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.

 LunarSol wrote:

If two things fill similar roles, even if they are costed appropriately, one will ultimately provide the better value and win out. Either the cheaper one to make room for more stuff overall (boyz before toyz) or the more expensive provides enough that the cheaper one appears overcosted.


The core problem isn't a question of equal value, but role diversity. You create more variety by making units that do different things.

The first part of this quote makes no sense - if one of those chices provides better value, then they are not costed appropriately… Their preference may depend on other parts of the army, but ultimately, both choices should be picked by players neat 50% of times. But of course, this is not a realistical outcome with linear point systems, that can’t adequately represent full complexity of the system.

But the second part of the quote touched a much more important problem with 40k - design space capacity. Every game system has it’s own granularity (not to be confused with granularity of point systems). That is, how many meaningfully different combinations of parameters can the system handle. In case of 40k, the answer is and pretty much always was „way less than GW tries to cram into it”. This is the reason for „slot competition” and large part of raw mathhammer efficiency solution to „choice”. In an ideal world, you design the math part of the game first, then populate available space with a pool of abstract possible entries, and only then you choose an appropriate entry for fluff you want to represent. With GW it is the other way around - they create new fluff entities first and only then try to find any place for it in the system. This is why we always get bloat, power creep and mid edition paradigm shifts - 40k is way, way overpopulated compared to the capacity of any edition. Obvious point cost mistakes, bad mission design, bad environment rules and very narrowminded community (as in „2000pts, latest GT” is the only proper way to play) compress a meaningful game subspace even further.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Breton wrote:

Two Page rules. The whole thing is supposed to be on the same two pages shared by all subfactions. BA/DA/SW/UM all use the same 2 pages it sounds like.

nah, i'm pretty sure its gonna be 2 page PER subfaction.

So BA/DA/SW/UM each get their own specific 2 pages.

They gave an example of someone playing UM vs playing UM first company would have a different "2 page"

I hope Armageddon, Cadia, Krieg, Minerva, Ventrillia, etc. also get their own 2 pages each.

Fair's fair.

Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.


Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"

etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Breton wrote:

Two Page rules. The whole thing is supposed to be on the same two pages shared by all subfactions. BA/DA/SW/UM all use the same 2 pages it sounds like.

nah, i'm pretty sure its gonna be 2 page PER subfaction.

So BA/DA/SW/UM each get their own specific 2 pages.

They gave an example of someone playing UM vs playing UM first company would have a different "2 page"

I hope Armageddon, Cadia, Krieg, Minerva, Ventrillia, etc. also get their own 2 pages each.

Fair's fair.

Sure, why not? GWs going to need some way to soak your wallet for as many packs of cards as they can.

ccs wrote:
Sure, why not? GWs going to need some way to soak your wallet for as many packs of cards as they can.

They're not selling cards for the detachment rules.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.


Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"

etc.

This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s

PenitentJake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.


Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"

etc.

This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s

You mean all chapters have a First/Veteran Company and all chapters can draw upon the chapter's armory to outfit a force with Bikes and Landspeeders, just like they can do in the lore?

PenitentJake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.


Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"

etc.

This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s

Wildly disagree.

They talked about restrictions and the like. They also mentioned that there would be some catch-alls and some specifics. Every Chapter can field an all-bikes force or an all-Terminator force. What's distinctive about RW/DW is the quality of the units and the sheer numbers. It's like Raven Guard and Phobos right now; they're the only ones who have been fielding an all Phobos 1st and 2nd Company in addition to the 10th Vanguard Company.

I'd expect subfactions to get something akin to the various Armies of Renown with legit restrictions in place and a bonus tied to their faction.

 alextroy wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.


Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"

etc.

This pretty much sounds explicitly like what they have told us they plan to do. I hate it, but all evidence indicates this is what they have in store for us. Now all chapters have a Ravenwing and a Deathwing. Yay! /s

You mean all chapters have a First/Veteran Company and all chapters can draw upon the chapter's armory to outfit a force with Bikes and Landspeeders, just like they can do in the lore?

Yeah, this constant hard-on for Dark Angels being "different" is absolutely bonkers. They're not different. They don't need a whole different codex.

Funny part is that DA will actually be in the best spot for setting up a real difference going forward.

Battleline Deathwing and Ravenwing Knights based upon Warlord isn't exactly a bad swing.

I dunno if this is just sampling bias but it seems to me that I see a lot more complaints about the new subfaction/detachment system from Marine players than other factions.

I saw very few complaints when Astra Militarum received the same treatment in their 9th Ed codex- actually I saw a lot of positive comments from players that were happy they no longer had to counts-as their Death Korps as Catachans to get artillery bonuses, or Cadians as Steel Legion to have quick-moving mechanized infantry.

I'm fairly confident that the special Marines will get their own unique detachments, eg Deathwing, but the main chapters no longer being limited to one-note builds (while still having the option to use those archetypes if you wish) seems like a good thing.

 catbarf wrote:
I dunno if this is just sampling bias but it seems to me that I see a lot more complaints about the new subfaction/detachment system from Marine players than other factions.

I saw very few complaints when Astra Militarum received the same treatment in their 9th Ed codex- actually I saw a lot of positive comments from players that were happy they no longer had to counts-as their Death Korps as Catachans to get artillery bonuses, or Cadians as Steel Legion to have quick-moving mechanized infantry.

I'm fairly confident that the special Marines will get their own unique detachments, eg Deathwing, but the main chapters no longer being limited to one-note builds (while still having the option to use those archetypes if you wish) seems like a good thing.

It's not a sampling bias, just a result of overly Marine centric game, that fed the community with so much detail about Marine subfactions' fluff, that their grew in perception to be fully fledged factions of their own, despite having only small differencess between them. In other words - Marine fluff has way more granularity than the rest of the game, so players expect this granularity to be represented by the ruleset, but as I wrote above, this game has way too small design space for this to work. So despite the fact, that different -wings or numbered companies are just rehashes of the same concepts, Marine players want those concepts to be somehow personalised/unique for their chapter. Other factions are painted with so much broader strokes, that there is no problem with adequate fluff representation by simple variation in army structure. Take Craftworlds for example - one wraith centric, one aspect centric, one psychic and guardian centric, one bike centric etc... Basically, there is no more than one Craftworld for one battlefield role/FoC category/army archetype and that's it. With Marines, your differences between "subfactions" are sometimes on the level of what weaponry given chapter prefers...

 catbarf wrote:
I dunno if this is just sampling bias but it seems to me that I see a lot more complaints about the new subfaction/detachment system from Marine players than other factions.

I saw very few complaints when Astra Militarum received the same treatment in their 9th Ed codex- actually I saw a lot of positive comments from players that were happy they no longer had to counts-as their Death Korps as Catachans to get artillery bonuses, or Cadians as Steel Legion to have quick-moving mechanized infantry.

I'm fairly confident that the special Marines will get their own unique detachments, eg Deathwing, but the main chapters no longer being limited to one-note builds (while still having the option to use those archetypes if you wish) seems like a good thing.

First off: I think people are using Marines in examples for very specific reasons: they are a known quantity with a documented history of subfaction distinction going back decades. I am actually far, far more worried about what this system will do to Xenos factions than what it will do to marines, but because Dark Angels, Whitescars and Blood Angels have sub-faction identity going back decades, they are easier to use as examples.

As for chapters no longer being limited to one note builds, I wouldn't get my hopes up. If you're Blood Angels, sure, you CAN pick a detachment that's more commonly associated with Ultramarines, but doing so means you're stuck with the trait that applies to that detachment... Which, not surprisingly, will be the kind of trait one would more expect to be associated with Ultramarines.

Put another way, there's no such thing as a subfaction trait anymore. If you want to feel like there are still subfaction traits, you can choose to try and approximate that effect by picking a detachment that has a trait something like what your subfaction trait. But you only get that this pseudo-subfaction trait when you choose to use that particular detachment.

I wonder what army construction hoops I'll have to jump through in order to make sisters play like the Sacred Rose; their powers are related to serenity and focus, so I can see their detachment as being one which excludes repentia and mortifiers... Which sucks. You probably have to take Junith Eruita to unlock the OoOML trait, which sucks even more since it's ridiculous to expect that a Cannones Superior is going to be present in every skirmish.

Don't get me wrong- they MIGHT get it right. I'm more enthusiastic than I expected to be, and I'm trying to be positive. It is too soon to really know how it's going to turn out- I'm just tempering my expectations.

PenitentJake wrote:
As for chapters no longer being limited to one note builds, I wouldn't get my hopes up. If you're Blood Angels, sure, you CAN pick a detachment that's more commonly associated with Ultramarines, but doing so means you're stuck with the trait that applies to that detachment... Which, not surprisingly, will be the kind of trait one would more expect to be associated with Ultramarines.

FWIW, from the Warhammer Community post about the new system:

"For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase."

(...)

"So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game."

So combat doctrines- ie the thing that was a SM-wide rule for 8th/9th- is now tied to the detachment that is theoretically Ultramarines-specific. No details on the stratagems and enhancements.

PenitentJake wrote:
Put another way, there's no such thing as a subfaction trait anymore. If you want to feel like there are still subfaction traits, you can choose to try and approximate that effect by picking a detachment that has a trait something like what your subfaction trait. But you only get that this pseudo-subfaction trait when you choose to use that particular detachment.

Seems like six of one, half dozen of the other to me. You pick a detachment and get the abilities associated with that detachment. Some subfactions have particular detachments associated with them, but you can still choose whichever.

They did this same thing in the 9th Ed Astra Militarum codex as I mentioned. Instead of picking Death Korps of Krieg you just choose the Cult of Sacrifice regimental trait. If you play Death Korps you can still use Cult of Sacrifice and essentially nothing changed from before, but now you can alternatively choose Expert Bombardiers for an artillery company, or Armoured Superiority for their tank regiments.

I guess it just remains to be seen just how subfaction-specific the detachments are in practice.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Sure, why not? GWs going to need some way to soak your wallet for as many packs of cards as they can.

They're not selling cards for the detachment rules.

Sure. You go right on believing in the myth of free stuff.
It's GW, trust me, they're going to try & sell you/us existing players something (beyond models) required for play.

I wonder how much the detachments are going to be valid, when different subfaction are considered. Someone maybe will like the fact that they can build a terminator detachment for any chapter. But if DAs are still going to be the only ones with deathwing/inner circle rules giving them practicaly free super human physilogy, then playing something else then DAs for terminator army won't make sense.

Same if there is a detachment for jump troops, but with most marines being locked in to Van Vents and regular assault marines, while armies like BA have both a bigger list of unit they can have and a better synergy.

I think one of the issues here is that GW doesn't do "points" in the way that they are typically understood.

If you're trying to create a competitive balancing system, calculating "point costs" isn't actually that difficult. It's simply creating a mathematical probability table for the various inputs of the units. For example, you can express the fact that Unit A is twice as likely to hit as Unit B in a points cost. Same with damage resistance.

Now, to be fair to GW, they love to clutter up their probability calculations with stupid crap like re-rolls and other situational special rules, but anyone else can pull it off.

Validating the points isn't terribly hard, either. Run test combats, compare the results with the point costs and adjust the algorithm as necessary. Not to toot my own horn, but in Conqueror (admittedly, a fantasy game) higher points value units almost always win a straight up fight because if they didn't, the points would be wrong. (When they don't, it's because the dice ran really hot/cold.)

More than 15 years ago, people were proving that GW's point calculation system was hot garbage. GW used some vague math, but mostly set the points to what they "felt" was correct. And yes, pushing miniatures sales was one of those factors. If you make a unit that it super-awesome for the points, it will sell like crazy. Who cares about balance, they are making money.

And that's really the core problem. Sad to say it, but 25 years into playing the "GW Hobby," it's abundantly clear that superior game design and balance are not things they are interested in. Selling new rule books every three years is what they are interested in.

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Sure, why not? GWs going to need some way to soak your wallet for as many packs of cards as they can.

They're not selling cards for the detachment rules.

Sure. You go right on believing in the myth of free stuff.
It's GW, trust me, they're going to try & sell you/us existing players something (beyond models) required for play.

Not quite sure where your head is at. Codexes will have more detachments as they should. Those are quite unlikely to be free.

GW goals isn't desiging perfect balance systems , it is selling models. It is like apples jobs only technicaly is making a good, but expensive, phone with an existing infrastructure of things around it. When in reality their job is to make a phone that breaks itself, and for everyone to have to buy new chargers and new everything, each 1-3 years.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Not quite sure where your head is at. Codexes will have more detachments as they should. Those are quite unlikely to be free.

I fully expect to see new unit and detachment rules in both codex, sesonal rule packs, and then in or alongside IA books. And if GW was really gready, they can under print the books, so that some majority of the people has to get the rules through Warhammer+ subscription.

Selling models is a separate task from balance as has been demonstrated multiple times unless you choose to cherry pick.

GWs skill at balance has been lacking in the past, but to me they've clearly developed tools yo help. Nevertheless it's an absurdly large setting with a ton of armies. Good luck making everything interesting and balance "perfect".

Unlike Apple every year the second hand market and printing get stronger.

This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



Honestly, i'd expect them to get pages that aren't explicitely from that regiment, but pages that fit with the established favored way they operate, and that goes for every faction.


Instead of "White scars" we'll probably get "Outrider detachment"
Instead of "Night Lords" we'll probably get "Spooky detachment"

etc.

In the index, maybe even in the marine codex probably. The index SW, BA, BT etc are going to be as flashed out as they were in the 8th ed index. But as soon as the marine factions get their own rules, GW is going to add the "Host of Angels" and "Army of the Dead" detachment to something like the BA book. They would be stupid not to do it. On top of that if they are smart, they should be adding a limited number of neutral stratagems, maybe even relics or detachments to each seson book. This could help GW with all those people that get an earlier codex, buy in to the perfect 200pts army and practicaly don't buy anything new, because anything new would just make their army worse. But a BA player who sees sesonal rules that entice the rules of bikes, heavy intercesors/aggresors etc mayb buy them, especialy if at the same time his 'regular" army just got debuffed. Happens in AoS, why shouldn't it happen in w40k too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Selling models is a separate task from balance as has been demonstrated multiple times unless you choose to cherry pick.

GWs skill at balance has been lacking in the past, but to me they've clearly developed tools yo help. Nevertheless it's an absurdly large setting with a ton of armies. Good luck making everything interesting and balance "perfect".

Unlike Apple every year the second hand market and printing get stronger.

This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.

It is not a conspiracy, do you know how hard it is for stores to order stuff from GW, when you are outside of UK/US and western europe? Years ago, GW made it so that stores couldn't order stuff from suppliers in germany. Everything has to come from GW directly. stores put orders and GW just doesn't send them, and later they tell the stores that they won't, because now the stuff is out of print. How long have been people waiting for the karskin or the Votan terminators to come back, a few months?

But in the end, who cares at worse by the time summer hits we will have the new edition and the first few codex. And then we can see how free and less bloated then 9th it is.

So supply chain issues and translation copies are evidence of a plot to get more subs?

If you think about what you said - stuff not being in stock is not getting GW more sales.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.

On what basis do you assert this? It is far more credible that a company would make a one-time order of a fixed number of print books and then let any "spillover" go into online purchases than that they would be willing to risk printing books that might not sell.

Especially in the case of GW, who is notoriously all about the profit.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.

On what basis do you assert this? It is far more credible that a company would make a one-time order of a fixed number of print books and then let any "spillover" go into online purchases than that they would be willing to risk printing books that might not sell.

Especially in the case of GW, who is notoriously all about the profit.

Could you show me how to buy a digital only codex right now?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Could you show me how to buy a digital only codex right now?

LOL, I don't even know what the current books are.

Only GW knows that A if someone uses a digital codex in eastern europe, it ain't going to be a GW official B stores know it too, and we don't have a UK web of GW stores here, so FLGS are where people play at. And those FLGS do require people to have a printed, as in GW printed, version of the army rules to play in the venu. So doing stuff like sending two codex sm to a store is not fun. And again this isn't just codex. Indomitus was , from what people said, popular in US and UK. Only there GWs sent a ton of it to stores. We got 1 (one) pallet for the entire country. And then it was out of print. Side GW games, non core stuff is impossible to order for stores here. Or often comes along side stuff like, if you want to get a 3ed army book for slaves to darkness the store has to also order two 3ed starter boxes, which no one want to buy.

This hardly is a GW only thing. WotC does the same thing with MtG

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Could you show me how to buy a digital only codex right now?

LOL, I don't even know what the current books are.

Ok then why did you support the assertion if you didn't know if it was true or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Only GW knows that A if someone uses a digital codex in eastern europe, it ain't going to be a GW official B stores know it too, and we don't have a UK web of GW stores here, so FLGS are where people play at. And those FLGS do require people to have a printed, as in GW printed, version of the army rules to play in the venu. So doing stuff like sending two codex sm to a store is not fun. And again this isn't just codex. Indomitus was , from what people said, popular in US and UK. Only there GWs sent a ton of it to stores. We got 1 (one) pallet for the entire country. And then it was out of print. Side GW games, non core stuff is impossible to order for stores here. Or often comes along side stuff like, if you want to get a 3ed army book for slaves to darkness the store has to also order two 3ed starter boxes, which no one want to buy.

This hardly is a GW only thing. WotC does the same thing with MtG

I am truly sorry that you live in a country at the end of the supply chain. Like honestly I can't imagine how how much more difficult things are in that situation.

That doesn't mean GW is intentionally trying to bleed you.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ok then why did you support the assertion if you didn't know if it was true or not?

I didn't, I asked on what basis you could assert it was a "groundless conspiracy theory."

You're the one who made the assertion, and I challenged it. If you can show me proof that GW has ample supplies of all books in all markets, I'll happily apologize.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ok then why did you support the assertion if you didn't know if it was true or not?

I didn't, I asked on what basis you could assert it was a "groundless conspiracy theory."

You're the one who made the assertion, and I challenged it. If you can show me proof that GW has ample supplies of all books in all markets, I'll happily apologize.

If GW has no way to sell the book and the book does not exist then how does it benefit them?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This notion of under printing books is another absurd conspiracy with no basis in reality.

On what basis do you assert this? It is far more credible that a company would make a one-time order of a fixed number of print books and then let any "spillover" go into online purchases than that they would be willing to risk printing books that might not sell.

Especially in the case of GW, who is notoriously all about the profit.

Could you show me how to buy a digital only codex right now?

Codex? No. But if you want a digital Liber, then they're readily available. I see no reason why they couldn't do the same for 40k as 30k.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I hope Armageddon, Cadia, Krieg, Minerva, Ventrillia, etc. also get their own 2 pages each.

Fair's fair.

And there's the prediction.