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.

Ugh... that's farther down the line than I hoped for.

Just release it already! We're hungry and they're giving us a picture of a burger instead of the burger. ^____________^;

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/asfjtjhy/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-missions-and-objectives/

Biggest takeaway is the game is going down to 4 rounds, which sounds like typical GW cope for making the rules more fiddly and longer to resolve... I wonder if it's going down to 40k table size too.

The VP USRs seem okay, at least it makes taking and retaking objectives more interesting than just pure "who can stand in this circle for longer"

Not that 4 rounds allow for all that much back and forth.

Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.

If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.

Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...

Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?

Whoever decided that getting more points depending on which variety of special rule you have can please get in the bin.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/asfjtjhy/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-missions-and-objectives/

Biggest takeaway is the game is going down to 4 rounds, which sounds like typical GW cope for making the rules more fiddly and longer to resolve... I wonder if it's going down to 40k table size too.

The VP USRs seem okay, at least it makes taking and retaking objectives more interesting than just pure "who can stand in this circle for longer"

Not that 4 rounds allow for all that much back and forth.

ooopphhhh.............


well all the more reason to stick with 2.0 or even 1.0

I've also just realised that the mission is picked before you make your army.

Lmao nice one, rules writers, you've made official GW events impossible unless you're changing your army every single game or have every mission revealed beforehand, defeating the point of a narrative event.

I'm going to enjoy youtube sycophants bend over backwards to explain how that's a great change.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm going to enjoy youtube sycophants bend over backwards to explain how that's a great change.

A friend: "cool, makes sense as you can build an army that's narrative to the mission. You just have to prearrange well in advance of whoever you're playing, draft up your own event rules, try not to tailor your list too much and avoid anyone who does. Seems like a good change"

Without a hint of sarcasm as well.

There's way too much specificity in that sentence for that person not to have humour as dry as the Sahara.

 Gert wrote:
There's way too much specificity in that sentence for that person not to have humour as dry as the Sahara.

It was a summary of the conversation tbh, they honestly don't see any problems.

I really wanted to get into Heresy, I was waiting to see what would change, what improvements were going to be made, rules that were going to be refined. I'm not a massive fan of the Saturnine stuff but that's fine because Marines is Marines but... Yeesh. I really don't think there's anything I've read so far that made me think "awesome!" and instead I've been left scratching my head wondering what they were thinking. The wind has been completely and utterly blown from my sails.

I think I'll just get my heresy fix from Legions...

"So, that is the misson we are about to play, now lets pick armies!"

"Oh, I, uh, pick the army I already had prepared.

"Fine, me too!"

Not my preference overall, but I doubt many will stick to it.

That's the point being made, though, and goes back to the whole "unnecessary rewrite".

What part of the play process wasn't working that suddenly someone needed to put that in there? Boggles the mind and it feels like "oh bugger we've not got enough changes, quick throw darts at the silly idea board until something sticks!".

 Fayric wrote:
"So, that is the misson we are about to play, now lets pick armies!"

"Oh, I, uh, pick the army I already had prepared.

"Fine, me too!"

I'm sure we all know someone who will carry a bag/box of stuff, likely 5k points of mixed crap and want to hash a list out at the 11th hour because they're bad at communicating and planning. This is weirdly enabling for them.

I wonder if this is a clunky way of saying it is like AOS where you pick your battle tactics ahead of time. I can't imagine you literally build your army on the spot.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
I wonder if this is a clunky way of saying it is like AOS where you pick your battle tactics ahead of time. I can't imagine you literally build your army on the spot.

You do unless you either A. don't care what mission it is and bring the same list regardless or B. Do that step before you meet.

I’ll be interested to see what official Tournaments do here.

The Line (X) rule certainly encourages a good amount of simple troops to maximise your VP scoring.

But with different missions offering different VPs for the core Objectives, it sounds possible you can completely hamstring yourself with The Wrong List.

Wait. I’m being daft here, aren’t I? Tournaments typically publish the missions ahead of time, making it much less of an issue.

But narrative events, which is what Heresy players predominantly run, usually don't, afaik.

Curious, I'm used to most events giving the missions before hand. 1st game is X, 2nd is x and 3rd is X.

Yes you could change your list around if it's not scoring related and you took a lotta line; to a list bad at capturing and good at killing, but i think in friendly games your opponent may raise an eyebrow at that.

In an event I think you'd still want a list that can handle multiple mission types.

The differing force org charts for different mission varieties went away after 3rd edition 40k for good reasons.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
The differing force org charts for different mission varieties went away after 3rd edition 40k for good reasons.

I prefer the old way. 3rd ed is fun

Events could do a "bring 1-3 lists, you can choose one of those without modifications" if people want options but minimizing tailoring and decision paralysis

Or a side deck. A detachment, designated the (insert tacticool butchered gothic here) is able to be swapped out between matches.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Events could do a "bring 1-3 lists, you can choose one of those without modifications" if people want options but minimizing tailoring and decision paralysis

To make it even more fun, you can only use 1 list per tournament. Use list 2 in the first game? Can't use it for the 2nd or 3rd.

...

But I think we are veering off course. Narrative games and Tournaments are usually two different beasts. I cannot imagine GW forcing random army list shenanigans on players in a tournament setting.

The page mentioning different ways to play has leaked, so I'm guessing there's going to be Official Guidance For Events. I assume they'll at least mention a line like "Many events will require you to build a single list beforehand and use it for each game throughout the entire event." and then add a quip about it being a test of your tactical mindset and ability to prepare for all outcomes and possibilities.

edit: it may be worth mentioning that the uh, "narrative" event series that I often attend has never had a set list requirement and is usually set up to disallow that. Many people bring a single list anyways, by their own choice.

As far as the Line rule and the Vanguard rule... I hate that they're only including three core missions and all three will be about standing in circles. I can't wait to generate 8 points from 2 objectives off of Line only for my opponent to wipe out all my line with their Vanguard, generating 8 points and then scoring the objectives for 2 more... I foresee yet another edition where anything with only a bolter or chainsword is completely dead weight.

So which kind of games/players benefit from that change or who is supposed to benefit

For tournaments it doesn't matter at all, for gaming groups/friends it doesn't matter either.
Narrative Events have their own rules anyway and adjust on the fly if needed
And for pick up games it would just mean to carry more models than needed around and add another hour before you start playing because someone needs to write a new list (in excel on their phone)

This is more like a need 2000 points of models to play 1500 points game so you can switch around for each mission

I know games like SAGA have a list building step after the mission is rolled and also tournaments allow to change list before the game is started
But in this games the amount of models needed is lower and list building itself works rather different, so there is a different impact.

 kodos wrote:
So which kind of games/players benefit from that change or who is supposed to benefit

For tournaments it doesn't matter at all, for gaming groups/friends it doesn't matter either.
Narrative Events have their own rules anyway and adjust on the fly if needed
And for pick up games it would just mean to carry more models than needed around and add another hour before you start playing because someone needs to write a new list (in excel on their phone)

This is more like a need 2000 points of models to play 1500 points game so you can switch around for each mission

I know games like SAGA have a list building step after the mission is rolled and also tournaments allow to change list before the game is started
But in this games the amount of models needed is lower and list building itself works rather different, so there is a different impact.

It's one of those "obviously you ignore it" type rules, so I suspect that's good grounds for "it needs changing/removing"

It's something that totally works for Kill Team or Necromunda where you play with less than 10 models per player.

My Chaos gang had almost every possible option I wanted but including some hangers on but that still didn't crack 25 models which could be carried in a small box easily enough.

That sort of thing doesn't work when the baseline is 2k and you can easily have upwards of 60 models including tanks, walkers or big monsters.

So good news, automatons ignore all the tactical stances and as a result a good chunk of the new extra stats. That might save it for me.