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.

Is it absolutely necessary for one player to play Orks to organize a narrative campaign or are the missions designed in such a way that any faction will do?

 Esmer wrote:
Is it absolutely necessary for one player to play Orks to organize a narrative campaign or are the missions designed in such a way that any faction will do?

IIRC from what they stated, it has like "factions" that very roughly correspond to Imperial/Chaos/Xenos, no mention of specific armies.

 Esmer wrote:
Is it absolutely necessary for one player to play Orks to organize a narrative campaign or are the missions designed in such a way that any faction will do?

Its basically just a new campaign system, any forces can be used, and players divide themselves into rough alliances, then play games using the deck to provide your next objectives, rewards etc.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/8wi6x7nq/new40k-points-apps-and-updates-incoming/

Points and app update Wednesday.

The real news is GW explaining (in detail!) why point changes were made

 xttz wrote:
The real news is GW explaining (in detail!) why point changes were made

Like throwing darts at the board, knee-jerk reactions, or the sales people wanting move more kits wasn’t enough?

The point about some units costing more to field if you're bringing more than one of them is interesting - I can't think of another game that has that mechanic.

It's an interesting way to get around the lack of a FoC and where Rule of Three might not do all you want in restricting certain units.

The idea is fairly sound in that sometimes 1 of a thing is good; but 3 of a thing is even better so in theory taking more does amplify their impact on a game.

It's interesting since we are very used to larger infantry units often going down in points to encourage taking fewer bigger units over taking lots of smaller ones.


Of course like most GW balance; having a good idea is one thing; how it pans out over 3 years is another matter entirely.




I do notice that a LOT of units are going up in points; which hints that perhaps GW are pushing for smaller numbers of models on table this edition.

Hoping that having SOME upgrades cost points indicates that 12th's hard reset will just go back to ALL weapon upgrades costing points. Weapon options for free just don't work in 40k.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/n5pspedx/new-warhammer-40000-battleforces-revealed/

Do those actually look like decent ballanced forces? What’s going on here?

Kinda tempted by the necron one, but i’m not a fan of 2 of the units in there.

Four new battle forces announced.

Guard, Necrons, Chaos and Nids.

Wonder if these might be a hint at early codexes for 11th Ed?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/n5pspedx/new-warhammer-40000-battleforces-revealed/

I wonder where the price point will be at.
Old Nid models are showing their age, kind of a turn off.

Astra Militarum getting an early codex in a new edition? Surely not!

Battleforce boxes seem to be all the rage with GW these days. Nice discounts I guess, if you want all the models in the box.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Four new battle forces announced.

Guard, Necrons, Chaos and Nids.

Wonder if these might be a hint at early codexes for 11th Ed?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/n5pspedx/new-warhammer-40000-battleforces-revealed/

I doubt it, I think those are probably the four best selling non-loyalist Space Marine armies for 40k, and that's why they get the skus.

The rumour from Valrak was that the first codexes were Marines, Orks, Tau and Custodes FWIW.

As for the boxes themselves, these seem pretty good for new players. Heck the Necron one seems pretty good all round.

 Overread wrote:
The idea is fairly sound in that sometimes 1 of a thing is good; but 3 of a thing is even better so in theory taking more does amplify their impact on a game.

Not really convinced by this. I feel its been said for many editions now - and usually its just a sign that the unit is undercosted at its base.

A defiler is good because it costs 250 points and should probably cost around 300. (Maybe not World Eaters.)
Which in turn means 3 defilers are "even better" because you are paying 750 points for something which should be 900.
By contrast if a Defiler was 400 points I think most would accept it would be inefficient. You aren't getting enough. And 3 defilers would be even worse at 1200 points.
The abilities of the unit haven't changed, its just whether its above or below some sort of "real points" line.

Would for example 1 Land Raider be fine, but 3 suddenly start breaking the competitive scene? I can't see it.
Compared to previous eras, I don't think 10th was really defined by spam (or maxing out your 3 anyway). Except when GW has clearly got it obviously wrong - so the more you buy the more you save.

Repointing options will be interesting. FWIW I really hope they don't go down to sergeant equipment or random flamers in infantry squads.
But I think its more reasonable on monsters/tanks with 2-3 weapon options that clearly change the role of the unit.
In some respects I wish GW would finally just embrace the fact the codexes are functionally toast, and change rules for weapons that clearly suck rather than trying to fix it with points.
If for example you were to take say an Exorcist, how low would you need to go to the point where the Conflagration Rocket Launcher is a "choice"? 150? 120? Less?
The Riptide is sort of in a similar boat. You have the pretty rare 6 S10 AP-3 4 damage shots. Or 12 S6 AP-1 2 damage shots. That's better than the Exorcist (into MEQ anyway) - but still seems like a bit of an output gap. The Heavy Burst Cannon is just not great even into the preferred target. Not sure saving say 20 points changes that.

Always keen to bring back Dissie Ravagers - but I don't think they ever really went anywhere. Its just that they serve a purpose you don't really need - whereas nothing Rhino sized or higher likes getting dark lances to the face.

If they are changing a lot (which is what it sounds like) I worry things are going to be quite unmoored from reality for a few months. I'm sort of cynical that GW does any material playtesting at all. I don't think there was any evidence of that in 10th anyway.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I wonder where the price point will be at.
Old Nid models are showing their age, kind of a turn off.

The warriors and the tyrant are not that bad. IMHO. Not as nice as the new stuff, but I think they’ve aged well.

The old gants that got replaced? Those were showing their age a lot worse.

 Nevelon wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I wonder where the price point will be at.
Old Nid models are showing their age, kind of a turn off.

The warriors and the tyrant are not that bad. IMHO. Not as nice as the new stuff, but I think they’ve aged well.

The old gants that got replaced? Those were showing their age a lot worse.

Yeah the Tyrant and the Warriors are the only "old" kits in that and the warriors have had at least one or two updates over the years with additions. They stand up well and are both very modular kits with lots of build options

 Overread wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I wonder where the price point will be at.
Old Nid models are showing their age, kind of a turn off.

The warriors and the tyrant are not that bad. IMHO. Not as nice as the new stuff, but I think they’ve aged well.

The old gants that got replaced? Those were showing their age a lot worse.

Yeah the Tyrant and the Warriors are the only "old" kits in that and the warriors have had at least one or two updates over the years with additions. They stand up well and are both very modular kits with lots of build options

I can only hope that those "lots of build options" actually have differences in the rules again.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I wonder where the price point will be at.
Old Nid models are showing their age, kind of a turn off.

The warriors and the tyrant are not that bad. IMHO. Not as nice as the new stuff, but I think they’ve aged well.

The old gants that got replaced? Those were showing their age a lot worse.

Yeah the Tyrant and the Warriors are the only "old" kits in that and the warriors have had at least one or two updates over the years with additions. They stand up well and are both very modular kits with lots of build options

I can only hope that those "lots of build options" actually have differences in the rules again.

With GW bringing back points for some upgrades, this may actually happen. Fingers crossed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Four new battle forces announced.

Guard, Necrons, Chaos and Nids.

Wonder if these might be a hint at early codexes for 11th Ed?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/n5pspedx/new-warhammer-40000-battleforces-revealed/

From what I read the roadmap is:

marines, orks, tyranids, death guard, votann. No order given (presumably marines/orks as #1 and #2)

Chaos Battleforce is basically the same as the other one but they replaced the Rhino with 10 cultists. They must really want to get rid of the excess Obliterator/Venomcrawler/Lord Disco stock.

Billicus wrote:
The point about some units costing more to field if you're bringing more than one of them is interesting - I can't think of another game that has that mechanic.

I've seen it in a few games, off the top of my head older editions of Bot War increased the cost of units that were allowed to be brought multiple times by 1 point per duplicate(armies typically were 100 points). So as an example, a base of Infantry would be 5 points, the 2nd copy would be 6 points, a 3rd 7 points, etc.

Billicus wrote:
The point about some units costing more to field if you're bringing more than one of them is interesting - I can't think of another game that has that mechanic.

We already have a sister mechanic in units that have different per-model costs depending on how big it is. This has been a thing in both older and newer editions, but it's more readily visible in 10th/11th because of the simplified structure.

For example, a Nemesis Claw is 110 points for the first 5 models, and then 80 points more if you want to add 5 more models to the unit. This is because the unit's typical battlefield role isn't linearly benefitting from being larger than it is by default.

This is essentially the opposite to the Defiler problem where the Defilers get stronger the more you have of them. One Defiler is potent but it's just one model. Three together can very quickly eliminate key targets so they can run rampage, allowing them to become greater than the sum of their parts.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The point about some units costing more to field if you're bringing more than one of them is interesting - I can't think of another game that has that mechanic.

We already have a sister mechanic in units that have different per-model costs depending on how big it is. This has been a thing in both older and newer editions, but it's more readily visible in 10th/11th because of the simplified structure.

For example, a Nemesis Claw is 110 points for the first 5 models, and then 80 points more if you want to add 5 more models to the unit. This is because the unit's typical battlefield role isn't linearly benefitting from being larger than it is by default.

This is essentially the opposite to the Defiler problem where the Defilers get stronger the more you have of them. One Defiler is potent but it's just one model. Three together can very quickly eliminate key targets so they can run rampage, allowing them to become greater than the sum of their parts.

Legions gives a Discount as you add more to a detachment. But there? Due to the order system it reflects the more eggs you put in one basket, the less flexibility you have.

For example. I can field say, 9 Predators as a single unit, 1 of 3 and 1 of 6, or 3 of 1. The single unit concentrates firepower nicely, but can only receive a single order. When I start splitting them in to smaller units? Each gets its own order, and so I can get a lot craftier.

Yes. HH2.0 with its vehicle squadrons did the same thing. Two vehicles in a squadron were much weaker than two apart, for many reasons.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah the Tyrant and the Warriors are the only "old" kits in that and the warriors have had at least one or two updates over the years with additions. They stand up well and are both very modular kits with lots of build options

I can only hope that those "lots of build options" actually have differences in the rules again.

All the Tyrant weapons have rules, and all the Warrior ranged weapons have rules. It's just the Warrior melee weapons that got squashed into a generic profile, and all the not-in-the-kit options for Tyrants were removed in 9th.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The point about some units costing more to field if you're bringing more than one of them is interesting - I can't think of another game that has that mechanic.

We already have a sister mechanic in units that have different per-model costs depending on how big it is. This has been a thing in both older and newer editions, but it's more readily visible in 10th/11th because of the simplified structure.

For example, a Nemesis Claw is 110 points for the first 5 models, and then 80 points more if you want to add 5 more models to the unit. This is because the unit's typical battlefield role isn't linearly benefitting from being larger than it is by default.

This is essentially the opposite to the Defiler problem where the Defilers get stronger the more you have of them. One Defiler is potent but it's just one model. Three together can very quickly eliminate key targets so they can run rampage, allowing them to become greater than the sum of their parts.

Also worth noting that 1 Defiler is considerably easier to kill than 3. With 1, an average list's antitank options can probably focus it down pretty well. With 3, those are likely to be rather dead before they can kill the 2nd, let alone 3rd. I think it'll be less relevant in Knights, as the entire point of the faction is "Look at all the big stuff," but dual chaingun Despoilers can be an issue, so who knows.

Tyel wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The idea is fairly sound in that sometimes 1 of a thing is good; but 3 of a thing is even better so in theory taking more does amplify their impact on a game.

Not really convinced by this. I feel its been said for many editions now - and usually its just a sign that the unit is undercosted at its base.

Points really don't work as an absolute value. They're more like an economy, with relative value shifting constantly depending on the state of the meta. Point adjustments tend to be more about adjusting the shape of the meta than providing true parity and this system is really just a means to tap down some things that are out of hand without pushing the unit out entirely. Getting the points "right" is less important than having a way to punish specific builds without too much collateral damage.

Yes. The goal of a points system isn't perfect balance, that's impossible. The goal is to make no build feel like shooting yourself in the foot on purpose (unless you -are- purposely building a nonsense army for the bit).

This is also what wargear points help with, by the way. People will always identify the best loadout and run that. Always have, always will. But points adjustments allow you to throw a bone to the off-meta choices, so your Shredder Scourges feel like just an odd pick instead of blatantly trolling the opponent.

Laughing Man wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The point about some units costing more to field if you're bringing more than one of them is interesting - I can't think of another game that has that mechanic.

We already have a sister mechanic in units that have different per-model costs depending on how big it is. This has been a thing in both older and newer editions, but it's more readily visible in 10th/11th because of the simplified structure.

For example, a Nemesis Claw is 110 points for the first 5 models, and then 80 points more if you want to add 5 more models to the unit. This is because the unit's typical battlefield role isn't linearly benefitting from being larger than it is by default.

This is essentially the opposite to the Defiler problem where the Defilers get stronger the more you have of them. One Defiler is potent but it's just one model. Three together can very quickly eliminate key targets so they can run rampage, allowing them to become greater than the sum of their parts.

Also worth noting that 1 Defiler is considerably easier to kill than 3. With 1, an average list's antitank options can probably focus it down pretty well. With 3, those are likely to be rather dead before they can kill the 2nd, let alone 3rd. I think it'll be less relevant in Knights, as the entire point of the faction is "Look at all the big stuff," but dual chaingun Despoilers can be an issue, so who knows.

This. Any skew can get to a point where it will overwhelm a balanced army’s ability to deal with it.

One defiler should be well within an army’s ability to deal with if playing well (and not too unlucky). Two is somewhat more difficult and three overwhelming (and means they can’t deal with anything else).

The whole is more valuable than the sum of its parts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Four new battle forces announced.

Guard, Necrons, Chaos and Nids.

Wonder if these might be a hint at early codexes for 11th Ed?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/n5pspedx/new-warhammer-40000-battleforces-revealed/

Or conversely perhaps those they don’t intend to touch for a while so there isn’t a new models battle force in the works.

Wayniac wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Four new battle forces announced.

Guard, Necrons, Chaos and Nids.

Wonder if these might be a hint at early codexes for 11th Ed?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/n5pspedx/new-warhammer-40000-battleforces-revealed/

From what I read the roadmap is:

marines, orks, tyranids, death guard, votann. No order given (presumably marines/orks as #1 and #2)

Chaos Battleforce is basically the same as the other one but they replaced the Rhino with 10 cultists. They must really want to get rid of the excess Obliterator/Venomcrawler/Lord Disco stock.

Where did you read that as the first released codices?
Seems very strange as Death Guard and Votann were some of the last released in 10th, so would be strange them getting of the first this edition. DG in particular are only a year old