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.

 cole1114 wrote:
I feel like this thread needs more baseless speculation. There's entirely too much detailed investigation in these last few pages trying to figure out what's gonna be where at WHW.

I mean, I heard a rumor that they were going to squat Chaos Daemons because they made a bunch of snowflake religious fundamentalists uncomfortable.

Also, can we use the term "squatted" for stuff taken out of the game anymore now that Squats are back in canon?

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
I feel like this thread needs more baseless speculation. There's entirely too much detailed investigation in these last few pages trying to figure out what's gonna be where at WHW.

I mean, I heard a rumor that they were going to squat Chaos Daemons because they made a bunch of snowflake religious fundamentalists uncomfortable.

Also, can we use the term "squatted" for stuff taken out of the game anymore now that Squats are back in canon?

If boxnaughts actually are going away, getting "boxed" sounds about right.

Adding "unsquat" to our vocabulary doesn't change the meaning or usage of "squat".

GW may be able to unsquat Squats, but they'll never be able to squat squatting.

 Geifer wrote:
Adding "unsquat" to our vocabulary doesn't change the meaning or usage of "squat".

GW may be able to unsquat Squats, but they'll never be able to squat squatting.

I mean, they can, but only if they stop squatting things.

I had a good laugh, thank you guys.

Is there a 40K slang for abandoning a promising concept to the drought of neglect? Yncarnating simply doesn't have that ring that squatting has.


Before this gets deleted for going off topic:
I am quite surprised that WH Day is coming up in one day and we have had no major spoiler so far. Did they finally plug all the holes or will it again be a snore fest of hardly any content and way too much self appraisal.

 GiToRaZor wrote:
I had a good laugh, thank you guys.

Is there a 40K slang for abandoning a promising concept to the drought of neglect? Yncarnating simply doesn't have that ring that squatting has.


Before this gets deleted for going off topic:
I am quite surprised that WH Day is coming up in one day and we have had no major spoiler so far. Did they finally plug all the holes or will it again be a snore fest of hardly any content and way too much self appraisal.

The 40k reveal is the contents of the box set which frankley neither the box nor it's contents is likely to be too much of a shock at this stage. Plus some rules contet to some degree which may add value. If we're lucky they'll give us the date too.

Article up, after a bit of drought this week: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/

I like the new mission design. Can't wait to try it out and see how it plays out.

Not a fan of play aids, like card decks, required to play.

Hopefully enough will be included in the starter for 2 players, and not just be required add-on mandatory upcharge.

 Nevelon wrote:
Not a fan of play aids, like card decks, required to play.

Hopefully enough will be included in the starter for 2 players, and not just be required add-on mandatory upcharge.

They're intended for matched play - so no sense including them in the starter just for the subset of players interested in that game mode.

I’m mildly disappointed the Gambit deck doesn’t randomly explode at irregular intervals.

Feels a bit like reinventing the wheel. They got rid of the old maelstrom of war objectives in 9th in favour of actions and standardisation. Now that’s all out the window again and we are back to randomisation of objectives for…reasons.

I get they need to make us all buy the new edition, etc etc. but I really do wish they’d pick a concept and stick to it.

Crusade was the dogs danglies according to them last time round, and it was actually pretty great. Does it get followed through, or even expanded? Does it hell. Thrown out with the bath water, just like boarding actions will be in the next cycle come 11th edition.

 General Kroll wrote:
Feels a bit like reinventing the wheel. They got rid of the old maelstrom of war objectives in 9th in favour of actions and standardisation. Now that’s all out the window again and we are back to randomisation of objectives for…reasons.

I get they need to make us all buy the new edition, etc etc. but I really do wish they’d pick a concept and stick to it.

Crusade was the dogs danglies according to them last time round, and it was actually pretty great. Does it get followed through, or even expanded? Does it hell. Thrown out with the bath water, just like boarding actions will be in the next cycle come 11th edition.

They stated in the Q&A that Crusade was an unexpected hit in 9th and it'll be continued and expanded in 10th.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Not a fan of play aids, like card decks, required to play.

Hopefully enough will be included in the starter for 2 players, and not just be required add-on mandatory upcharge.

They're intended for matched play - so no sense including them in the starter just for the subset of players interested in that game mode.

I guess we’ll see what other options there are. From the article it looks like you either play the one basic, no frills, mission. Or use the deck.

I’d like more options than that. But there is still more time for info and other missions modes to be revealed.

"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

Competitive Reddit is losing it's mind a bit over the gambits already.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

Competitive Reddit is losing it's mind a bit over the gambits already.

what else is new?

 Nevelon wrote:
Not a fan of play aids, like card decks, required to play.

Hopefully enough will be included in the starter for 2 players, and not just be required add-on mandatory upcharge.

Its easy enough to make it a chart and die rolls.

Definitely not a fan of more card packs. At all.

 General Kroll wrote:


Crusade was the dogs danglies according to them last time round, and it was actually pretty great. Does it get followed through, or even expanded? Does it hell. Thrown out with the bath water, just like boarding actions will be in the next cycle come 11th edition.

We'll hopefully see soon.

We are only getting a handful of rules every time GW makes these articles and so far no word on narrative stuff.

 General Kroll wrote:
[...]They got rid of the old maelstrom of war objectives in 9th in favour of actions and standardisation. Now that’s all out the window again and we are back to randomisation of objectives for…reasons.

Because the lack of randomization mutated the game into something tourney-gakkers could solve before a single dice was thrown. This, to say the least, was problematic.

Anyway...

The new mission design looks promising. There are some ideas here that initially seem good. I'd like to have more information.

1. I initially like the idea that each player can independently choose fixed or tactical secondary missions. What I'm curious to know is, if choosing fixed, does the player get to sort through the deck and pick what they want, or do they just keep the initial two randomly generated all game?
2. I like that there are only two active secondary missions.
3. I really like the idea of gambits. My concern here is if there are only 3 unique gambits. What I'm curious to know is if they are different ones, attacker vs. defender. If there are only 3 unique gambits, I can see an issue with armies tailoring to completing gambits to get a large amount of VP's. Drawing 2 and picking 1 provides really good odds at getting the one you want / tailored for.
4. I would have preferred player placed objective markers, but this isn't necessarily a deal breaker. Fixed objective locations can constrain battlefield creation. It's one of the more nuanced skills from older editions that only tourney-gakkers complain about because they couldn't solve the puzzle pre-game.
5. With gambits and only two active secondary missions, I think the arbitrary limits on scoring VP's is unnessesary. Any time an arbitrary limit must be applied, it is a significant indicator of poor design.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

Competitive Reddit is losing it's mind a bit over the gambits already.

Currently it's 50/50 for the competitive players.

Personally I like the answers from the positive ones. If you are taking a gambit to get those 30 points you are most likely not controlling any objective markers. A player who has at least 3 objectives can easily get those 30 points in primary victory conditions in those 2 rounds. It is basically giving a losing player a chance to remain in the game and get some extra points for a very small percentage. I mean, the best chance is being in all corners and that means you have to have non-broken units in all four corners. So even if they manage to roll for those 30 points they'd most likely still be losing still.

Seriously, the people complaining must be all lottery players. That's how small of a chance it is.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Seriously, the people complaining must be all lottery players. That's how small of a chance it is.

also they must be gakky generals if they don't realise that gambits are REVEALED on turn 3 but SCORED on turn 5, thats 2 turn to deny whatever the gambit is. On top of them being a comeback mechanic (so if youre not in a position to deny your opponent, it means youre probably already losing the game which means your opponent won't even need to pick that gambit anyway)

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

About as soon as a self professed elite professional nerd loses a game is my guess?

With a limited pick of gambits, it will be interesting to see how easy it would be to metagame against them.

For example, if you are crushing your opponent for the first couple of turns, so they are likely to need a gambit, you are probably going to prioritize killing fast units that could make the run for the corners.

I’d guess one other gambit would be a “hold the center” which encourages the opposite. Make it harder to plan ahead to thwart all the options.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

Competitive Reddit is losing it's mind a bit over the gambits already.

OH NOs, something fun that might allow an underdog win??? KILL IT!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!

fething insufferable tourney-gakkers. Let them bitch and whine. We had to suffer their bs all through 9th.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Seriously, the people complaining must be all lottery players. That's how small of a chance it is.

also they must be gakky generals if they don't realise that gambits are REVEALED on turn 3 but SCORED on turn 5, thats 2 turn to deny whatever the gambit is. On top of them being a comeback mechanic (so if youre not in a position to deny your opponent, it means youre probably already losing the game which means your opponent won't even need to pick that gambit anyway)

Exactly. There is ample time to react and only lists that might theoretically suffer are some weird skew lists.

 oni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

Competitive Reddit is losing it's mind a bit over the gambits already.

OH NOs, something fun that might allow an underdog win???

You mean rewarding a bad player with a chance to win through a random dice roll?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 oni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

Competitive Reddit is losing it's mind a bit over the gambits already.

OH NOs, something fun that might allow an underdog win???

You mean rewarding a bad player with a chance to win through a random dice roll?

If you lose against a bad player who uses this gambit it very much implies that you are a bad player as well. There is very little reason to use this gambit at all if you are winning and at best it keeps you playing for a small chance to earn slightly more victory points while still losing. It also means a winning player has to keep their house in check to prevent said gambit.

I seriously want to see a scenario where a gambit user wins because with those conditions I have a hard time seeing anyone getting it at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean seriously let's look at those conditions:

* Have to have an unbroken unit in enemy territory corner.
* Has to have unbroken units in every corner for a 9+ chance
* Lose out on potential 30 points in primary victory points over those two rounds.

If a bad player manages to fill all those conditions and you don't kill/break those units AND roll a 9+ on a dice. Damn, then we got a stew goin'.

 Eldarsif wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 oni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"perfectly balanced ", eh? How long before people are decrying it as a broken mess, I wonder...

Competitive Reddit is losing it's mind a bit over the gambits already.

OH NOs, something fun that might allow an underdog win???

You mean rewarding a bad player with a chance to win through a random dice roll?

If you lose against a bad player who uses this gambit it very much implies that you are a bad player as well. There is very little reason to use this gambit at all if you are winning and at best it keeps you playing for a small chance to earn slightly more victory points while still losing. It also means a winning player has to keep their house in check to prevent said gambit.

I seriously want to see a scenario where a gambit user wins because with those conditions I have a hard time seeing anyone getting it at all.

At best this Gambit gives you a ~28% chance at 30 VP if you manage to occupy all 4 table corners with unshocked units - bog-standard 'take and hold' gives you up to 15 VP each turn, secondaries seem to be in the 5-10 VP range. If less than a coin throw at ~2 good turns of holding objectives is what makes or breaks it for you then so be it, but it is objectively a gakky Gambit even if you can fulfill its prerequisites.

Edit: misread at first, it's not even 42%, it's only ~28%