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.

Played 11th today and all the new rules worked pretty much as advertised, hidden to play much part but we were both pretty aggressive. Battleshock really mattered and the new objectives played totally different. Cover felt impactful and it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

Stocking secondaries made the game feel more joined up, the armies didn’t just lurch from one thing to another they manoeuvred and set things up for the next turn and stuff.

It was good and felt like an evolution of 10th. Nothing seems to have gotten worse for me only better.

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree. Tripples of units only appeared in two cases.
Either it was due to something extremely powerful (DG demon engines, defilers, ork tankbustas), or when a codex simply has no other options for a specific role.

What has changed that GW now has a tool to nuke those massive imbalances without destroying perfectly fine lists which used some unit as part of their strategy, rather than have the whole army revolve around it.

The best example here was the PBC - nerfed into oblivion by a massiv point raise, there was zero reason to ever field it, you could have two other demon engines with more firepower for the same price. With the current implementation the first PBC is back to its old cost, so any DG player who wants to run one PBC can do so without kneecapping themselves, but anyone who wants to have reliable indirect fire support needs to pay the full price for it.

Or theme lists. My Full Company list has triples of two different BATTLE LINE units. My Spear of Macragge list had (at that time legal) more than Triples of the Razorback Dedicated Transport. First Company Lists can/will have Triples of Terminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think Force Org is a good idea, but GW's categories were bunk and fairly arbitrary

It would be really interesting if they took after 30k's example and expanded the categories.

Not necessarily took after the whole system 30k has. But it's useful to have Heavy Transport separate from Armour since they don't necessarily fill much the same role at all.

Force Org that doesn't modify itself based on a theme list is what makes Force Org fail. Many editions ago if you took Sammael Ravenwing became TROOPS and if you took Belial Terminators became TROOPS. That did not help if you werent playing Dark Angels. Or if you wanted to play a generic HQ. They were STARTING down that path with alternate Force Org Charts, but then got rid of Force Org entirely splitting army creation from Force Org Everything to Pick Whatever, and Add a Det on top. Of the two, the second is better if you want to see variety (though variety still requires multiple distinct AND viable builds).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

ccs wrote:

In what world is running 2+ GK Thunderhawks problematic? Let alone even a thing.

Looks like everything over a certain threshhold got it by default. Mostly this seems to be done to prevent certain threshholds like too many Knights or Stompas, but they all seem to have a pretty consistent 10ish% tax on the second.

Sadly that doesn't make it better. Its for balance, but we didn't actually check to see if it needed balance isn't a good look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think a better modern incarnation would be something like a Category keyword where like Gladiator would be a Category you can only take 3 of or something.

Great suggestion! We could call that Category "Heavy Support"?

I suspect this was more about tanks (for Space Marines) being in the Chapter Armoury and not necessarily a permanent part of the Company. When I read it I read it as a KEYWORD like AUXILLIARY - The Tanks, Speeders, and so on that a Company "checks out" from the Chapter. The keyword doesn't really matter its the application. I know AUXILIARRY contextually doesn't really work for Nids and other armies, but you get the premise at least.

On the Force Org chart - I think by 6th, at the latest, army rosters had generally expanded to the point that certain slots were overfilled if you stuck to the SM-themed force org options. Elites often seemed to just end up being a catch-all slot for anything that didn't fit elsewhere.

What I suspect would've been a better idea would've been to borrowed a concept from SM/TL and have, effectively, factional force org charts in each Codex, where the slots (other than HQ, Fortification and maybe Dedicated Transport) were more thematic for that army, and allow the ratios to be different for different forces.

Still keep the idea that an army has a structure, and limits on how much "flashy" stuff there is compared to the real guts of an army (so an army looks roughly in line with what would be expected in-setting), but allow for Tyranid swarms to be built in a different manner to a SM Company (which is arguably where the original Force Org chart derives from) which in turn would be different to a Dark Eldar raiding party.

Breton wrote:

Force Org that doesn't modify itself based on a theme list is what makes Force Org fail. Many editions ago if you took Sammael Ravenwing became TROOPS and if you took Belial Terminators became TROOPS. That did not help if you werent playing Dark Angels. Or if you wanted to play a generic HQ. They were STARTING down that path with alternate Force Org Charts, but then got rid of Force Org entirely splitting army creation from Force Org Everything to Pick Whatever, and Add a Det on top. Of the two, the second is better if you want to see variety (though variety still requires multiple distinct AND viable builds).

Quite the contrary I think where the force org failed was every man and his dog had exceptions that let them spam the miserable skew anyway.
Any army of Leman Russ doesn't become more fun to play against just because you say it's an armoured company. And army of bikes isn't any less spammy just because you paint them white or black.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Creating an area denial is a legit tactic though.

Not even beardy either, and I suspect with some missions in 11th we're going to WANT to do things like this.

It's patently ridiculous. When was the last time you read a Tyranid novel where the Hormagaunts swarm into the Imperial advance only to promptly take a nap half a metre away from the Imperial line because there's an invisible no-walky force field around them? And then stay there the whole battle if the opponent isn't willing to commit the firepower to overkilling them?

The next Tyranid novel I read will be the 1st, so....

As to my grants doing that?
I'm the Hivemind. Those giants will do as i tell them to do.

Andykp wrote:
it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

I played a game yesterday - and it was mostly good. But this was the biggest miss for me.
I'm not quite sure what people complaining about the previous ludonarrative dissonance of circles were hoping for - but I sort of doubt it was "this".

Sure you can argue pushing more OC within 3" of an uinteractive magic disk was a bit stupid.
But in this edition you can have say 5 terminators standing in the centre of the central objective. You'd imagine they were holding that ruined church/factory/magical forest - for whatever reasons you can imagine.
But... I can have 5 wyches whose bases are just touching a corner of the area. Which somehow means I control the 92 square inch objective - even though they obviously "don't". They aren't even meaningfully in it.
As a result rather than some cinematic fight over a vital terrain piece, it became "the battle to keep people off the pavement outside".

Its a game - I'm not that broken up about it. But for people upset about Hormagants movement blocking? Feel it might be an issue.
In fact I'd predict that toe-in mechanics (for both objective scoring and drawing line of sight) are going to be a significant source of discontent. Partly because it always has been.

By the way, are new points available somewhere?

People seem to be talking about them but I couldn't see them in the Downloads section on WHC.

Tyel wrote:

Andykp wrote:
it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

I played a game yesterday - and it was mostly good. But this was the biggest miss for me.
I'm not quite sure what people complaining about the previous ludonarrative dissonance of circles were hoping for - but I sort of doubt it was "this".

Sure you can argue pushing more OC within 3" of an uinteractive magic disk was a bit stupid.
But in this edition you can have say 5 terminators standing in the centre of the central objective. You'd imagine they were holding that ruined church/factory/magical forest - for whatever reasons you can imagine.
But... I can have 5 wyches whose bases are just touching a corner of the area. Which somehow means I control the 92 square inch objective - even though they obviously "don't". They aren't even meaningfully in it.
As a result rather than some cinematic fight over a vital terrain piece, it became "the battle to keep people off the pavement outside".

Its a game - I'm not that broken up about it. But for people upset about Hormagants movement blocking? Feel it might be an issue.
In fact I'd predict that toe-in mechanics (for both objective scoring and drawing line of sight) are going to be a significant source of discontent. Partly because it always has been.

I've not been able to get into a game yet, but I had already started printing out small terrain pieces that would make great objective markers, a computer console, a half-buried un-exploded rocket, etc. I don't understand this magic circle thing of previous editions when a tiny piece of terrain is all that needed to have it make sense.

As you just noted, they should have specified that units must be in the objective walls or something, not just touching the edige. At least then it would feel more like holding a position. Guess it could be house-ruled that way though.

 vipoid wrote:
By the way, are new points available somewhere?

People seem to be talking about them but I couldn't see them in the Downloads section on WHC.

https://mfm.warhammer-community.com/en

Its online now. Or int he App I guess.

Tyel wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
By the way, are new points available somewhere?

People seem to be talking about them but I couldn't see them in the Downloads section on WHC.

https://mfm.warhammer-community.com/en

Its online now.

Many thanks.

Tyel wrote:
Or int he App I guess.

It'll be a cold day in Hell.

Andykp wrote:Played 11th today and all the new rules worked pretty much as advertised, hidden to play much part but we were both pretty aggressive. Battleshock really mattered and the new objectives played totally different. Cover felt impactful and it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

Stocking secondaries made the game feel more joined up, the armies didn’t just lurch from one thing to another they manoeuvred and set things up for the next turn and stuff.

It was good and felt like an evolution of 10th. Nothing seems to have gotten worse for me only better.

Good to hear! Hoping to get my first game in next week. How did the changes to Battleshock end up mattering for you?

Tyel wrote:

Andykp wrote:
it felt like we’re fighting over objectives not just standing on circles.

I played a game yesterday - and it was mostly good. But this was the biggest miss for me.
I'm not quite sure what people complaining about the previous ludonarrative dissonance of circles were hoping for - but I sort of doubt it was "this".

Sure you can argue pushing more OC within 3" of an uinteractive magic disk was a bit stupid.
But in this edition you can have say 5 terminators standing in the centre of the central objective. You'd imagine they were holding that ruined church/factory/magical forest - for whatever reasons you can imagine.
But... I can have 5 wyches whose bases are just touching a corner of the area. Which somehow means I control the 92 square inch objective - even though they obviously "don't". They aren't even meaningfully in it.
As a result rather than some cinematic fight over a vital terrain piece, it became "the battle to keep people off the pavement outside".

Its a game - I'm not that broken up about it. But for people upset about Hormagants movement blocking? Feel it might be an issue.
In fact I'd predict that toe-in mechanics (for both objective scoring and drawing line of sight) are going to be a significant source of discontent. Partly because it always has been.

I feel like I'm misisng something. Isn't this pretty much the same issue you'd have had with wyches putting their toes on the edges of a magic circle? Or is the issue that the terrain piece is larger than a magic circle would have been, so the wyches are holding the objective while being nowhere near the terminators?

If that's the issue, then it sounds like we traded the weirdness of controlling a magic circle by standing right in front of the terminators for the weirdness of controlling it while being down the hall. And I'm not sure that's really a downgrade? Weird, sure, but not more weird than controlling an objective by chanting, "I'm not touching youuuuuuu," while having OC2 to the enemy's OC1.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Breton wrote:

Force Org that doesn't modify itself based on a theme list is what makes Force Org fail. Many editions ago if you took Sammael Ravenwing became TROOPS and if you took Belial Terminators became TROOPS. That did not help if you werent playing Dark Angels. Or if you wanted to play a generic HQ. They were STARTING down that path with alternate Force Org Charts, but then got rid of Force Org entirely splitting army creation from Force Org Everything to Pick Whatever, and Add a Det on top. Of the two, the second is better if you want to see variety (though variety still requires multiple distinct AND viable builds).

Quite the contrary I think where the force org failed was every man and his dog had exceptions that let them spam the miserable skew anyway.
Any army of Leman Russ doesn't become more fun to play against just because you say it's an armoured company. And army of bikes isn't any less spammy just because you paint them white or black.

You mean as opposed to spamming the same infantry list everyone else will copy too?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel like I'm misisng something. Isn't this pretty much the same issue you'd have had with wyches putting their toes on the edges of a magic circle? Or is the issue that the terrain piece is larger than a magic circle would have been, so the wyches are holding the objective while being nowhere near the terminators?

If that's the issue, then it sounds like we traded the weirdness of controlling a magic circle by standing right in front of the terminators for the weirdness of controlling it while being down the hall. And I'm not sure that's really a downgrade? Weird, sure, but not more weird than controlling an objective by chanting, "I'm not touching youuuuuuu," while having OC2 to the enemy's OC1.

Yes that's the issue. The point is that you are not "down the hall". You are not even in the building.
Your feet just grazing the pavement outside.

I mean I'm about to go to the shops. It seems weird for me (with my massive OC!) to "control" the supermarket... while still standing in the car park outside.

Now you can say "I don't care, its just swapping one gamey mechanic for another" - and that's fine, its my position in practice, but my point is GW presumably wanted something more.
I had been (perhaps naively) imagining some attractional fight where both armies would feed units into terrain peices - and so they'd appear to be fighting over them. And I guess they still can - but they don't have to (and its probably competitively better not to). They just brush the edge of the area, rather than meaningfully occupy it.

Is this a situation, Tyel, where "unit wholly within" the terrain template rather than "unit within" would have been a better fit for you, in terms of verisimilitude?

 Dysartes wrote:
Is this a situation, Tyel, where "unit wholly within" the terrain template rather than "unit within" would have been a better fit for you, in terms of verisimilitude?

I don't know. I think that distinction often just leads to arguments.

Could this matter not be fixed by having the sides of the build also be the sides of the terrain marker? So, by virtue of being on the marker, you're actually in the building?