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.

 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.

I stopped reading at 'player set objectives' and knew it wasn't going to be a good tournament format, tbh.

It's similar to Sigmar's current objective system and that's one of the worst parts about this edition of Sigmar. It's "My book's secondaries are easy, your's are impossible" on crack.

 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)

Yea the ability to counterplay the gambit 1) makes it more interesting and 2) keeps a game from going stale, because you suddenly need to react and plan for if it goes off.

I think the issue will be less "against the odds come back when you are being stomped" and more "weird skew result that decides an otherwise close game".

Clearly it depends on deployment map, terrain etc, but its not hard to imagine a broadly diamond shaped objective deployment. I.E. One objective in/near each deployment zone and then two in the middle of the board. So both sides are probably able to sit on one objective (if they want) - but the middle two keep trading over potentially without being consistently scored. (Or maybe they will be scored because 10th's higher durability means we are all in scrums over the objectives battling on OC score, who knows).

Anyway, flash forward and at the close of turn 3, the game is effectively in the balance. One side is maybe up 5-10 points say. One player then activates this gambit. They can now go purely negative for turn 4 to deny the primary rather than having to worry about holding it into turn 5, while chucking their models at table corners.

The view of "you are a bad general if you can't stop this" seems kind of suspect - as to my mind you are saying "just table them (again, note possible higher durability in 10th)". Okay footslogging infantry might struggle to cover that sort of distance - but there's plenty of units that can advance 20"~ in a turn.

So then they get a chance to roll off and win. Sure its not good odds. But its not obviously difficult or skilful - as per the above I'm not convinced easy to stop. "If I roll a double six I just win gg" isn't probably going to feel good. Especially perhaps if the opponent responds by breaking out their own gambit - which is a similar "small % chance I win" sort of thing.

Is that different to having close games today coming down to a 10", 11", 12" charge that would let you claim/deny an objective? I guess not, but that feels more organic.

But ultimately we'll have to test it. The principle isn't bad, but this could produce feels bad - or "feels silly" outcomes. Same with luck-based secondaries.

My eyes kinda glazed over when I read the mission rules article. Only one mission so it's simple, ok. Now just shuffle and distribute 5 different decks of cards that do totally different things and maybe do more things half way through the game, man what

Is this miniature game turning into a card game?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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)

Yea the ability to counterplay the gambit 1) makes it more interesting and 2) keeps a game from going stale, because you suddenly need to react and plan for if it goes off.

I don't know how I feel about gambits in general yet. I do know that I don't like this particular gambit, though.

It turns maelstrom into Eternal War and that's kinda cheesy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ph34r wrote:
My eyes kinda glazed over when I read the mission rules article. Only one mission so it's simple, ok. Now just shuffle and distribute 5 different decks of cards that do totally different things and maybe do more things half way through the game, man what

Only one mission is free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
Is this miniature game turning into a card game?

Have you heard of Conquest?

Taking Inspiration from Maelstrom sounds good for me, it was the best part of 7th and also a nice alternative to 8th missions.
However, I'm not buying any GW cards anymore, chances are they're outdated before I get to use them.

Tyel wrote:
I think the issue will be less "against the odds come back when you are being stomped" and more "weird skew result that decides an otherwise close game".

Clearly it depends on deployment map, terrain etc, but its not hard to imagine a broadly diamond shaped objective deployment. I.E. One objective in/near each deployment zone and then two in the middle of the board. So both sides are probably able to sit on one objective (if they want) - but the middle two keep trading over potentially without being consistently scored. (Or maybe they will be scored because 10th's higher durability means we are all in scrums over the objectives battling on OC score, who knows).

Anyway, flash forward and at the close of turn 3, the game is effectively in the balance. One side is maybe up 5-10 points say. One player then activates this gambit. They can now go purely negative for turn 4 to deny the primary rather than having to worry about holding it into turn 5, while chucking their models at table corners.

The view of "you are a bad general if you can't stop this" seems kind of suspect - as to my mind you are saying "just table them (again, note possible higher durability in 10th)". Okay footslogging infantry might struggle to cover that sort of distance - but there's plenty of units that can advance 20"~ in a turn.

So then they get a chance to roll off and win. Sure its not good odds. But its not obviously difficult or skilful - as per the above I'm not convinced easy to stop. "If I roll a double six I just win gg" isn't probably going to feel good. Especially perhaps if the opponent responds by breaking out their own gambit - which is a similar "small % chance I win" sort of thing.

Is that different to having close games today coming down to a 10", 11", 12" charge that would let you claim/deny an objective? I guess not, but that feels more organic.

But ultimately we'll have to test it. The principle isn't bad, but this could produce feels bad - or "feels silly" outcomes. Same with luck-based secondaries.

The thing is, the gambit is particularly terrible in a close game.


1. If there's a reasonable chance you can score 10-15 primary on your turns anyway, this gambit is only going to net you 5-10 VP even if you succeed
2. Even getting 4 corners uncontested is only getting you a 1/9 chance.

Basically, the only way this is worth taking in a close game is if you believe you have a less than 1/9 chance of outscoring your opponent in normal play AND you believe you will be able to get a unit into all 4 corners on the end of your 5th turn, despite your opponent knowing your intention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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)

Yea the ability to counterplay the gambit 1) makes it more interesting and 2) keeps a game from going stale, because you suddenly need to react and plan for if it goes off.

Does depend on the design of the gambits though. And your opponent's army. If you're up against Death Guard, this is pretty easy to stop. If you're up against a Saim Hann army, there will be literally 0 chance for you to do anything about this unless you table them.

Thinking about this a little bit more though, it's at least a little bit interesting.

There are two ways to counter play this. Keep your enemy out of your table corners, or score all 30 of your own primary in those two turns. Either one completely neutralizes the gambit (if you're already ahead).

I am in the tempest is bestest camp so love this. Gambits sound awesome. Can’t wait to play this.

ERJAK wrote:
2. Even getting 4 corners uncontested is only getting you a 1/9 chance.

9+ on 2D6 is 10/36, so a 28% chance, but the point stands.

That's a hail mary, not something you'd ever do in a close game.

 catbarf wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
2. Even getting 4 corners uncontested is only getting you a 1/9 chance.

9+ on 2D6 is 10/36, so a 28% chance, but the point stands.

That's a hail mary, not something you'd ever do in a close game.

That's also already when you have all 4 corners under control, if you can do that what exactly hinders you pursuing your primary and secondaries? In more realistic circumstances that Gambit will be even worse.

Most likely it's going to be an 8% chance more often than not. A +1 looking for 11 or 12 on the dice. Probably more like 4 to 5% if you account for having to pass a single battleshock test to be able to even do it ( with a second unit still in good standing ).

The player that is ahead still needs to address it lest they lose by 5 or 10 points from a 1-in-12 shot of turning the game around.

The game's lethality will really drive how interesting this is -- or isn't.

I guess what I'm talking about is "close in terms of VP" not close in terms of what the outcome is going to be.

I mean games where you kind of know, barring a major turn of luck, that you are going to lose by 10-15 VP. Because you can roughly estimate what will happen turn 4 and turn 5. Its close - but barring a big upturn, you will lose.

So you can chuck this out and go "sure, if this doesn't work I'll lose by 25 VP - but I might score 30VP and therefore win".

I guess "solving this" is working out how disproportionately you'd have to pop off in say turn 4 and 5 versus the low chance you have on this.

If its a one-way massacre its not going to make a difference. We need the numbers on secondaries etc - but by current 9th standards, if they are on 90+ VP and you are on 40 etc it doesn't work.

Lukewarm on gambits. If there's just 3 it's not too hard to plan counters, certainly the spoiled one is easy to spot and easy to counter. So it's just 3 specific side missions you always need to have a counter for, which can just get annoying after a while.

I love the concept of gambits. Gives an underdog a reason to keep playing, changes things up mid-game so even a player that chooses not to take a gambit might have to react to his opponent (and as a consequence, might promote well-rounded armies capable of reacting to each gambit).
Not sure about the implementation. Seems too swingy and yet at the same time like it wouldn't make enough of a difference if someone is seriously falling behind. Really depends on the other gambits and missions, but in general it seems like a good mechanic.

I just feel like people are too worried about this. For me this feels like a hypothetical gambit at best. It may or may not happen, but I'd say the chances are unlikely.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I'd say the chances are unlikely.

Slightly lower chances doesn't negate a mechanic being bad.

Very interested by gambits. A small deck of cards that might have obvious goals like be in all the corners opens up a lot of options for feinting, making positioning feel more strategic and could add a bit more depth than everyone just playing their factions best secondaries every time.

 ph34r wrote:
My eyes kinda glazed over when I read the mission rules article. Only one mission so it's simple, ok. Now just shuffle and distribute 5 different decks of cards that do totally different things and maybe do more things half way through the game, man what

Think you've managed to put to word what I felt when reading the article. Simple, but convoluted.

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
Is this miniature game turning into a card game?

It has been for a very long time, Heck even 2nd edition needed a lot of cards to play. Mission Cards, Strategy Cards, Wargear Cards, Vehicle Cards, etc.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Taking Inspiration from Maelstrom sounds good for me, it was the best part of 7th and also a nice alternative to 8th missions.
However, I'm not buying any GW cards anymore, chances are they're outdated before I get to use them.

I liked the idea of Maelstrom cards from 7th, but it did result in things like this:

'This is command, your orders are to clear the sky of enemy fliers. Repeat destroy all enemy fliers'.
'This General Warface, Command we have no enemy fliers in this area, repeat no enemy fliers.'
'This is Command, Understood, General Warface... your new order is to destroy all Enemy fliers'.

Or units abandoning objectives, to only later need to go back to that objective.

But I am totally with you and not buying any more GW cards, seeing how fast they invalidate their printed material, I'd be better off just burning the money for warmth.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
2. Even getting 4 corners uncontested is only getting you a 1/9 chance.

9+ on 2D6 is 10/36, so a 28% chance, but the point stands.

That's a hail mary, not something you'd ever do in a close game.

That's also already when you have all 4 corners under control, if you can do that what exactly hinders you pursuing your primary and secondaries? In more realistic circumstances that Gambit will be even worse.

Also, your opponent only needs to block THEIR corners. If you don't have at least one non-deployment zone, it doesn't even trigger.

When you take this gambit, you're essentially saying 'The old primary is now a mediocre secondary. The new primary is keeping me out of the table corners.'

It's interesting. Not sure how good it will be for tournament play, but it's at least better than the 'roll 9+ to win' that it looked like initially.

I can't say I'm crazy about needing to pull out five decks, make sure the cards are in their respective decks, shuffle, then draw from each one to set up a game, every game. I bet there'll be new decks that invalidate the old ones every season, too.

Don't like gambits, either. If I'm so behind that Orbital Strike looks like a good idea, I deserve to lose. I can't imagine losing to a gambit feeling great, when it does happen.

Dudeface wrote:
Nabbed off B&C:

While likely BS, I need to comment that I like "Tyrannothrope" way more than "Norn Emissary".

Well, it sounds more consistent, given that its just a mashup of existing tyranid critter names. But its rather awful because of that, since it can lead to confusion.

Best option is neither A nor B, because they're both bad.

I really feel like you should get 50% odds to complete the gambit if you have all four corners; that's going to be really hard to do in a game you're losing. Not much point to the system existing if people who go for it are rarely going to get the points even if they do everything right.

Not very happy about the mission setup, just because I was really happy about streamlined detachment rules on 2 pages and limited strategems, plus a datacard for each unit type. Not too much to carry around and keep track of, so sounds great.

Then we add a 'pack' of cards which is divvied up into five decks. Wonderful. So less cards over here, in the strategem pile, and more cards over here, eh?

Plus, I'm STILL trying to get my hands on mission generation cards from Necromunda which have NEVER been reprinted, so I am sceptical of any cards needed for play.

No real opposition to the ideas behind the cards, just the implementation of this system by carrying around and shuffling them.


A few editions ago, GW produced (very limited) quantities of cards with different missions on them (I think--maybe that was only Necromunda too, but I think I had some for one edition of 40K). Larger than playing cards, but with ALL the rules for that mission on one big card. It was lovely. You could carry them around, let both players look at it during the game, and not need to shuffle anything or draw cards during the game. I would have been much happier to see that implemented*. I still feel like a mission where the rules, deployments, and objectives are ALL designed specifically for that mission will generally feel a lot more thematic/cinematic/sensible than one where the deployment/objective/mission rules are all generated randomly without influencing each other. You might get cool sensible missions, you might get ridiculous lame ones (kinda like the random ones I generated in Necromunda where the two opposing gangs deploy members 6" away from each other--which was great for my gang of punchy meatheads and kinda bad for all my friends playing shooty little nerds).

*and, given GW's insatiable need for more paper products, you could produce a new pack of missions each tournament season, or hand out mission packs at events.

 stonehorse wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
My eyes kinda glazed over when I read the mission rules article. Only one mission so it's simple, ok. Now just shuffle and distribute 5 different decks of cards that do totally different things and maybe do more things half way through the game, man what

Think you've managed to put to word what I felt when reading the article. Simple, but convoluted.

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
Is this miniature game turning into a card game?

It has been for a very long time, Heck even 2nd edition needed a lot of cards to play. Mission Cards, Strategy Cards, Wargear Cards, Vehicle Cards, etc.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Taking Inspiration from Maelstrom sounds good for me, it was the best part of 7th and also a nice alternative to 8th missions.
However, I'm not buying any GW cards anymore, chances are they're outdated before I get to use them.

I liked the idea of Maelstrom cards from 7th, but it did result in things like this:

'This is command, your orders are to clear the sky of enemy fliers. Repeat destroy all enemy fliers'.
'This General Warface, Command we have no enemy fliers in this area, repeat no enemy fliers.'
'This is Command, Understood, General Warface... your new order is to destroy all Enemy fliers'.

Or units abandoning objectives, to only later need to go back to that objective.

But I am totally with you and not buying any more GW cards, seeing how fast they invalidate their printed material, I'd be better off just burning the money for warmth.

I agree with you on all points, but that description of how Maelstrom worked in practice actually makes it sound very fitting for 40K. Completely nonsensical or obsolete orders coming from high command because they’re completely out of touch with reality and/or totally incompetent is very much a thing.

I think they said this would be the main mission that the rules would launch with.

In other words, there will OBVIOUSLY be a tournament pack they'll sell for 50 dollars for a brochure that tells you rules they could have printed in the core rulebook.

So now it is confirmed that the full rules won't be free and it is just repeating 8th

Will be interesting what difference the free index to the paid ones bring

 kodos wrote:
So now it is confirmed that the full rules won't be free and it is just repeating 8th

Will be interesting what difference the free index to the paid ones bring

Where has that been confirmed? I may have missed that part.

Some new datasheets from the community site articles





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a roadmap, interestingly the Dark Angels isn't called Codex Supplement so we may go back to full codexes at least for the big three chapters?