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.

When Knights get a combat patrol box, they will get something bespoke.

Looking over the Eldar, I seem alright with things. I seem to have missed a few point updates since 1.7? No worries...

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:


GW doesn't support 500 point games anymore, so if you're playing 10th edition at 500 points, it's via houserules, and at that point, no one is stopping you from saying that an Armiger counts as a character for those purposes

Thats interesting because a Warlord Titan is 3500 points, yet the largest game is a maximum of 3000 points...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
When Knights get a combat patrol box, they will get something bespoke.

I can't see it being three Armigers in a box, thats less than the other CP boxes. I'd guess that GW would have to introduce even smaller and lighter units...

 NAVARRO wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Domandi wrote:
There are a TON of changes, not only to the armies but the main rules. With this and the pariah nexus mission rules changes, it is almost a new edition.

Makes sense. that's a good thing, I guess?

So an edition lasts how long? 3 years? This update comes how long after the beginning of 10th?
I would rather they stick with something for a change theres no patience for these constant changes.

If the tournament try-hards would stop trying so hard to break the game, GW wouldn't feel the need to 'fix' it.

But, mea culpa: RIP to my Knight Rampager tank-shocking things fist-first.

 Overread wrote:
It sounds like they might be fixing the issue that Tyranids were very good at taking out infantry and marines, but borderline had only two options for heavy armour - the Tyrannofex and Zoanthropes

I'm not sure this helps. Most dangerous vehicles and monsters are T11 or more. A quick look through the Nid datasheets shows that +1S doesn't hit a whole lot of useful breakpoints for a lot of the more common Nid monsters, but maybe this will see people shift to different ones now.

Just my opinion but 40K would be better off with larger unit games being taken into a new game, much like team skirmishes were with Kill Team. We wouldn't have a Wraithlord in Kill Team, so it seems as wierd as Phantom Titans in 40K.

SamusDrake wrote:
Just my opinion but 40K would be better off with larger unit games being taken into a new game, much like team skirmishes were with Kill Team. We wouldn't have a Wraithlord in Kill Team, so it seems as wierd as Phantom Titans in 40K.

GW has done that in the past - Apocalypse is exactly that. GW has oddly not updated it in ages though, which I suspect is because its a superniche of the genre. The kind of thing the whole club plays once a year (at best for many). So not a huge money spinner. GW still updates the rules for their titans though, so you can keep up and use them, but most of the time those kind of models are not turning up to regular matches or tournaments and the like.

 LunarSol wrote:
It's very much for the Bladeguard to take a character.

Similarly the Repulsor upgrade to 14 is to let 6 man Gravis units take a character.

Cracking thank you. Never thought of a six man gravis unit in a transport. Will give it some thought now. Ta.

Slipspace wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It sounds like they might be fixing the issue that Tyranids were very good at taking out infantry and marines, but borderline had only two options for heavy armour - the Tyrannofex and Zoanthropes

I'm not sure this helps. Most dangerous vehicles and monsters are T11 or more. A quick look through the Nid datasheets shows that +1S doesn't hit a whole lot of useful breakpoints for a lot of the more common Nid monsters, but maybe this will see people shift to different ones now.

It puts several monsters onto S10, making them a threat to medium vehicles like Gladiators, Daemon Prince equivalents, and most transports. Screamer Killers can be S11, and Carnifexes S13. There's also combos like an Assimilation S11 Hive Tyrant plus S10 Tyrant Guard - both with twin-linked.

For ranged attacks there's some far more noticeable buffs. Rupture cannons become quite reliable, and lethal hits from the Hive Tyrant aura means that detachments other than Invasion can hurt tougher targets. Zoanthropes are big winners as Neurotyrants open up new buffs with their monster keyword, including hitting on 2+, Big Guns Never Tire, or Swarm-guided Salvos in Crusher Stampede.

Andykp wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's very much for the Bladeguard to take a character.

Similarly the Repulsor upgrade to 14 is to let 6 man Gravis units take a character.

Cracking thank you. Never thought of a six man gravis unit in a transport. Will give it some thought now. Ta.

Ironically GW forgot(?) to improve the capacity of the Repulsor Executioner, so now the Impulsor has a bigger transport capacity than the Repulsor Executioner...

I do think it's an oversight honestly. GW, if you're reading this, please fix in the next update.

Doesn't the Executioner give up some seats for the extra weaponry? Like a Land Raider Razorback?

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Doesn't the Executioner give up some seats for the extra weaponry? Like a Land Raider Razorback?

I was going to point that out, but a normal repulsor is now 14, impulsor is 7, and Executioner is still 6

Ok I suppose that does seem a bit low, could see it being like 8 or so.

Does anyone actually want to put 7 dudes in a RepEx? I forget the thing even has transport capacity most of the time, but that might be because I don't own one.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Does anyone actually want to put 7 dudes in a RepEx? I forget the thing even has transport capacity most of the time, but that might be because I don't own one.

Probably. Bladeguard would be the obvious answer, as they come in units of 3 or 6. Adding a Character makes seven and couldn't fit into Impulsor/RepEx previously,.

Impulsor is probably the more common ride, but adjusting the RepEx to match makes sense.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Does anyone actually want to put 7 dudes in a RepEx? I forget the thing even has transport capacity most of the time, but that might be because I don't own one.

Probably. Bladeguard would be the obvious answer, as they come in units of 3 or 6. Adding a Character makes seven and couldn't fit into Impulsor/RepEx previously,.

Impulsor is probably the more common ride, but adjusting the RepEx to match makes sense.

I get wanting it to match, but generally I want my transport to get close enough to the enemy to allow the Bladeguard to get an easy charge off. I don't want to be that close with a RepEx. Not saying it would be bad to give the RepEx an extra slot, but it doesn't seem as necessary as the Impulsor.

 Overread wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Just my opinion but 40K would be better off with larger unit games being taken into a new game, much like team skirmishes were with Kill Team. We wouldn't have a Wraithlord in Kill Team, so it seems as wierd as Phantom Titans in 40K.

GW has done that in the past - Apocalypse is exactly that. GW has oddly not updated it in ages though, which I suspect is because its a superniche of the genre. The kind of thing the whole club plays once a year (at best for many). So not a huge money spinner. GW still updates the rules for their titans though, so you can keep up and use them, but most of the time those kind of models are not turning up to regular matches or tournaments and the like.

Last time GW made Apocalypse, most people thought "whats the point?".
Apocalypse is a relic from the time of having to deal with the one FOC that allowed for only ever 3 choises of heavy support, and "super heavies" like bane blades was not possible to take in regular 40k.
Remember apocalypse also had the exotic function of "strategems" you could play out as twists and turns.
Regular 40k these days are more apocalypse than apocalypse was back in the day.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Does anyone actually want to put 7 dudes in a RepEx? I forget the thing even has transport capacity most of the time, but that might be because I don't own one.

Probably. Bladeguard would be the obvious answer, as they come in units of 3 or 6. Adding a Character makes seven and couldn't fit into Impulsor/RepEx previously,.

Impulsor is probably the more common ride, but adjusting the RepEx to match makes sense.

I get wanting it to match, but generally I want my transport to get close enough to the enemy to allow the Bladeguard to get an easy charge off. I don't want to be that close with a RepEx. Not saying it would be bad to give the RepEx an extra slot, but it doesn't seem as necessary as the Impulsor.

I find if I use my repulsor executioner as a transport it gets a bit lost, as a tank hunter it’s better off keeping away from stuff as you say. Have found as I don’t want the transport option to muddy the waters I take the gladiator instead most the time. But do like the model so still use it.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
so you have to pay to pivot now... why are they going back to making things so hard?

You already had to factor it as no part of model could move longer than M value. You couldn't deploy sideway, 90 rotate, move full M forward. That would gain distance and mean you cheat.

What change does is ease up measuring up since you don't need to figure what part of model moved longest and how far

 Fayric wrote:

 Overread wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Just my opinion but 40K would be better off with larger unit games being taken into a new game, much like team skirmishes were with Kill Team. We wouldn't have a Wraithlord in Kill Team, so it seems as wierd as Phantom Titans in 40K.

GW has done that in the past - Apocalypse is exactly that. GW has oddly not updated it in ages though, which I suspect is because its a superniche of the genre. The kind of thing the whole club plays once a year (at best for many). So not a huge money spinner. GW still updates the rules for their titans though, so you can keep up and use them, but most of the time those kind of models are not turning up to regular matches or tournaments and the like.

Last time GW made Apocalypse, most people thought "whats the point?".
Apocalypse is a relic from the time of having to deal with the one FOC that allowed for only ever 3 choises of heavy support, and "super heavies" like bane blades was not possible to take in regular 40k.
Remember apocalypse also had the exotic function of "strategems" you could play out as twists and turns.
Regular 40k these days are more apocalypse than apocalypse was back in the day.

There are other parts to Apoc as well, such as changing how damage is resolved so that you get to fire back even if you're "killed" in a turn. Which with titans and insane unit counts is almost needed otherwise whoever went first would likely win entirely and - well - no one wants to spend half a day setting things up to only end it after the first half of the first turn

Then there's things like formation movement trays and so forth that come along with an update and are in the rules and so forth.


I do agree, it is a limited appeal system and a "once a year at the club" kind of thing; not something you play regularly. So even if you need the rules you might only need one copy for the whole club rather than everyone having one; but its still a worthwhile system to take the games into huge huge huge battles in a slightly more practical manner.

The strategems in 1st edition Apocalypse made so much more sense than the current paradigm since 8th edition though. They actually felt like key operational/strategic resources a commander could lobby for access to in a battle. Like a scheduled artillery fire mission or a shield generator or a general staff for better command and control.

Rather than a unit apparently carrying meltabombs but only able to use them if the commander decides it is worth their political capital... or a tank suddenly remembering they can fire twice as quick actually, but again only if the commander thinks it is worth lobbying for right now...

You also chose them at the start of the game, rather than deciding in the spur of the moment that XYZ is useful, actually.

Surely it would be a lot easier to test the true 40k wargamer talents of tournament players to make a more static, balanced and non list-built (Actually making them all play the same army would be even more effective as a test of their prowess) Combat Patrol or something like it the basis of their games and leave mainline 40k alone. (It would also make the matches more palatable for spectators since they'd have an easier time understanding what's going on. I only mention because GW seems to really want to make these games spectator events) Rather than have Combat Patrol act as a kind of safe haven from all these balance updates for players playing strangers not in a tournament setting. (I know that's not it's only purpose, it exists due to new players being confused in a post-FoC situation and also acts a way to get vets and new players alike to get a foothold into armies and thus encourage more sales)

In a similar way to how things used to be with points and rules differences between Tournament 40k and non-Tournament 40k before GW insisted on taking more involvement and control over the tournament scene and hiring those guys from North America (I presume competitive 40k evolved there due to lower concentrations of players and thus more of a culture of playing strangers at LGS) to be in it's rules dev team. Attempts to harmonise the rules between the two mean the bulk of the players who never experience the problems the updates try to "fix" are at the mercy of what new autistic schemes come from 40k's Lance Armstrongs and having to make the letter and spirit of the rules match or close off things nobody but said Lance Armstrong types would ever think to exploit. As well as an unthinking assumption that perfect correct balance is either achievable or desirable (Or worth the downsides of constant rules changes) or even that the stats from the tournaments of win rates are an infallible metric of it.

And potential players (Both new and lapsed older players) from the outside are going to see all this LoL style stuff and be turned off or think the game is more complicated than it is. It's surely not possible to tell those people "Don't worry, they've fixed all the problems they won't do this again".

I don't think GW thinks they can "let go" of the tournament scene and trying to balance the rules around their meta given that platforms like YouTube mean a lot of new players are socialised into meta-chasing. It'd be much nicer to let them just go and come up with their consensus of rules based on the nature of how the game is played by themselves. So given that, it'd be a nice compromise to make a Combat Patrol standard for the big competitive tournaments. Broken list builders would be upset but it's from them that a lot of the problems have always come. Plus it'd make the barriers for entry into tournaments much lower making situations like certain guys winning so much because they have the money and insane mentality to buy the new most broken army every year a lot rarer. You could add some variety and list building by having one or two units being optionally replaced by some others it doesn't have to be either or. Another major advantage of this system is the battles would also be smaller and faster, making it more desirable as a spectator event and to organise. It would also make it easier than ever to do doubles tournaments and other non-1v1 formats like that.

The issue is still that GW wants to make 40k be everything to everyone, but it's not a good game at all so barely serviceable as a competitive game and a narrative/casual game.

A truer test of their skills would be more diverse missions and randomised allocations of roles in those missions. Hold outs/beachhead assaults where all objectives are in one deployment zone and the defender needs to defend them and the attacker, attack and capture them. Capture the flag, board/terrain design where tanks can only fit on a road or two on the board for some missions. I dislike the clinical nature of board design in modern 40k. I get the flip side of it though, tournament organisers don't want the chop and change as it is expensive to do, at which point GW should heavily subsidise tournament organisers when they buy terrain.

Whilst many players may hate the above because they cannot plan for it, that is completely the point... A tournament should not be won on list building and reliance on standard dice rolling with the only real reactions/decision making being choosing when to use your stratagems (a massive simplification as accurate movement is also a skill required).

Trading has become a huge part of modern 40k and it is so against established lore for most factions (whilst being the MO of others)... Someone should design a system in tournaments that incorporates an element of attrition.

 Overread wrote:

There are other parts to Apoc as well, such as changing how damage is resolved so that you get to fire back even if you're "killed" in a turn. Which with titans and insane unit counts is almost needed otherwise whoever went first would likely win entirely and - well - no one wants to spend half a day setting things up to only end it after the first half of the first turn

That's only in the nuApocalypse which uses Epic as base rules. The previous versions played exactly like the concurrent editions of 40K and had no such mechanics, so most times you sat around for an hour waiting for the other side to resolve their massive turn while just picking up your own models.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
A truer test of their skills would be more diverse missions and randomised allocations of roles in those missions. Hold outs/beachhead assaults where all objectives are in one deployment zone and the defender needs to defend them and the attacker, attack and capture them. Capture the flag, board/terrain design where tanks can only fit on a road or two on the board for some missions. I dislike the clinical nature of board design in modern 40k. I get the flip side of it though, tournament organisers don't want the chop and change as it is expensive to do, at which point GW should heavily subsidise tournament organisers when they buy terrain.

Whilst many players may hate the above because they cannot plan for it, that is completely the point... A tournament should not be won on list building and reliance on standard dice rolling with the only real reactions/decision making being choosing when to use your stratagems (a massive simplification as accurate movement is also a skill required).
.

TOTALLY agree!

I'm a casual player, but your idea nails it for me!

8th Apocalypse was better 40k than... 40k. It's a damn shame that it flopped, which I suppose was because it was basically a whole new game in which you happened to use your 40k models, rather than an 'expansion' addon like it was in 4th/6th.

Nonetheless I had a lot more fun with the 8th Apocalypse ruleset than any of the recent 40k editions - which ironically (as others have pointed out) is now a lot closer to what Apocalypse used to be when Super-Heavies (whole armies of them even) are now expected rather than the exception.

 Arbitrator wrote:
8th Apocalypse was better 40k than... 40k. It's a damn shame that it flopped, which I suppose was because it was basically a whole new game in which you happened to use your 40k models, rather than an 'expansion' addon like it was in 4th/6th.

Nonetheless I had a lot more fun with the 8th Apocalypse ruleset than any of the recent 40k editions - which ironically (as others have pointed out) is now a lot closer to what Apocalypse used to be when Super-Heavies (whole armies of them even) are now expected rather than the exception.

I wish more people had played it with 40k sized armies. Most people assumed you had to play with unreasonably sized armies when it worked quite well at 2k.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
A truer test of their skills would be more diverse missions and randomised allocations of roles in those missions. Hold outs/beachhead assaults where all objectives are in one deployment zone and the defender needs to defend them and the attacker, attack and capture them. Capture the flag, board/terrain design where tanks can only fit on a road or two on the board for some missions. I dislike the clinical nature of board design in modern 40k. I get the flip side of it though, tournament organisers don't want the chop and change as it is expensive to do, at which point GW should heavily subsidise tournament organisers when they buy terrain.

You could also do this but have them switch roles and judge from some criteria using the results of both. Reminds me of the way Unreal Tournament used to have the assault/defend game mode where each team played a round in each role in a completely asymmetric map and set of objectives.

Actually it would be really cool if they went out of their way to have a proper cool themed table for the final match instead of the sad little world of L-shaped terrain. It's simply not good to watch the Nova broadcasts no matter how much esports effort they put into it. Generally a lot of people seem to try different things to make battle reports most entertaining.

This guy seems to have it right as the comments attest. Prior to the likes of Critical Role in Japan there was the cool world of people writing up their DnD campaigns in narrative form. And just like how nobody succeeds really in being as good as the somewhat fake Critical Role with most real recordings of a DnD session being horrible to watch, the same could be said for a lot of battle reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIj-tzaf0U

 LunarSol wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
8th Apocalypse was better 40k than... 40k. It's a damn shame that it flopped, which I suppose was because it was basically a whole new game in which you happened to use your 40k models, rather than an 'expansion' addon like it was in 4th/6th.

Nonetheless I had a lot more fun with the 8th Apocalypse ruleset than any of the recent 40k editions - which ironically (as others have pointed out) is now a lot closer to what Apocalypse used to be when Super-Heavies (whole armies of them even) are now expected rather than the exception.

I wish more people had played it with 40k sized armies. Most people assumed you had to play with unreasonably sized armies when it worked quite well at 2k.

totally agree...
I couldn't get any of the local guys to try it even...
(even with me having all the rules and cards... they'd just need their figures)

 NOLA Chris wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
8th Apocalypse was better 40k than... 40k. It's a damn shame that it flopped, which I suppose was because it was basically a whole new game in which you happened to use your 40k models, rather than an 'expansion' addon like it was in 4th/6th.

Nonetheless I had a lot more fun with the 8th Apocalypse ruleset than any of the recent 40k editions - which ironically (as others have pointed out) is now a lot closer to what Apocalypse used to be when Super-Heavies (whole armies of them even) are now expected rather than the exception.

I wish more people had played it with 40k sized armies. Most people assumed you had to play with unreasonably sized armies when it worked quite well at 2k.

totally agree...
I couldn't get any of the local guys to try it even...
(even with me having all the rules and cards... they'd just need their figures)

+1 for 8th Ed. Apocalypse. The most fun “40k” games I’ve played in a long time. I still have my set and expansion cards pack. It’s kind of sad how this was left to wither on the vine, while the most recent editions of 40k did not take any of the great rule concepts from this ruleset.