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.

So obviously AA is a hotbutton for people that don't like cool games. However, there might still be ideas from other games that you think should have been implemented.

One example of something I think needs to become standardized is showing what an example of Line of Sight might be for standard models, and what counts as something you can shoot for damage. This came to me from an old Hasbro game called Heroscape, where each unit or hero had their own "cards" that would show these exact things. An example to be shown:

So as standard, even if you wanted to make a model with all the bitz and flags in the world, the standard is you cannot shoot at the gun and kill them. As well, you can make your Marine with a ten foot neck, but standard says that, to the regular model, no you cannot declare to shoot a target hiding behind a building. The fact that GW hasn't even come up with such a basic visual guide is quite baffling.

What other standards do you think should be imposed based on what other games have brought to the table, old or new?

Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restriction on moving and firing freely, some kind of penalty for Deep Striking, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of older Warhammer, certainly.

Abstract line of sight is a big one for me. Something simple like a 'height' stat; models of the same height confer cover, smaller models do not, and bigger models block sight entirely.
Infantry are Height 1, Vehicles are Height 2-3, Beasts are Height 0, etc. No need to bend down and draw sight, or worry if your HQ pose is too dynamic.

I'm also a big fan of limiting what units can do in any one turn. This is a big change, but the need to make actual decisions on what your unit does is important IMO.
For example, you can make a Move action and a Fight action per turn. That Move action might be a normal move, an Advance, or a Charge. That Fight action might be shooting, combat or overwatch.
But you are not Advancing, Shooting and Charging all in the same turn.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restriction on moving and firing freely, some kind of penalty for Deep Striking, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of older Warhammer, certainly.

I really wasn't hoping to rehash past editions of 40k for this thread...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mozzamanx wrote:
Abstract line of sight is a big one for me. Something simple like a 'height' stat; models of the same height confer cover, smaller models do not, and bigger models block sight entirely.
Infantry are Height 1, Vehicles are Height 2-3, Beasts are Height 0, etc. No need to bend down and draw sight, or worry if your HQ pose is too dynamic.

I'm also a big fan of limiting what units can do in any one turn. This is a big change, but the need to make actual decisions on what your unit does is important IMO.
For example, you can make a Move action and a Fight action per turn. That Move action might be a normal move, an Advance, or a Charge. That Fight action might be shooting, combat or overwatch.
But you are not Advancing, Shooting and Charging all in the same turn.

Mind trying to explain which games had this and how it impacted your gameplay?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restriction on moving and firing freely, some kind of penalty for Deep Striking, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of older Warhammer, certainly.

I really wasn't hoping to rehash past editions of 40k for this thread...

Fine. Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restrictions on moving and firing freely, no Deep Striking, restricted Reserves, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of Bolt Action/K47. Better?

(Also suppression/relevant morale out of Bolt Action/K47.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restriction on moving and firing freely, some kind of penalty for Deep Striking, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of older Warhammer, certainly.

I really wasn't hoping to rehash past editions of 40k for this thread...

Fine. Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restrictions on moving and firing freely, no Deep Striking, restricted Reserves, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of Bolt Action/K47. Better?

(Also suppression/relevant morale out of Bolt Action/K47.)

Hahahaha okay you win this round.
Mind explaining what about morale and suppression in Bolt Action works for you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restriction on moving and firing freely, some kind of penalty for Deep Striking, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of older Warhammer, certainly.

I really wasn't hoping to rehash past editions of 40k for this thread...

Fine. Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restrictions on moving and firing freely, no Deep Striking, restricted Reserves, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of Bolt Action/K47. Better?

(Also suppression/relevant morale out of Bolt Action/K47.)

Hahahaha okay you win this round.
Mind explaining what about morale and suppression in Bolt Action works for you?

You can interact with units in Bolt Action by killing them, but you can also interact with them by locking them down and making it harder for them to do anything. In Warhammer all too often the only way to interact with the game is to kill things and the only lever GW can pull is to make units better or worse at killing things so the game turns into a one-dimensional race to tabling your opponent; Bolt Action lets you stall having to deal with a unit by committing less firepower to it, so there are more interesting decisions to make during gameplay.

Lifting it wholesale really wouldn't work without an AA system, though.

Epic Armageddon would offer a bunch of good tools.

- Antipersonnel / antitank distinction for weapons.
- Crossfire bonuses for proper maneuvering.
- Blast markers that suppress units more and more as they take casualties or are simply fired upon. Also dictate when units break, but can be marshalled away by sacrificing other actions.
- Proper choice of actions: shoot better but don't move, move and shoot, move more but shoot with penalties, move a lot more but don't shoot, charge into decisive combat, overwatch where you stand, rally to remove blasts...
- Introduce operational friction to make armies distinct. Marines act quickly and more reliably than rigid Guard detachments, for example.
- Require multiple paths to victory in mission design.

1. Alternating activations is the big one for me.

2. Suppression/disruption/pinning. A lot of people didn't like 40K's old morale system, but it was very all-or-nothing- I'd like to see a 'softer' system where instead of units outright fleeing off the board, they lose capability, and so you are encouraged rather than required to pull them out of the fighting to rally. This also allows for fire to be less lethal while still accomplishing meaningful results.

3. Consolidation of rolling. One of the more interesting elements of Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system is how it models fire as an opposed roll, with the degree of success multiplied by a weapon's damage value to determine the overall effect. I don't think this would work well for 40K with how many shots are in use, but the idea of having how well you hit the target influence damage allows for some interesting design options.

Another good example is Starship Troopers, written by Andy Chambers. Most weapons are expressed as a number of dice plus modifiers- so maybe an assault rifle is D6, but an anti-tank missile launcher is D10+3. You roll, you compare the result to your target's Hit and Kill stats. If you meet the Hit stat, they get a save. If you meet the Kill stat, they're just dead. Again, in addition to speeding up the game this opens up some interesting design space- a unit with good Hit and Save but low Kill can soak up rifle fire all day but dies easily to heavy weapons, while a unit with poor Hit and Save but a relatively high Kill is best tackled with high-volume weapons.

Dust has a very simple system: Each unit has a 'Target' type. Each weapon has a different number of dice against different target types. Combat is just throw a number of dice equal to your sum firepower against that target type, count the number of hits (5+), then the target gets to roll saves. It's not as granular as 40K's separation of BS and S, but it plays very quickly, and totally avoids the problem of weapons being too good against unintended targets.

Just, like, iterate on the 90s convention of roll to hit and roll to wound and roll to penetrate armor and roll for damage with all of these rolls being totally independent from one another.

4. Friction, C&C. Old 40K had target priority tests; they were clunky but sort of got at this idea. Epic had an activation roll, but that's maybe a bit fiddly for 40K. The point being, if a horde of unruly Orks and a tactical force of Space Marines are both equally easy to command, equally quick to react to the enemy, and equally coordinated, then you're never gonna make Marines feel like badass special forces.

5. Battlefield-dependent mechanics. Crossfire and flanking are two big ones. Maneuver should matter for more than just controlling range and getting on objectives.

6. Please. For the love of god. Codify line of sight in the rules, dump TLOS, and bury mOdElLiNg FoR aDvAnTaGe in the kind of shallow grave that coyotes get into.

I'll second the abstract line of sight suggestion. That way people will be able to model however they want without worrying about getting disadvantaged on the tabletop.

And if AA is theoretically off the table for one reason or another, maybe bring in something like the ARO's from Infinity. Of course, it would need much adjusting, but being able to react to your opponent by performing a limited action should alleviate some of the first turn advantage. Having it be possible for every unit seems like a bit much though. Maybe limit it to certain units/wargear? Giving the ability to the various immobile turrets/fortifications might make them a bit more useful.

Abstract LoS, TLOS is just so outdated now, they moved toward it slightly with the blocking ruins so there's some indication at least.

More interesting objectives. They've been getting better and better at it with the Action style objectives but I still would see more variety, so many are just Kill Thing and Stand on Point/in corner/in deployment/etc.

Actually make rules function for quick rolling, no one is going to individually roll every single shot, just do away with rules that depend on you doing that.

Those would be the big ones for me.

End of round save from Armageddon.

Adds really a lot to gameplay.

Port over the rules from ‘Epic Space Marine’ wholesale.

Crossfire seems so much more important than flanking. First because it doesn’t require facings for models. Second, compared to WHFB rank and flank it seems like units are skirmishes and always facing whatever direction they need to be, except vehicles obviously.

The one from Epic that I haven’t seen in the thread is firefight values. When you shoot at a unit it has small arms that shoot right back at you at the same time. I’d like to win or lose firefights like you used to win close combats.

The thing I’m not hot on is tokens for suppression from Epic or the Fantasy Flight Star Wars skirmish game. I don’t like tokens that move around with the models or need to be counted. I’d rather have that winning/losing combat resolution from WHFB, and if a unit wins they can have movement or stratagem style bonuses but if they lose then they can’t. This way there’s no need for tokens

Mainly just do Epic with 28mm models. Sorry to seem boring but it’s a good game.

I love LOTR's alternating phases system and its Priority mechanic and I'd love to see something similar in 40k.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armour facings, weapon fire arcs, some kind of restriction on moving and firing freely, some kind of penalty for Deep Striking, weapons that can't damage all targets, melee anti-tank grenades, better-controlled gun stats/size creep, and detachment restrictions out of older Warhammer, certainly.

I really wasn't hoping to rehash past editions of 40k for this thread...

Well it's not like any of these are exclusive to Warhammer editions or even other GW games....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So obviously AA is a hotbutton for people that don't like cool games. However, there might still be ideas from other games that you think should have been implemented.

Not cool bruh. Leave the soapboxing at the door please'. Aa isn't a panacea, not liking aa doesnt mean you don't like 'cool games', and while 40ks igoyougo is dated and rather limited, plenty other igoyougo games bring game to the table and have pretty damn good mechanics to learn from- infinity, lotr etc

On the topic of the conversation. Ideas from other games.

More integrated turns, like lotr. Rather than I go/move shoot assault, you go/move shoot assault, integrated turns like lotr's move/move/shoot/shoot/assault were better in my eyes.

'dynamic defense'. Last time I played wmh I felt really disconnected in my turn. My defense was a passive number and there was nothing to do but watch my army get munched.conpared to lotr or infinity where every fight is a dynamic roll off, or Bushido where I split my dice between attack and defense. I want to be involved in my games, not be a bystander.

From wmh- defined 'volune' of models based on base size. Used for Los.

From most other games - a two roll.system. rather than our three to eight rolls... Roll to hit (with or without modifiers) roll to damage/kill/save.

The core infinity system, scaled up would be intetesting. Igoyougo but it's always your go. You generate a pool of orders and spend them on your dudes doing actions. Opposing army gets reactions to your actions (but less dice, basically). I've often tinkered with the idea of a platoon based version of this - the orders and reactions would need to be more abstracted and limited (seriously, infinity has A LOT of moving parts) but I think this could be a very interesting game.

Pps new warcaster game has some very interesting ideas. a mechanic that generates extra damage based on how 'accurate' you were - the more your shoot roll beats their defense roll translates into that number of extra dice for damage, I think.
It also has 'no army lists'. Your list is basically 'your collection'. Game sizes are a thing, and you can have only do many units on the board. However you can summon in fresh reinforcements through 'gates'. I genuinely want to see how this works out.

Look at leadership as a resource to be spent rather than all or nothing checks. Any tinkering I do is less multiple actions per units, and more 'order based'. Regular squad on their own initiative wouldn't do much, maybe 'move', 'shoot', or 'hunker down'. Have an officer nearby and he can press them to do more/better/more efficient orders like 'press forward (move and shoot).

I've always wondered if shooting was handled wrong. Rather than micromanaging each shot and ascribing an arbitrary 'strength' to it and resolving each shot as a direct attack specifically to wound, I would love to tinker with a shooting system whereby shooting, rather than targeting 'toughness', targeted 'morale' instead.

Mozzamanx wrote:
Abstract line of sight is a big one for me. Something simple like a 'height' stat; models of the same height confer cover, smaller models do not, and bigger models block sight entirely.
Infantry are Height 1, Vehicles are Height 2-3, Beasts are Height 0, etc. No need to bend down and draw sight, or worry if your HQ pose is too dynamic.

.

this. And a ton of problem we had in 8th, and a lot of specific problems knights have in 9th, come from the fact that for some reason GW is hell bound on the idea of true LoS, even if it doesn't work for a game with the rule set or even pure mechanicaly for a game with so many models. True LoS is good for skirmish games of 10-20 models, not for games with 150-200+ models.

I don't necessarily want to simply copy some other game's mechanics (though if that's easy and simple, the designers can do that). What I want is for the designers to take a step back and actually consider their design philosophy.

1) Verisimilitude: 40k is a setting. That setting has rules. They may not be the rules of OUR reality, but they're rules nonetheless. Make sure those are reflected on the tabletop. If tracked vehicles can hover sideways in your world, fine. But make sure that it's actually included in the lore, and not an artefact of your game design. A lack of verisimilitude is undesirable in a game almost entirely driven by the background material.

2) Action economy. Sort your gak out, GW. Moving to Alternating Activations is a silly idea if some units can still go 74" in a single activation (theoretical maximum for one of my models in my crusade army) between moving, advancing, charging, and fighting, and still shoot and murderize people along the way. Apocalypse did this well, I know you can.

3) Turn structure. IGOUGO is good for certain reasons and bad for other reasons. At the tactical scale, it's generally bad unless "reactions" are permitted in the game (at which point you're straining the definition of IGOUGO). To some extent, stratagems are reactions, but alternating phases, alternating activations, or even impulse mechanisms would be better. At least entertain the possibility. The alternating activations but with detachments rule works well for apoc, while the alternating phases rule works well in LOTR. I know GW can do this too.

4) Balance. I put this low on the list, but this isn't a prioritized list and furthermore, verisimilitude is number 1 and that includes some degree of balance. To go into detail, basically it is my opinion that the 40k universe should be inherently "balanced" in the background. The Imperium should be on the knife edge of collapse with threats closing in all around, and each battle is basically a coinflip if it is victorious or not. To translate this into verisimilitude, then, the battles should still be roughly a coinflip, with the most significant determining factor being player skill. I would define balance as "player skill at the table is the most important factor to victory." This means reducing the factors of "codex power", "list contents", "terrain", and "mission". I think 9th has an okay wrangle on the last two with lots of levers to pull, the jury is still out on the first, but the second has always been a bugbear to 40k no matter what edition.

The missions in 9th don't seem to be much better then they were in 8th. There are armies where it is practicaly impossible to not give up max secondaries, maybe if the opponent plays very bad or has a very bad build list. And missions that were suppose to help specific armies don't work at all, while their counters in the secondary slot work automaticly, the opponents don't have to do anything extra to fullfill them.

To go with AA, the order system from 2nd Edition Epic (1st may have shared it, but I’ve never played that).

All the joy of AA, whilst strictly limiting the extent to which one can react. Yes it involves tokens, and I know that’ll put some off. And fair enough.

But for me, it adds a serious level of strategy, as once that order token is placed, you’re committed to specific possible actions. And you’re having to consider what nearby enemy units might be lining up. And I do so hate AA when my opponent can recover from a goof before I can take advantage. Which is why (although I’m bloody awful at it) I appreciate X-Wing’s game design. Once you’re (literally) dialled in on your disco biscuit, that’s that. If you’ve screwed up, you’ve screwed up.

Heck, I’d even advocate target declaration for your force before resolving any attacks. But that’s just me being me. I like that level of strategic commitment.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To go with AA, the order system from 2nd Edition Epic (1st may have shared it, but I’ve never played that).

All the joy of AA, whilst strictly limiting the extent to which one can react. Yes it involves tokens, and I know that’ll put some off. And fair enough.

But for me, it adds a serious level of strategy, as once that order token is placed, you’re committed to specific possible actions. And you’re having to consider what nearby enemy units might be lining up.

Heck, I’d even advocate target declaration for your force before resolving any attacks. But that’s just me being me. I like that level of strategic commitment.

Have you played the new Apocalypse? It's almost exactly like that. You give orders to Detachments (though Out of Command units don't get any orders at all) as upside-down tokens during a phase for both players. Once both players have their orders down, they activate their detachments in an order of their choosing - but when you activate a detachment, you have to carry out the order it's been given during the earlier step. Orders come with specific, possible actions (e.g. the Assault order is "move, move, fight". The Advance order is "move, fight or shoot". The Aimed Fire order is "shoot only, but with +1" etc.).

I’ve got the rules, but haven’t played it. Or indeed, anything, for yonks!

I'll admit that when I first saw the Apocalypse rules, I thought that resolving damage after everything had fought would nullify the value of its activation system. Boy, was I wrong- having to weigh activating a melee detachment first to get it into combat before the enemy can shoot versus activating another detachment to get it onto the objective first is a tough decision. Basically the AA system there impacts maneuver, rather than enabling alpha strike shooting.

Regarding other alternatives to AA, I think the reaction systems in two games I mentioned before, Starship Troopers and Dust, both work well.

In SST, when an enemy performs an offensive action 12", you can perform a reaction on one of your units- move closer, attack in melee, fall back, return fire, etc. There are some limitations so you can't have a unit react its way clear across the board or shoot twenty times in one turn, but it means short-ranged combat is brutal and largely simultaneous.

In Dust, when an enemy performs an offensive action (no range limit), you can choose to react. This allows you to perform an action simultaneously, but counts against your normal limit of 2 actions per unit per turn.

However, due to the game's army-wide initiative system, if you have the initiative you can perform full activations and then still be able to react to the enemy (effectively getting a free 3rd activation), while your opponent can only react at the cost of their activations later.

Coupled with a command system that lets you perform bonus free activations at the start of the turn on selected units, this simple command/initiative/reaction system allows elite armies to run circles around undisciplined hordes without having significantly better stats. You can use command movement to position for a shot, win initiative and perform sustained fire (costs both actions, re-roll all misses) while the enemy only performs normal fire as a reaction, then when the enemy counter-attacks (with only one action left) you can react to break LOS.

That's the kind of stuff that I think 40K is missing. AA is just one way to address simultaneity and provide mechanics to model some armies having better C&C than others, but it's not the only way.

 catbarf wrote:
I'll admit that when I first saw the Apocalypse rules, I thought that resolving damage after everything had fought would nullify the value of its activation system. Boy, was I wrong- having to weigh activating a melee detachment first to get it into combat before the enemy can shoot versus activating another detachment to get it onto the objective first is a tough decision. Basically the AA system there impacts maneuver, rather than enabling alpha strike shooting.

Regarding other alternatives to AA, I think the reaction systems in two games I mentioned before, Starship Troopers and Dust, both work well.

In SST, when an enemy performs an offensive action 12", you can perform a reaction on one of your units- move closer, attack in melee, fall back, return fire, etc. There are some limitations so you can't have a unit react its way clear across the board or shoot twenty times in one turn, but it means short-ranged combat is brutal and largely simultaneous.

In Dust, when an enemy performs an offensive action (no range limit), you can choose to react. This allows you to perform an action simultaneously, but counts against your normal limit of 2 actions per unit per turn.

However, due to the game's army-wide initiative system, if you have the initiative you can perform full activations and then still be able to react to the enemy (effectively getting a free 3rd activation), while your opponent can only react at the cost of their activations later.

Coupled with a command system that lets you perform bonus free activations at the start of the turn on selected units, this simple command/initiative/reaction system allows elite armies to run circles around undisciplined hordes without having significantly better stats. You can use command movement to position for a shot, win initiative and perform sustained fire (costs both actions, re-roll all misses) while the enemy only performs normal fire as a reaction, then when the enemy counter-attacks (with only one action left) you can react to break LOS.

That's the kind of stuff that I think 40K is missing. AA is just one way to address simultaneity and provide mechanics to model some armies having better C&C than others, but it's not the only way.

I was really hoping that, much like AoS being a testing bed of rules for 40k that Apoc rules would have some transference to 40k. End of turn saves would be very neat as well as the dual profiles for infantry and tanks and alternating activation. You would just scale the game up so you have individual shots per model instead of per unit so it would feel more epic......although playing a game of Apoc at the "2000" point standard equivalent for 40k is actually a lot of fun. Its a bit of a shame that Apoc has been abandoned.

GW seems to have an...I'll call it "interesting" habit of purposefully setting up particular projects seemingly just...to fail, extremely predictably.

Apoc being sold in a ONE HUNDRED FREAKING DOLLAR box set of, essentially, a thin softback rulebook, a deck of cards, and a few sheets of cardboard tokens and cheap D10s was one of those decisions. Compare to how GW markets kill team, and I'd think the problem would be pretty obvious.

Kinda like Blood of the Pheonix. Some of these things, you're like "Gee, why did the 160 dollar box of all brand new sculpts sell but the 240 dollar box of mostly ancient as feth 3rd edition sculpts fail? It must just be that the people want space marines and don't want eldar, huh..."

the_scotsman wrote:
Kinda like Blood of the Pheonix. Some of these things, you're like "Gee, why did the 160 dollar box of all brand new sculpts sell but the 240 dollar box of mostly ancient as feth 3rd edition sculpts fail? It must just be that the people want space marines and don't want eldar, huh..."

While I accept the overall point, I don't think there were any 3rd ed models in that box at all - the Falcon and Vyper were 2nd ed, the DE stuff was 5th, and then you have the four resculpted units/characters.

 Dysartes wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Kinda like Blood of the Pheonix. Some of these things, you're like "Gee, why did the 160 dollar box of all brand new sculpts sell but the 240 dollar box of mostly ancient as feth 3rd edition sculpts fail? It must just be that the people want space marines and don't want eldar, huh..."

While I accept the overall point, I don't think there were any 3rd ed models in that box at all - the Falcon and Vyper were 2nd ed, the DE stuff was 5th, and then you have the four resculpted units/characters.

I think the Guardians were 3rd ed. I think. Not sure tbf.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Kinda like Blood of the Pheonix. Some of these things, you're like "Gee, why did the 160 dollar box of all brand new sculpts sell but the 240 dollar box of mostly ancient as feth 3rd edition sculpts fail? It must just be that the people want space marines and don't want eldar, huh..."

While I accept the overall point, I don't think there were any 3rd ed models in that box at all - the Falcon and Vyper were 2nd ed, the DE stuff was 5th, and then you have the four resculpted units/characters.

I think the Guardians were 3rd ed. I think. Not sure tbf.

I thought there were Guardians in there as well, but I checked WHC to be sure - Eldar got Jain Zar, 5 Banshees, Falcon & Vyper, while the DE got Drazhar, 5 Incubi, 5 Scourges, 5 Hellions and a Venom.

No Guardians were harmed in the making of this boxed set...

 Dysartes wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Kinda like Blood of the Pheonix. Some of these things, you're like "Gee, why did the 160 dollar box of all brand new sculpts sell but the 240 dollar box of mostly ancient as feth 3rd edition sculpts fail? It must just be that the people want space marines and don't want eldar, huh..."

While I accept the overall point, I don't think there were any 3rd ed models in that box at all - the Falcon and Vyper were 2nd ed, the DE stuff was 5th, and then you have the four resculpted units/characters.

I think the Guardians were 3rd ed. I think. Not sure tbf.

I thought there were Guardians in there as well, but I checked WHC to be sure - Eldar got Jain Zar, 5 Banshees, Falcon & Vyper, while the DE got Drazhar, 5 Incubi, 5 Scourges, 5 Hellions and a Venom.

No Guardians were harmed in the making of this boxed set...

OOF. That really puts the price disparity in question. Sorry! I guess I should google first. :X