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.

GW wants as many people as possible playing on GW boards with GW terrain and GW models and using GW paints and tools. They will do what they can to promote this material through various means. From sponsoring school and hobby clubs with small packs which have official tools inside and encourage people to use them; to staff in their stores; to the rules system they release.

Of course they'll promote their own stuff, its what is making them money. Even back when they didn't make much terrain they still sold flock and other accessories and encouraged gamers to buy GW flock and the GW "how to make terrain book" and such.

The only difference now is that GW is making a lot of terrain so it makes sense that they want to promote game modes and ideas that will promote that terrain.



In the end though its the market that will decide if they take up GW's marketing options. Board size changes will only be taken up if major events want to and choose to do it.

 Albertorius wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Now i know it's all the fashion to dive deep into the conspiracy theories of GW wanting to control your thoughts, chemtrails causing cancer and 5G causes Covid, but lets try to be sensible. GW are trying to sell products that they think people want. It's that simple. Not every TO & store has boxes and boxes of terrain. This book provides options for people to use their terrain collections in a more structured way, and encourage sales of said terrain. That's it, not a great big conspiracy, just good old fashioned capitalism. Will it be popular? Not a clue TBH, it may bomb and never be seen again, but from a business perspective it's a low investment, low risk product so if it does sell badly, c'est la vie and it'll not be seen again.

And if it sells well, peeps obviously liked the idea and were willing to spend their pennies on it. Good for them.

Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum, I have missed you so.

Business wants to sell products is reducing the argument to the absurd? I don't think that means what you think it means.

Maybe look at the bolded part. If that's not enough I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, yes. The sarcastic opener in response to the hyperbole was clearly the substance of the argument.
How did I miss that.


@Overread- going to disagree with you there. It will only matter if local groups change board sizes.
What 'major events' do means spit to the majority of players. Admittedly, conveniently the same majority that don't bother with forums, Facebook, and whatever. But if the local game shop doesn't randomly throw out their old boards and pointlessly buy new mats, it isn't going to be relevant at all.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:

Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.

If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.

And truthfully, that's where Kill Team kinda falls apart for me. It's "squads" for all intents and purposes when people build their lists.

Yeah, yeah, yeah there's customizing and stuff but I rarely saw lists that weren't super-optimized stuff just being ported over from 40k proper. It might just have been my local community but that's not what I saw with WarCry. I saw people building to the warband they liked, not the squads they 'needed' for 40k.

I don't know how you solve that problem, because it will always be there as long as it's just 40k units ported over.

Yeah, I agree that was a major problem, particularly for a lot of the factions that didn't have a lot of options. I saw so many guard lists that had all their gunners with plasma, and a pair of scion gunners with plasma for "MAX PLASMA," and it didn't really feel like a special ops squad, but rather just a bunch of models picked out a collection for maximum efficiency. I haven't seen much of that in Warcry, people I have played with just seem to pick a faction they like and use the models they like for the most part, and while their are a few exceptions, most of the models are relatively useful in one way or another.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:


Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.

If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.

Oh, I see what you mean.

Personally I just think GW is overplaying the "Combat patrol" card too much of late, to the point where they might as well be suggesting a new spin-off game called Warhammer 40K: Combat Patrol, when its really just a fancy name for "500 points" with more restrictions than benefits.

There is definitely something lacking for quite a few KT factions. Some factions seem to have healthy model and wargear options while others are woefully limited. Marines are a good example of having a decent selection( nothing wrong with that, of course ), but Necrons lack wargear and Harlequins have but one model to choose from(not counting Commanders nor elites). Its like there was no effort applied in designing the teams save for slapping in material directly from 40K. Having some background setting would be nice but would rather not with Warcry's theme of Chaos focused warbands and every other faction an after thought. I didn't invest in the game but it really looked like the AOS version of Necromunda with Kill Team bolted on. That said, Warcry seems to be doing something right, so maybe that is the way to go.

I agree. While I think Combat Patrol is a neat idea, and it's cool it has different objective rules I really think it needed more unique missions and restrictions because I don't think the game's natural balancing factors come into play very well at 500 points. Some armies will have no answers for a unit in another army, etc. I think if they made CP a bit more like the older versions which limited vehicles and certain units selections, and had all unique missions and what not it would be a bit more fun. But it's not really a replacement for KT, and I feel like they are pushing it as such. One is an individual model game vs a squad based game - that right there is a huge difference.

I agree on KT - it seemed a very minimum effort game for the most part and that left a lot of factions in the lurch. I think if GW did a 40k version of Warcry they would include a lot more than Chaos than the primary focus (while I like Kan's EoT idea personally, there are a lot of other great things they could do). Warcry gameplay wise is totally fresh compared to the other GW games - I feel it's really fun personally. Short game times and the mission generators really make you play to the objectives rather than just focus on shooting your opponent into oblivion. It definitely doesn't offer as much customization as KT (and nowhere near as much as Necromunda) in that a model has a card with it's stats and that's what it is (with some of the campaign rules they can get minor upgrades and with the expansion books injuries) - so an Iron Legionnairy with different equipment load-out has a different stat card and associated point cost. Still I think most factions have a good variety of units to take and it makes building an army a breeze for a pick up game.

In the end I just want GW to make a 40k skirmish game that plays fluidly and has effort put into it as opposed to "we just ported over 40k rules with some slight modifications." Even if they just updated the Kill Team rules to be less cumbersome and stopped just porting over data slates verbatim and put a bit of thought into the translation of them into the smaller game, I think it would help immensely.

I wouldn't even be that miffed if they sold any Xenos terrain worth mentioning.

Hey, don't you go insulting the Tidewall stuff, Webway Gates, Mekboy Shop, or the weird Xeno Jungle Terrain!

The last set is what I've been using for my Idoneth. It's aces!

Actually, the argument that combat patrol needs better missions and such has a point. GW is putting out a new book for crusade and matched play. They could easily put out a book specifically for combat patrol. And it would be something easy to tie in to a model release of say low level hq options, like an ork big boss, admech tribune, and sisters palatine, lower level hqs better suited for smaller games?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Actually, the argument that combat patrol needs better missions and such has a point. GW is putting out a new book for crusade and matched play. They could easily put out a book specifically for combat patrol. And it would be something easy to tie in to a model release of say low level hq options, like an ork big boss, admech tribune, and sisters palatine, lower level hqs better suited for smaller games?

Honestly, I've been wondering if that's what the Crusade book will drop alongside of.

Because Crusade getting Combat Patrol level stuff within it is also not wildly out of reach for an idea.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
TO issues some simple instructions for DIY terrain. This gives uniform dimensions...

And then every table looks the same... and who wants to live in that world other than hardcore ITC players?

Maybe it is my misunderstanding but I was under the impression that GW had in mind tournament entrants bringing GW terrain rather than another company’s products or DIY terrain.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The next generation of players won't even know that there are worlds other than ruined imperial cities in the galaxy

Part of my hope, and I think it is rationally based on what GW has already been doing, is that GW will produce not only more but also more varied terrain sets and this new regime with incentivize that.

 Sabotage! wrote:


I agree. While I think Combat Patrol is a neat idea, and it's cool it has different objective rules I really think it needed more unique missions and restrictions because I don't think the game's natural balancing factors come into play very well at 500 points. Some armies will have no answers for a unit in another army, etc. I think if they made CP a bit more like the older versions which limited vehicles and certain units selections, and had all unique missions and what not it would be a bit more fun. But it's not really a replacement for KT, and I feel like they are pushing it as such. One is an individual model game vs a squad based game - that right there is a huge difference.

I agree on KT - it seemed a very minimum effort game for the most part and that left a lot of factions in the lurch. I think if GW did a 40k version of Warcry they would include a lot more than Chaos than the primary focus (while I like Kan's EoT idea personally, there are a lot of other great things they could do). Warcry gameplay wise is totally fresh compared to the other GW games - I feel it's really fun personally. Short game times and the mission generators really make you play to the objectives rather than just focus on shooting your opponent into oblivion. It definitely doesn't offer as much customization as KT (and nowhere near as much as Necromunda) in that a model has a card with it's stats and that's what it is (with some of the campaign rules they can get minor upgrades and with the expansion books injuries) - so an Iron Legionnairy with different equipment load-out has a different stat card and associated point cost. Still I think most factions have a good variety of units to take and it makes building an army a breeze for a pick up game.

In the end I just want GW to make a 40k skirmish game that plays fluidly and has effort put into it as opposed to "we just ported over 40k rules with some slight modifications." Even if they just updated the Kill Team rules to be less cumbersome and stopped just porting over data slates verbatim and put a bit of thought into the translation of them into the smaller game, I think it would help immensely.

You certainly aren't alone in the opinion of Warcry being good fun and thats gotta count for something. I've got an alarmingly large amount of AoS models building up( thanks to Mortal Realms ), which could be put to better use...and I suppose the Pink Horrors kill team would appreciate a change of scenery...

Has Warcry suffered much FAQ and Errata shenanigans?

SamusDrake wrote:
Has Warcry suffered much FAQ and Errata shenanigans?

Nope not at all. It's pretty tight. Faction balance leaves a lot to be desired tho.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Has Warcry suffered much FAQ and Errata shenanigans?

Nope not at all. It's pretty tight. Faction balance leaves a lot to be desired tho.

In that case I'll give it a try. Cheers.

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
TO issues some simple instructions for DIY terrain. This gives uniform dimensions...

And then every table looks the same... and who wants to live in that world other than hardcore ITC players?

Maybe it is my misunderstanding but I was under the impression that GW had in mind tournament entrants bringing GW terrain rather than another company’s products or DIY terrain.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The next generation of players won't even know that there are worlds other than ruined imperial cities in the galaxy

Part of my hope, and I think it is rationally based on what GW has already been doing, is that GW will produce not only more but also more varied terrain sets and this new regime with incentivize that.

Whilst they’ll definitely be pimping their own wares, I think it’s more an effort to drive home the importance of terrain to the game mechanics. Too little, and assault armies have nowhere to hide, or cover their advance. Too much, and lines of fire can be so restricted the game becomes frustrating.

I think that's a little simplistic way of thinking terrain and sounds very "matched pickup game" to me. I think there should be room for all sorts of terrain setups and not just some "goldilocks" (not too much, not too little, just right) ideal that is to be adhered to at all costs. IMO its totally OK for some missions be so full of terrain as to be claustrophobic, or some other missions so bare of terrain as to almost pass as Planet Bowling Baal. But perhaps this requires some sort of longer campaing arc in order to feel satisfying..

All I'm saying, if the amount and type of terrain become a static constant parameter, games will feel more samey. Ideally there should be some variety.

There should certainly be a lot of variety in the overall context of gaming but this requirement is only relevant to a subset of gaming, tournament play.

 tauist wrote:
I think that's a little simplistic way of thinking terrain and sounds very "matched pickup game" to me. I think there should be room for all sorts of terrain setups and not just some "goldilocks" (not too much, not too little, just right) ideal that is to be adhered to at all costs. IMO its totally OK for some missions be so full of terrain as to be claustrophobic, or some other missions so bare of terrain as to almost pass as Planet Bowling Baal. But perhaps this requires some sort of longer campaing arc in order to feel satisfying..

All I'm saying, if the amount and type of terrain become a static constant parameter, games will feel more samey. Ideally there should be some variety.

I don’t disagree, as terrain can be used to better balance things, and really force the players to get cunning.

But the subject here is tournament gaming specifically. With it being tied to set terrain and that, there are fewer nasty surprises such as Planet Bowling Ball, which really only suits Shooty Armies, and heavily impacted close combat forces.

 Sabotage! wrote:

Spoiler:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:

[spoiler][spoiler]Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.

If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.

And truthfully, that's where Kill Team kinda falls apart for me. It's "squads" for all intents and purposes when people build their lists.

Yeah, yeah, yeah there's customizing and stuff but I rarely saw lists that weren't super-optimized stuff just being ported over from 40k proper. It might just have been my local community but that's not what I saw with WarCry. I saw people building to the warband they liked, not the squads they 'needed' for 40k.

I don't know how you solve that problem, because it will always be there as long as it's just 40k units ported over.

Yeah, I agree that was a major problem, particularly for a lot of the factions that didn't have a lot of options. I saw so many guard lists that had all their gunners with plasma, and a pair of scion gunners with plasma for "MAX PLASMA," and it didn't really feel like a special ops squad, but rather just a bunch of models picked out a collection for maximum efficiency. I haven't seen much of that in Warcry, people I have played with just seem to pick a faction they like and use the models they like for the most part, and while their are a few exceptions, most of the models are relatively useful in one way or another.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:


Oh I agree wholeheartedly that Kill Team has an easier entry barrier and that is a good thing for getting people into the game. I also agree that GW would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it die (as opposed to updating it to a cleaner rule set). It’s just my speculation on the manner of what I think will happen, rather than what I want to happen.

If what Kan was speculating about, a Warcry like 40k game set in the EoT was to take place I would be all over that. I love the idea of KT, but often find the squads kind of uninspiring and don’t think the rules are particularly good in that they are overly cumbersome in a lot of places and result in a small footprint skirmish game that often takes way too long to play.

Oh, I see what you mean.

Personally I just think GW is overplaying the "Combat patrol" card too much of late, to the point where they might as well be suggesting a new spin-off game called Warhammer 40K: Combat Patrol, when its really just a fancy name for "500 points" with more restrictions than benefits.

There is definitely something lacking for quite a few KT factions. Some factions seem to have healthy model and wargear options while others are woefully limited. Marines are a good example of having a decent selection( nothing wrong with that, of course ), but Necrons lack wargear and Harlequins have but one model to choose from(not counting Commanders nor elites). Its like there was no effort applied in designing the teams save for slapping in material directly from 40K. Having some background setting would be nice but would rather not with Warcry's theme of Chaos focused warbands and every other faction an after thought. I didn't invest in the game but it really looked like the AOS version of Necromunda with Kill Team bolted on. That said, Warcry seems to be doing something right, so maybe that is the way to go.

I agree. While I think Combat Patrol is a neat idea, and it's cool it has different objective rules I really think it needed more unique missions and restrictions because I don't think the game's natural balancing factors come into play very well at 500 points. Some armies will have no answers for a unit in another army, etc. I think if they made CP a bit more like the older versions which limited vehicles and certain units selections, and had all unique missions and what not it would be a bit more fun. But it's not really a replacement for KT, and I feel like they are pushing it as such. One is an individual model game vs a squad based game - that right there is a huge difference.


I agree on KT - it seemed a very minimum effort game for the most part and that left a lot of factions in the lurch. I think if GW did a 40k version of Warcry they would include a lot more than Chaos than the primary focus (while I like Kan's EoT idea personally, there are a lot of other great things they could do). Warcry gameplay wise is totally fresh compared to the other GW games - I feel it's really fun personally. Short game times and the mission generators really make you play to the objectives rather than just focus on shooting your opponent into oblivion. It definitely doesn't offer as much customization as KT (and nowhere near as much as Necromunda) in that a model has a card with it's stats and that's what it is (with some of the campaign rules they can get minor upgrades and with the expansion books injuries) - so an Iron Legionnairy with different equipment load-out has a different stat card and associated point cost. Still I think most factions have a good variety of units to take and it makes building an army a breeze for a pick up game.

In the end I just want GW to make a 40k skirmish game that plays fluidly and has effort put into it as opposed to "we just ported over 40k rules with some slight modifications." Even if they just updated the Kill Team rules to be less cumbersome and stopped just porting over data slates verbatim and put a bit of thought into the translation of them into the smaller game, I think it would help immensely.

I agree with all this- I think the problem id 40k is so big now its lost its granularity. Having a version scaled around Warcry levels, with the setting around Rogue Trader era would be great where the occasional big monster/dread would be a big deal, but not OP. Thinking about the cool models that came out for Blackstone- the Zoat, Ambull, the Spindle Drones- these need a place beyond that game and 40k proper isn't it. I don't think everything should necessarily be for 40k, useable within it as a proxy/conversion or simply having rules but I think its too restricting to force everything to fit into that level of the game. A smaller system below it would allow a lot more exploration of the wider universe, accessible to those with little funds or time- elements which could be built on to create a larger force maybe to combat patrol level. It means that GWisn't then compelled to make Codex Zoats with a full range but could do a single box or series of single sculpts. Maybe useable in 40k but not dedicated for it. It means we could have team sets of eldar corsairs, chaos cultists, ork commandos, inquisitor henchmen etc.. with the odd monster through in too. Things which exist in the 40k universe but perhaps don't suit/aren't seen on the battlefield.

 Manchu wrote:
There should certainly be a lot of variety in the overall context of gaming but this requirement is only relevant to a subset of gaming, tournament play.

Seeing the book won't be using gt20 pack(aka tournament　pack) not that relevant to tournament　play.

The “book” in question is a matched play mission pack. From the sale pitch:

It also makes it much easier for event organisers and clubs to run tournaments

GT20 does good job at it already so hardly need to replace it already. Wouldn't say it becomes easier for organizers to have tables with desert and winter terrain mixed up randomly. And players without terrain. And players not coming because attending requires hundreds of euro's worth of terrain.

Again, with no further details, we can’t say what the impact might be.

If we look at GW’s site, and the available 40k terrain, there’s a reasonable variety of types and price points, starting at £25 for the smaller, scatter ruins. The prices do seem inconsistent (I’d plump for the administratum building over Manufactorum, for instance. £5 cheaper, and a more flexible kit).

The missing info is what the missions actually require.

Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.

Aye and if GW can help people organise more tournaments it means more events going on even at the local level. Local clubs often have issues with advertising and recruitment of new gamers. Encouraging more events to take place gives them more reason to advertise and more focus to their advertising that might well help draw in more gamers. It might also help firm up local communication and gaming, getting some of those "garage/home" only gamers into more social groups.

Big events that have storage and ample terrain likely won't need to adopt a "bring your own" because they'll have the terrain to hand and its easier for them to use their own in pre-setup tables to speed things along. If you've hundreds of gamers you don't want every game to add a block of time to setting up the terrain. You want it setup and ready to go from the start.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Actually, the argument that combat patrol needs better missions and such has a point. GW is putting out a new book for crusade and matched play. They could easily put out a book specifically for combat patrol. And it would be something easy to tie in to a model release of say low level hq options, like an ork big boss, admech tribune, and sisters palatine, lower level hqs better suited for smaller games?

Hasn't Infinity: Code One been pretty successful? And that's just a rather stripped down, fewer model version of... well, Infinity. I definitely think at this point, a Combat Patrol softback with the basic 40k rules and a 'core army list' for the factions included within and then put out as a replacement for Kill-Team isn't a stretch.

Code One:Kaldstrom, as a game, has seemingly not been successful.
Code One: Kaldstrom, as a product that launched a brand new pair of Sectorials, has been successful.

You can't separate the two unfortunately, but the gameplay has been panned anywhere I've looked.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Code One:Kaldstrom, as a game, has seemingly not been successful.
Code One: Kaldstrom, as a product that launched a brand new pair of Sectorials, has been successful.

You can't separate the two unfortunately, but the gameplay has been panned anywhere I've looked.

Has it been panned by the usual Infinity crowd, though, or new players using it as their first Infinity experience?

 Dysartes wrote:

Has it been panned by the usual Infinity crowd, though, or new players using it as their first Infinity experience?

That's a tough one to answer, because there's also another crowd in there that think any kind of simplification is Bad.

By and large, the complaints seem to be centered around the fact that what is supposed to be 'a simplified version of Infinity' isn't. It's Infinity with chunks of the game cut out.
There's no Link Teams, no plans to introduce Sectorial play into Code One, and a limited roster of units.

Separating the crowd that thinks simplification is Bad, there's still a lot of negativity surrounding the fact that it doesn't feel like an attempt was actually made to get the game to be more open and inviting.

So now we have the official permission to share terrain on tournaments

Great, after 20 years of people helping each other to fill tables it is finally "legal"
they are kind of late for the party

PS: this thing only works if those people coming with terrain arrive a day earlier to set up the tables
otherwise it is no help

PPS: and not enough terrain was never a problem with small events but the larger ones

Tygre wrote:
Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.

So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.

tneva82 wrote:

Tygre wrote:
Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.

So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.

I could recoup hundreds in a few days : )

tneva82 wrote:

Tygre wrote:
Maybe its aimed at smaller tournaments, like those at a store or a hall hired by some friends. A tournament with no entry fee and maybe only a dozen or two participants. It would make sense for everyone to contribute terrain, instead of the organiser (perhaps a single person) from needing gak-loads. Not every tournament is ITC or a GT.

So rather than tiny fee(which would also mean btw no prizes)you need to pay hundreds for terrain. I would need years to recoup cost of that.

If only there were bundles sold by GW that gave decent amounts of scenery for discounts!

ARGH!