won't be able to overwatch, but do you think if it is charged it automatically stops the action and fights, or will it be a choice to continue carrying out the action and just stand there getting hit without hitting back?

I think that syphonic happens on your own turn. So you would be able to both overwatch and do melee on your opponent turn. If it isn't ,armies with fewer numbers, are going to be in real trouble. Because engaging an army with 4-5 units is going to be real easy.

It lasts for your turn and your opponent's turn:

... can start to perform this action at the end of your Movement phase.

The Action is completed at the end of your next Command phase ...

So you have to last through the opponent charging you and overwatch and melee must interact with the Action somehow.

If you have a list with few big units, then don't take the secondaries that require actions.

Don't all that are objective taking require it though, including the primaris?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash 788932 10821714 wrote:
It lasts for your turn and your opponent's turn:

... can start to perform this action at the end of your Movement phase.

The Action is completed at the end of your next Command phase ...

So you have to last through the opponent charging you and overwatch and melee must interact with the Action somehow.

I am assuming that the unit just has to stay in place and be alive, so you can't for example start syphonig, and then use gate in the psychic phase to do it in the safty of a bunker 40" way from any enemy units. If not then this helps armies with cheap chaff and cheap troops even more, then it did in 8th ed. And for elite armies it would require them to be both invunerable, don't care about their own offensive ability, but still be able to win and the opposing army being unable to engage stuff in melee, which IMO with charges coming out of reserves is not going to be possible .

What I can imagine is horde armies with interlocking circles of units protecting each other, from melee while units inside the circles channel and pray they are out of LoS or numerous enough to not get wiped out with shoting.

Aash wrote:
Slay the warlord could become
Character hunter (progressive) Each time you kill an enemy Character, score 3 VP. If the Character is the enemy warlord score an additional 3 VP. A maximum of 15 VP can be score with this objective.

Line Breaker could be:
Infiltration (progressive) score 3 VP for each of your units that is over half strength and wholly within the enemy deployment zone at the end of your turn. A maximum of 15 VP can be scored with this objective.

I like that interpretation. That would be an interesting way of doing that.

I'd expect an mirror objective for Line Breaker as well, 'Hold the Line' or something similar.

With board sizes being recommended at a smaller size than many folks currently play, army point values increasing, and missions becoming more in depth (for those who never played NOVA or ITC styled missions), this edition (to me) appears to become very different from 8th edition.

This mission remind me more of older NOVA missions than ITC designed. While I enjoyed both designs, it took me awhile to get used to them and army design and gameplay is different if someone is accustomed to playing GW published missions.

In addition, a unit spending an action to garner VP (siphoning power in this mission example) will likely add a whole new dimension to the game. I assume this means they can't shoot, use a psychic power, or charge; I don't think this has been released/explained by GW.

 Sarigar wrote:
I assume this means they can't shoot, use a psychic power, or charge; I don't think this has been released/explained by GW.

This is confirmed.

Aash wrote:
[

Slay the warlord could become
Character hunter (progressive) Each time you kill an enemy Character, score 3 VP. If the Character is the enemy warlord score an additional 3 VP. A maximum of 15 VP can be score with this objective.

Line Breaker could be:
Infiltration (progressive) score 3 VP for each of your units that is over half strength and wholly within the enemy deployment zone at the end of your turn. A maximum of 15 VP can be scored with this objective.

You don't need to keep adding the last line, the max 15 points is already baked into the rules for secondaries.

Also, they showed us the Kill Characters Secondary already.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I assume this means they can't shoot, use a psychic power, or charge; I don't think this has been released/explained by GW.

This is confirmed.

I re-reviewed the June 3rd GW article regarding this topic and it indicates no shooting/punching. There are hints at actions, but it did not address psychic powers. Is there another area where actions are explained in more detail?

Not much more details available. They did talk about them a bit on Warhammer 40,000 Daily, but I wouldn't use those for hard and fast rules. They are more for design insight and overview with the occasional info nugget tossed in.

I'm fairly intrigued by the change in missions. This has been probably the biggest change in 40K m missions since the transition from Rogue Trader to 2nd edition ( no real missions to the 6 cards to draw from for missions).

Very much looking forward to actually playing these.

 Stormonu wrote:
It'd be pretty damn funny if GW put in a rule that you can't have Imperial (marine) vs. Imperial (marine) army - someone had to play either traitors or xenos.

Wonder if it would make people demand chaos to be fixed so they could as least use their power army minis when they have to choose the "enemy" faction.

I would 100% agree to this