Switch Theme:

40K ark of omen grand tournament pack  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





tneva82 wrote:
Guess you don't put units on objectives then


That usually makes it hard to do actions and score secondaries and perhaps primary unless marines get the rumored sticky objectives ( also assuming no deepstrike / reserve concerns ).
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






My latest hot take on the whole matter...

GW has realized (too late) that the army construction design framework does not pair well with the mission design framework.

Currently it's creating a feel-bad scenario where players feel like they're being penalized Command Points to use the detachments that allow them to better score the best / easiest pre-selected mission objectives. With the new AoO detachment, players will be able to pre-select their win conditions (i.e. secondary objectives) and then build the best army, that is uninhibitedly capable of scoring those secondary objectives.

The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.

Sadly, GW has chosen what is easy instead of dealing with the real problem; that the whole mission design is fundamentally flawed. W40K has become a single person game where you select your win condition at home and then select the game pieces that work best to achieve that win condition. Having someone on the other side of the table has become nothing more than a formality. Under the current mission design players only need to interact with another player if their secondary objective requires it - think about that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:40:18


 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

 oni wrote:
The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.

Legit curious, what does Mike Brandt have to do with it? I generally know who he is (NOVA Open creator, GW events coordinator, etc etc) but unsure how he fits into this. What's your negative assessment based on?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:41:08


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






KillerAngel wrote:
 oni wrote:
The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.

Legit curious, what does Mike Brandt have to do with it? I generally know who he is (NOVA Open creator, GW events coordinator, etc etc) but unsure how he fits into this. What's your negative assessment based on?



Mike Brandt is the father of the current GT mission design. He created it, used it for NOVA. GW then adopted it when they hired him to be the steward of completive missions and completive play for them.

It's no secret that I have a low opinion of his aptitude.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:41:21


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
Guess you don't put units on objectives then

Dead units don't hold objectives
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

EviscerationPlague wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Guess you don't put units on objectives then

Dead units don't hold objectives


Look, if my lowly Grots can hold an objective & survive (just) long enough to score me enough pts? Surely the vaunted 1k sons can manage it.
   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





What are "Sticky Objectives?".

I'm not up to date on competitive lingo.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 Nightlord1987 wrote:
What are "Sticky Objectives?".

I'm not up to date on competitive lingo.


It means that you control an objective, once taken, until it is seized by your opponent, even if your units are no longer there. There's at least one 40k scenario that uses those rules and its definitely handy to not have to been pinned to your backfield objectives.

I'm not sure its as handy as armour of contempt though.
   
Made in de
Servoarm Flailing Magos




Germany

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
What are "Sticky Objectives?".

I'm not up to date on competitive lingo.


It's usually a characteristic of an objective marker - once you held it with an unit with 'Objective Secured' at the end of a command phase, it stays under your control even if you move the unit away in the following turns; it only changes control again if an enemy secures it in turn. You could tack that to units, as a kind of 'Objective Secured+'
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





EviscerationPlague wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Guess you don't put units on objectives then

Dead units don't hold objectives



If you don't give defensive buffs no surprise.

But just because you are bad player doesn"t mean all are.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 oni wrote:
KillerAngel wrote:
 oni wrote:
The new AoO Detachment is just another band aid, another patch. I have to assume GW continues down this path because Mike Brandt is still around.

Legit curious, what does Mike Brandt have to do with it? I generally know who he is (NOVA Open creator, GW events coordinator, etc etc) but unsure how he fits into this. What's your negative assessment based on?



Mike Brandt is the father of the current GT mission design. He created it, used it for NOVA. GW then adopted it when they hired him to be the steward of completive missions and completive play for them.

It's no secret that I have a low opinion of his aptitude.


That's factually incorrect. The current mission design owes much, much more to the ITC missions designed by FLG. Hold 1/hold2/hold more is taken directly from it, as are several of the secondaries.

It's also unclear just how much input MVB has into overall balance. He does seem to be involved to some extent in mission design, and the GW GT terrain set-ups are his, but he doesn't seem to be too involved in the actual decision making regarding what and how to balance units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:41:54


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






Slipspace wrote:

That's factually incorrect. The current mission design owes much, much more to the ITC missions designed by FLG. Hold 1/hold2/hold more is taken directly from it, as are several of the secondaries.

It's also unclear just how much input MVB has into overall balance. He does seem to be involved to some extent in mission design, and the GW GT terrain set-ups are his, but he doesn't seem to be too involved in the actual decision making regarding what and how to balance units.


Nope. GW's GT mission design is a near carbon copy of the old NOVA missions. Fact.

And using allegorical interpretation to state someone is "factually incorrect" simply does not work.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW also adopted Actions from the NOVA missions.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:42:34


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut





The Black Adder wrote:
I'm not sure its as handy as armour of contempt though.

It's not. It's just more of feelsbad contrived BS where your army technically 'wins' on points while the opponent kicked crap out of it, like the other bandaid GW did, making OP secondaries. I'd rather have AoC because SM are supposed be durable in fluff, not redshirts barely any better than IG conscripts with terrible battlefield performance losing battles horribly but 'winning' because they collected enough participation awards along the way. It's just not fun for either player...
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Irbis wrote:
The Black Adder wrote:
I'm not sure its as handy as armour of contempt though.

It's not. It's just more of feelsbad contrived BS where your army technically 'wins' on points while the opponent kicked crap out of it, like the other bandaid GW did, making OP secondaries. I'd rather have AoC because SM are supposed be durable in fluff, not redshirts barely any better than IG conscripts with terrible battlefield performance losing battles horribly but 'winning' because they collected enough participation awards along the way. It's just not fun for either player...

Gotta sell those new darling Votaan somehow!
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

 oni wrote:


Nope. GW's GT mission design is a near carbon copy of the old NOVA missions. Fact.

And using allegorical interpretation to state someone is "factually incorrect" simply does not work.

GW also adopted Actions from the NOVA missions.
I think this is a case of you both being right. When GW released the first set of Tournament Rules, they strongly resembled the then current ITC Missions. Those missions were strongly influenced by an older version of NOVA missions. From my recollection, NOVA missions had moved on to other design elements that are not in the current Matched Play Tournament Rules.

So if you don't like progressive points and player selected secondaries, you can say it's because of NOVA and ITC. Still, blaming Mike Brandt for the current GW mission like he is some mission-style boogyman is silly. GW wouldn't keep publishing them if people didn't seem to enjoy them. They did push Malestorm for a few editions to mixed success.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:42:52


 
   
Made in gb
Rampagin' Boarboy





United Kingdom

tneva82 wrote:
Then you need to look harder and think more than 5 seconds


As others have said, a lot of lists are going to stay as they already were, just with a handful of extra points and CP to burn.

Other than that it's meme lists like all dreads, 12x10 Beast Snaggas or a billion Neophytes.
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

 alextroy wrote:
GW wouldn't keep publishing them if people didn't seem to enjoy them. They did push Malestorm for a few editions to mixed success.
GW don't care if people like them or not, this does not influence what they publish or what they change

People who want to play "official" events need to use them, TOs who want to make "official" events need to use them, and those who don't like them will happily buy the next version as this is just valid for 1 year anyway

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





6 months. Then replaced by another(along with 10th for more stuff to buy)

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch




dorset

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/12/29/warhammer-40000-boarding-actions-how-does-this-tense-new-game-mode-play/


Some more information on how this new boarding actions mode is supposed to play. Highlights include:

Terrain is not breachable by default, and line of sight cannot be drawn though it forcing combat though the doorway etc. This ALSO applies to aura and other none line of sight powers, so a captain stood on the other side of a wall doesn't grant aura abilities to troops the far side.


NLOS shooting is expressly forbidden, and all units block line of fire, so you can't shoot though friendly units and can only target units you can draw a clear line of sight to that doesn't touch anything else.

Standard game mode strategies, WLT and Relics are not allowed, you can only use re roll, combat interrupt and auto morale. Special boarding actions relics, traits and strategies will be published in the arks of Omen books




To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.

Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts Watch Company Rho 1650pts
 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar





England

Shame they haven't made exceptions for indirect-fire weapons that still work in that environment like the old FW rules did, but it does simplify things.

Weapons like D-cannons, smart missile systems, and mole launchers that can still function in close confines.

Paring down the strategems is appealing.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
I think this is a case of you both being right. When GW released the first set of Tournament Rules, they strongly resembled the then current ITC Missions. Those missions were strongly influenced by an older version of NOVA missions. From my recollection, NOVA missions had moved on to other design elements that are not in the current Matched Play Tournament Rules.

So if you don't like progressive points and player selected secondaries, you can say it's because of NOVA and ITC. Still, blaming Mike Brandt for the current GW mission like he is some mission-style boogyman is silly. GW wouldn't keep publishing them if people didn't seem to enjoy them. They did push Malestorm for a few editions to mixed success.


9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:44:08


 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord





I'm no mathematician, but 9th came out July 2020, so it's already over 2 years and given we don't have a release or even a confirmation of a 10th ed yet, we're going to have to assume 9th will make it to 3.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:44:26


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

 oni wrote:


9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.



You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.

I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:44:42


Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




xerxeskingofking wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/12/29/warhammer-40000-boarding-actions-how-does-this-tense-new-game-mode-play/


Some more information on how this new boarding actions mode is supposed to play. Highlights include:

Terrain is not breachable by default, and line of sight cannot be drawn though it forcing combat though the doorway etc. This ALSO applies to aura and other none line of sight powers, so a captain stood on the other side of a wall doesn't grant aura abilities to troops the far side.


NLOS shooting is expressly forbidden, and all units block line of fire, so you can't shoot though friendly units and can only target units you can draw a clear line of sight to that doesn't touch anything else.

Standard game mode strategies, WLT and Relics are not allowed, you can only use re roll, combat interrupt and auto morale. Special boarding actions relics, traits and strategies will be published in the arks of Omen books




Gives more reason to use a named Character over a generic one since a named Character will have more rules by default. That's a shame.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Hulksmash wrote:
 oni wrote:

9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.



You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.

I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.


False. My friends & acquaintances who own or work for game stores across 4 different regions and whom I talk to regularly, would strongly disagree with you. 9th edition has not done well, and it's largely been because it's tournament-hammer in that competitively play has driven away all but the most competitive of players and the competitive players don't buy much. Other top complaints about the edition are excessive quantity of stratagems and overwhelming rules bloat. In my discussions with actual store owners, some who I've been friends with for 20+ years... 8th edition was the most successful and prior to that 5th edition. Not 9th.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:45:02


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

I'm sure there has totally been no other factor, at all, that has not made 9th less popular for store play.

Nothing. At. All.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tzeentch's Fan Girl






Southern New Hampshire

 oni wrote:
 Hulksmash wrote:
 oni wrote:


9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.



You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.

I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.


False. My friends & acquaintances who own or work for game stores across 4 different regions and whom I talk to regularly, would strongly disagree with you. 9th edition has not done well, and it's largely been because it's tournament-hammer in that competitively play has driven away all but the most competitive of players and the competitive players don't buy much. Other top complaints about the edition are excessive quantity of stratagems and overwhelming rules bloat. In my discussions with actual store owners, some who I've been friends with for 20+ years... 8th edition was the most successful and prior to that 5th edition. Not 9th.



For starters, how do you define successful?

Also, popularity and quality don't always go hand-in-hand. Just because a thing is popular doesn't mean it's good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:45:21


She/Her

"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln

Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.


DR:80S++G++M--B+IPwhfb01#+D+++A+++/fWD258R++T(D)DM+++
 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 oni wrote:
 Hulksmash wrote:
 oni wrote:


9th edition W40K is full-on tournament-hammer; of course GW is going to continue with the current mission design. Right now GW is pandering so fething hard to competitive play that they have driven away a significant number of players who are not interested in competitive play as well as players who have grown tired of the repetitious (and flawed) GT mission design. GW's realization and admission of this is evident in the release of the Tempest of War card pack and I believe is also why 10th edition is being released after only 2 years of 9th edition.



You're saying that the most money making and popular edition of 40k, one that they promoted narative play really hard in including inclusion in codexes of rules for it, is tournament hammer? Also check your notes, by the time 10th releases it'll be 3 years. Which is the current cylce time on their editions. Its the same time frame from 8th to 9th. Nothing like the 6th to 7th and 7th to 8th timelines which were genuinely 2 years.

I get it, you may not like current 40k. But numbers don't agree with you that's it's a bad edition.


False. My friends & acquaintances who own or work for game stores across 4 different regions and whom I talk to regularly, would strongly disagree with you. 9th edition has not done well, and it's largely been because it's tournament-hammer in that competitively play has driven away all but the most competitive of players and the competitive players don't buy much. Other top complaints about the edition are excessive quantity of stratagems and overwhelming rules bloat. In my discussions with actual store owners, some who I've been friends with for 20+ years... 8th edition was the most successful and prior to that 5th edition. Not 9th.



No one cares about you and your friends. You are nothing and the couple of store owners you know are also nothing. We are talking about a company that operates and sell a game worldwide.

My friends and I also don't like 9th edition for the same reasons you listed. However 40K has been incredibly successful these last few years in spite of that. Hell, GW has been incredibly successful. The annual reports prove it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/31 05:45:43


 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar





England

That doesn't mean 9th edition 40k has been successful. That means that GW has been successful at making a big profit from the product they have shifted. We have no idea which products have done well or why. For example, people who buy models solely to collect and paint will be uneffected by any current rules.

Unless GW or someone else does widespread surveying of their customer base, no one will actually know this. GW themselves will be able to make inferences from the distribution of product sold too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/29 18:07:36


 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

While not having access to the internal numbers of AoS vs. 40k I'd be shocked if 40k was making less than during 8th while AoS and other sub games have made up for the massive increase in revenue even when GW simply couldn't make enough items.

Maybe AoS and the secondary games really have made up for the entirety of the increase in sales plus the drop off of 40k. But that tends to stretch credibility.

Also bear in mind that a lot of store owners are a bit cross at GW still for all the supply chain issues. They couldn't get product in to sell. And my friends that run games stores have told me so! (see how relevant that is?)


Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: