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.

ERJAK wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.

Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I fell like this really misrepresents the missions.

Recover the Relics - kill units
Tear Down Their Icons - plant and defuse explosives
Data Scry-Salvage - hack terminals
Abandoned Sanctuaries - king of the hill
Conversion - breakthrough
etc

What secondaries you can easily give up happens at list building. What you choose to score does not.

Yeah i did oversimplify, still, thats what the missions mostly amount to.

Recover the Relics : were you not already planning on killing stuff, so these extra points are just given "for free:
Tear down their icons : More of that kind of mission please.
Data scry : basically "hold more++ (and don't lose your home objective)"
Abandoned sanctuaries : its just a hold mission with a specific objective being more important, i'm neutral towards it
Conversion : basically hold more again, with a focus on being able to push through your opponent
Scouring :basically hold more again
Tide of conviction : basically hold more again
Death and zeal : basically hold more again
Secure missing artifacts : weird hold more again

My problem is that the "twists" are mostly just a different way to hold more.

If i compare them to the AoS ones :

Prize of Gallet : 5 objectives start inactive, player going second choses to activate one
realmstone cache : 1 objective in the middle of the board, explodes into two random positions on round 3
Battleline drawn : table quarters are the objectives (kinda boring but it still gives a different vibe to the basic "hold more")
Lurkers below : control all 3 objectives starting on round 3 and you insta win the game (sounds cool, is actually poop)
In the presence of idols : each player has units with idols in them, you get more points for killing idol's units with idol'd units (and idols give morale bonuses)
the nidus path : basic mission but you get clue-like shortcuts from opposing corners of the board
Only the worthy : non named-foot characters get UberObsec (meh, feths over some armies hard)
Path of a chamption : control an objective outside your territory and you get to pick two battle tactics this turn
Jaws of gallet bjectives slowly get removed from the battlefield
ours for the taking : classic hold more mission with the furthest objectives are worth more
twists and turns : gak mission lol
positions over power : 2 objectives on the board edge dissapear after round 4


the difference is that in AoS, the board itself changes in many missions, and because battle tactics are picked mid-game, you have to always think ahead and try to predict if you should do an easy one right now , or keep it for later to try and score when tactics are getting harder.

Sure, all AoS missions use the same hold1-2-more but they all feel different, asking me to hold1-2-more + do an action here and there doesnt feel different or like you're playing through a story, AoS has that cinematic feel (oh no, the realmstone cache just blew up, a landslide destroyed these objectives, gallet itself is eating the objectives, etc.)





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.

Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.

yeah lol, combat patrol finally gives a clear answer for when i get asked "how should i start 40k?". Before it was still "get a start collecting" but i had to explain that the balance might be wayy off until they bought more stuff, now 40k can be approached like a boardgame, where you pick up two combat patrols, paint them up and you can do some quick games once in a while (great for casuals). I fully expect GW to release a "combat patrol terrain" box eventually so that with 3 boxes, you get an easy setup.

Some of those AoS missions do sound interesting. A few of the mechanics seem a bit too random and punishing if a roll goes wrong.

 Tyran wrote:
The question with subfactions is if Space Marines chapters get the subfaction treatment of only being two pages or they get the "entire supplements dedicated to each one of them" treatment.

There is where most of the (sub)faction bloat is located.

It entirely depends how they do it.

Currently subfactions get all the main faction stuff plus all their own stuff.
If they only get their own stuff in trade for losing main faction stuff, its much less terrible. That seems to be what they're implying when they talk about 2 pages of army rules and detachments. If they can stick to it, it'll largely be fine (unless they make unbalanced trades of good for bad or bad for good).

Personally I think the ideal is, for example, Dark Angels get Dark Angels strats/traits/etc and no Space Marine strats/traits/etc, mega doctrines go away (or doctrines become a specific chapter's thing).

I just don't want to see dumb decisions like trading away 'and they shall no no fear' for +1 to hit, especially if you can MSU and not care about morale anyway.


I guess I have to say I'm using 'trade' loosely. I'm not expecting a straight trait swap pot luck, or any capacity to customize army rules (yet, and hopefully never).
Just that we will be given a set of rules for <Space Marines> (or just <Ultramarines>, their successors and unknown successors) who get these pages of army rules and <Dark Angels> get those pages of army rules. Combat squads and 'no fear' nonsense will probably show up on both, but other than really basic things like that, the army rules will be discrete.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Some of those AoS missions do sound interesting. A few of the mechanics seem a bit too random and punishing if a roll goes wrong.

oh yeah, theyre not perfect by any means, i just find them more interesting than the 40k ones. The biggest part is probably the battle tactic/secondaries system tbh

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

Well, what else are you going to cut? You can't drop Votann, because they just got released and they do have a decent roster. Eldar and Dark Eldar are staples of the setting along with Orks, Chaos, Imperial Guard and Space Marines.

I don't know, you probably could cut Dark Eldar entirely.

They're already a faction that has gained no new units in about 13 years, whilst haemorrhaging the units and options they once had.

The GW marketing team could boast that they have streamlined the codex down to its purest form.

 vipoid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

Well, what else are you going to cut? You can't drop Votann, because they just got released and they do have a decent roster. Eldar and Dark Eldar are staples of the setting along with Orks, Chaos, Imperial Guard and Space Marines.

I don't know, you probably could cut Dark Eldar entirely.

They're already a faction that has gained no new units in about 13 years, whilst haemorrhaging the units and options they once had.

The GW marketing team could boast that they have streamlined the codex down to its purest form.

Great news! They won't be cut.
The precedent was established with Harlequins and Ynnari and foreshadowed by the multi-use corsair kit: welcome to your place as the latest Craftworlds subfaction.


Though actually, this is a great opportunity to bust those two subfactions back out of that book and give them completely distinct army rules.

 catbarf wrote:

Voss wrote:
Don't know about you, but I don't miss the days of people arguing about whether S4 +1 x2 equals 9 or 10, depending on when the +1 happens).

Or a weapon hitting at -1 but then it doesn't matter because the target has a 'hit at -1' ability anyways and modifiers don't stack etc etc.

Having weapon profiles bespoke for each unit rather than 'universal' is undoubtedly going to cause some of the same problems that bespoke abilities rather than USRs did ('wtf, why is this unit's bolter S5?'), but I think this is the best way to handle the giant mess of weapon profiles and, more importantly, will be cleaner in actual play. And at least any subtle differences in stats will be visible numbers and keywords, rather than subtleties of wording like 're-roll any' versus 're-roll misses'.

This is a great point. If the plan is for Power Swords on Space Marines to be WS 3+ and Power Fists on Space Marines to be 4+ then when attacking a unit that gets a "-1 to hit in close combat" modifier, suddenly Space Marines are only hitting on 5's, and a comparable Imperial Guardsman (sgt, for example) would be hitting on a 6.

Which gives them room to make power fists incredibly powerful, like AP -4, D4 or something on a Space Marine, and AP-3, D3 on a Guard SGT. Heck, they could even change them to be (S x3) and have them tearing open vehicles more easily. I'm not sure my analysis is the most accurate, but I think it gives them a lot of options to tweak to provide for more "cinematic moments" which they are really keen on (and which do make WH40K a lot of fun!).

 dadx6 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Voss wrote:
Don't know about you, but I don't miss the days of people arguing about whether S4 +1 x2 equals 9 or 10, depending on when the +1 happens).

Or a weapon hitting at -1 but then it doesn't matter because the target has a 'hit at -1' ability anyways and modifiers don't stack etc etc.

Having weapon profiles bespoke for each unit rather than 'universal' is undoubtedly going to cause some of the same problems that bespoke abilities rather than USRs did ('wtf, why is this unit's bolter S5?'), but I think this is the best way to handle the giant mess of weapon profiles and, more importantly, will be cleaner in actual play. And at least any subtle differences in stats will be visible numbers and keywords, rather than subtleties of wording like 're-roll any' versus 're-roll misses'.

This is a great point. If the plan is for Power Swords on Space Marines to be WS 3+ and Power Fists on Space Marines to be 4+ then when attacking a unit that gets a "-1 to hit in close combat" modifier, suddenly Space Marines are only hitting on 5's, and a comparable Imperial Guardsman (sgt, for example) would be hitting on a 6.

Which gives them room to make power fists incredibly powerful, like AP -4, D4 or something on a Space Marine, and AP-3, D3 on a Guard SGT. Heck, they could even change them to be (S x3) and have them tearing open vehicles more easily. I'm not sure my analysis is the most accurate, but I think it gives them a lot of options to tweak to provide for more "cinematic moments" which they are really keen on (and which do make WH40K a lot of fun!).

I'm all for stacking modifiers so I have no problem with a Marine Sarge hitting only on a 5+ with a Power Fist at times. As long as there's a good amount of ways to naturally stack positive modifiers (as the problem with 8th was tons of negative but almost no positive) I'm all on board.

 dadx6 wrote:
This is a great point. If the plan is for Power Swords on Space Marines to be WS 3+ and Power Fists on Space Marines to be 4+ then when attacking a unit that gets a "-1 to hit in close combat" modifier, suddenly Space Marines are only hitting on 5's, and a comparable Imperial Guardsman (sgt, for example) would be hitting on a 6.

Which gives them room to make power fists incredibly powerful, like AP -4, D4 or something on a Space Marine, and AP-3, D3 on a Guard SGT. Heck, they could even change them to be (S x3) and have them tearing open vehicles more easily. I'm not sure my analysis is the most accurate, but I think it gives them a lot of options to tweak to provide for more "cinematic moments" which they are really keen on (and which do make WH40K a lot of fun!).

Well, back in 8th you could totally make plasma explode on 3s or 4s with all the stacking.

I don't think the new setup should allow for PF to be stronger. They're fine as is and if your opponent brings something that makes them whiff then it's a tactical thing rather than a balance consideration.

@catbarf what fun WL traits and relics are there in AOS?

Once per turn, you can re-roll 1 hit roll or 1 wound roll for an attack made by the bearer, or 1 save roll for an attack that targets the bearer.

This general can run and still charge in the same turn.

Can you tell who this relic and trait belongs to or what they represent?

How is it better than "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 2 additional attacks with this weapon." or "Each time this WARLORD makes a melee attack, you can re-roll the wound roll."?

 Hellebore wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
*looks at 10th edition article*

Yeeeehhhh .......you guys have fun with this. Personally, I'm so glad that I switched to HH.

This post right here is perhaps one of the greatest examples of marine privilege in 40k...

Pft. Yes... they are the Emperor's chosen and the reason HH exists... so yes, the game built on only really using marines would have "marine privilege"... and the fact that an entire 2nd game exists just to cater to marines is a pretty hard telegraph that there's a wee bit of design preference towards them throughout the line. I love playing my Eldar, but I need to be content that I'm a supporting character in the main story arc when I do... I'm fine being Gordon or Alfred in Batman's saga... but I'd be foolish to whine when the spotlights not equally on me.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

We need 4 Marine Factions: Wolves, Grey Knights and DW, Codex, Chaos (and put the Knights in there)... have warlords make a sub-faction choice that gives a set bonus to their force

2 Eldar
1 Chaos
1 Guard +Inquisition
1 Silent/Sororitas/Custodes
1 Ork
1 Tau
1 Squats
1 Admech +Knights
etc

14 ish factions is plenty

 Lobukia wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

We need 4 Marine Factions: Wolves, Grey Knights and DW, Codex, Chaos (and put the Knights in there)... have warlords make a sub-faction choice that gives a set bonus to their force

2 Eldar
1 Chaos
1 Guard +Inquisition
1 Silent/Sororitas/Custodes
1 Ork
1 Tau
1 Squats
1 Admech +Knights
etc

14 ish factions is plenty

Wolves don't need their own Codex, since certain entries (Marine Calvary, Terminators with just Power Weapons, etc.) should be generic to begin with. The only two Loyalist Scum armies that need separation are Deathwatch and Grey Knights due to themselves needing to be balanced with Inquisition in mind.

 Platuan4th wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.

Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.

The difference being that those games make their boxes specifically for the "box vs box" method.

GW is just looking at an existing product and trying to square peg/round hole a game out it.

ERJAK wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:
I hope they do something about the missions. I don't know what, but all the missions feel like they are similar, with having terrain in basically the same place, and objectives in the same place, etc...

I don't know exactly what, but secondaries are lame, the maelstrom type game mode is a bit more fun, but still lame.

Giving some missions something similar to 7th ed fantasy victory conditions would be great. You tally up how many points of the enemy's army you killed, and your opponent does the same, and you see who got more.

If I recall if you were within a certain amount of points it was a draw.

If people feel like adding certain things to spice it up then make objectives worth so many points at the end, or killing the warlord worth so many points, etc.

Just some thoughts.

So your idea to make missions more interesting is...kill points? Really? The least interesting mission mechanic ever is what's gonna fix missions.

Dude, if you're talking about adding 'slay the warlord' as 'spicing things up' ...you've just made some doggak boring missions.

Yes, as those are the most fun games, generally. Like who cares who controls a random spot on the board on turn 3? I care about who claims the field at the end of the game.

Anyways, I hope that's a type of mission. Totally fine with having various types.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.

Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.

The difference being that those games make their boxes specifically for the "box vs box" method.

GW is just looking at an existing product and trying to square peg/round hole a game out it.

Eh. Given the lead time for work on the new edition (~2 years ago, they kinda said during the recent video) and when the combat patrols were introduced, that isn't necessarily true.

It might even explain some of the weird ones. (Thousand Sons and Death Guard...)

That, of course, doesn't mean they will be any approximation of balanced, but the 'this is random marketing crap with existing boxes' isn't that obvious.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.

Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.

The difference being that those games make their boxes specifically for the "box vs box" method.

GW is just looking at an existing product and trying to square peg/round hole a game out it.

Eh. Given the lead time for work on the new edition (~2 years ago, they kinda said during the recent video)

It makes me wary since, when I asked the question of lead time to write 9th, I got the same answer of about ~2 years. That doesn't bode well for "not obviously marketing".

I'm always willing to be proven wrong but their track record leaves a lot to be desired.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.

Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.

Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!

Tbh i wouldnt be mad if Thousand Sons just became "Your squad leaders get psychic powers" for CSM

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!

Ultimately an army with two pages of rules has a lot going for it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.

Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!

Tbh i wouldnt be mad if Thousand Sons just became "Your squad leaders get psychic powers" for CSM

Gonna strip them of all weapon options for that real 3.5 feel, too?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.

Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!

Tbh i wouldnt be mad if Thousand Sons just became "Your squad leaders get psychic powers" for CSM

And their dreadnoughts (optionally, of course). Which is something that they have, in a game where they share a rulebook with the other 8 Traitor Legions. Sharing the same book doesn't necessarily have to mean losing options. In fact, for some, it can mean having more.

I mean, screw it, why even have Chaos Marines at this point? All these options are just ruining the game!!!

A single Marine profile (2+ save if in Terminator armour, for some variety... thought on second thought that might be too much bloat), and all Marines/CSMs are the same.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
It makes me wary since, when I asked the question of lead time to write 9th, I got the same answer of about ~2 years. That doesn't bode well for "not obviously marketing".

I'm always willing to be proven wrong but their track record leaves a lot to be desired.

The first CP was Tau in Jan of '22. It could be either scenario, really.

But none of that really matters. Either it will be balanced or it won't be.

Don't. Give them. Ideas.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!

Ultimately an army with two pages of rules has a lot going for it.

*shrug* I have no idea how much they'll be able to cram. Most of the stuff was in the Cults, which you usually only took one of anyway so really it's just trimming strats.

I just went down a bit of a mental rabbit hole on strats.

If there's going to be 3 to 6 of these things the units they affect will greatly affect list building choices ( strats did that already, but with other options to counterbalance ). Will the index armies be really dull to avoid creating listbuilding bottlenecks?

Or will the purpose of army strats be different given that reactions are a thing?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Tyel wrote:
SM (x10+)
Grey Knights
Custodes
Sisters of Battle
Ad Mech
Imperial Guard
Knights
Chaos Knights
CSM
Thousand Sons
Death Guard
World Eaters
Daemons
CWE
Dark Eldar
Harlequins
Ynnari
Tyranids
GSC
Orks
Tau
Necrons
Votann

So 23 by my count. Obviously more if you want to separate out BA/DA/SW/DW/BT etc. I'm not sure I'd treat Ynnari as a thing in themselves for the same reason.

Clearly if you assume Marines are 20% (at least), that's 80/22=3.63% for everyone else.

In practice you've got say Marines at 20%, Guard at 10%, Custodes and Daemons at say 6-7%~. So its more like 57.5%/19=3%

That looks about right. That is kind of nuts how about half of the factions are some flavor of marine. So much for being the rarest army in the setting I guess.

6 Out of 23 is really far from about half. I suppose you can add in Custodes and Sisters of Battle to make it 8 out of 23, but that is still a bit of hyperbole there.

Now is you add in 10 variants of Space Marines to your count, then I guess 15 out of 33 is close to half. That is kinda scary. GW has nearly half the actually printed as their own publication Codexes and Codex Supplements dedicated to actual Astartes. And we are still short Codex Emperor's Children!

Codex Space Marines
Codex Grey Knights
Codex Supplement Black Templars
Codex Supplement Blood Angels
Codex Supplement Deathwatch
Codex Supplement Imperial Fist
Codex Supplement Iron Hands
Codex Supplement Raven Guard
Codex Supplement Salamanders
Codex Supplement Space Wolves
Codex Supplement Ultramarines
Codex Supplement White Scars
Codex Chaos Space Marines
Codex Death Guard
Codex Thousand Sons
Codex World Eaters

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*shrug* I have no idea how much they'll be able to cram.

Yeah you really weren't around for the Pete Haines era, were you?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Most of the stuff was in the Cults, which you usually only took one of anyway so really it's just trimming strats.

In an ideal world there the cults would keep their rules/strats/relics (cut-down to 10th size, that is), so if you want to play Cult of [Whatever], you'd go to their 2 page spread and it'd show you everything you have, and you wouldn't need to look at all the others.

But it won't be that. It'll be 1KSons, and then a page for some special formation that has to include Magnus, and then another for Ahriman.