Switch Theme:

Incursion Nephilim?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

It looks like GW has finally fixed their sizing issues for Incursion games.

With all the changes, how viable would an Incursion circuit be?

From the whole competitive side, faster games, easier to stream, etc in terms of the whole eSports angle.

Obviously the meta and tricks would be very different from 2k games. Maybe that's the best part.

Anyway, just having a random thought, as I have a huge preference for smaller games.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





I feel like the smaller point size makes it much more susceptible to skew lists which would heavily effect balance, likely in a negative way
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Playing with 2 units and and almost an HQ or 1.5 unit unit and and HQ and having left over points is not very fun.

Also as Ordana said, gigantic skews. Which generates the need to buy more models, which then generates the want to actualy use them, culminating in starting to play more then 1000pts games.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I personally feel 1k-1500 is the sweet spot. I think for an Incursion type tournament you'd need to have a way to reign in skews. E.g. no superheavies (which yes, screws over Knight players but feth 'em). Maybe force Patrol/Battalion only as the detachment? Either way you'd need to have adjustments to try and reign in the degenerate lists.

I'd love to see them gain more traction. A lot IMHO can be done with 1000 points. I'm still bummed 1500 isn't "standard" still as it seems in a better place than 2000 anyway.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/08/09 13:00:42


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Karol wrote:
Playing with 2 units and and almost an HQ or 1.5 unit unit and and HQ and having left over points is not very fun.

Also as Ordana said, gigantic skews. Which generates the need to buy more models, which then generates the want to actualy use them, culminating in starting to play more then 1000pts games.


well it can be fun if you talk to your opponent beforehand, but in a competitive setting, absolutely not viable sadly, 40k's current framework just breaks at these pts level
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

With all the complaints about first turn advantage, and other issues that Strike Force games have, it would seem all games sizes suffer from different problems.

Why should half of the missions and such be ignored out of hand?

GW obviously sees Incursion as a valid competitive game size. Maybe the issues with secondaries being too easy to complete is less of a problem.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Blndmage wrote:
It looks like GW has finally fixed their sizing issues for Incursion games.

With all the changes, how viable would an Incursion circuit be?

From the whole competitive side, faster games, easier to stream, etc in terms of the whole eSports angle.

Obviously the meta and tricks would be very different from 2k games. Maybe that's the best part.

Anyway, just having a random thought, as I have a huge preference for smaller games.


What did they change? looks the same to me, still terrible small table size.

PS I love 1k games, just play on a larger table, honestly a 44x44 table would be ok. The game is not really balanced bc of the smallness of the table.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/10 03:17:11


   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
It looks like GW has finally fixed their sizing issues for Incursion games.

With all the changes, how viable would an Incursion circuit be?

From the whole competitive side, faster games, easier to stream, etc in terms of the whole eSports angle.

Obviously the meta and tricks would be very different from 2k games. Maybe that's the best part.

Anyway, just having a random thought, as I have a huge preference for smaller games.


What did they change? looks the same to me, still terrible small table size.


The GT 20 and 21 book hadn't adjusted the mission maps for the smaller tables. It looks like they've finally got that sorted out.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Blndmage wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
It looks like GW has finally fixed their sizing issues for Incursion games.

With all the changes, how viable would an Incursion circuit be?

From the whole competitive side, faster games, easier to stream, etc in terms of the whole eSports angle.

Obviously the meta and tricks would be very different from 2k games. Maybe that's the best part.

Anyway, just having a random thought, as I have a huge preference for smaller games.


What did they change? looks the same to me, still terrible small table size.


The GT 20 and 21 book hadn't adjusted the mission maps for the smaller tables. It looks like they've finally got that sorted out.


? But Nachmund are smaller on the distances than the Strike Force, they did take it into account, or do you mean it needed to be even more so?

   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




 Blndmage wrote:
Why should half of the missions and such be ignored out of hand?

GW obviously sees Incursion as a valid competitive game size. Maybe the issues with secondaries being too easy to complete is less of a problem.


"GW says so" isn't a very compelling argument. They can see whatever they want but the reality is that small 40k games have problems with skew lists and alpha strikes, and have had those problems across multiple editions. Games become rock/paper/scissors battles between skew lists because you can't bring enough units to cover all roles with redundancy, and the winner of the turn 1 alpha strike usually wins the game because there isn't enough left on the table for a comeback by the other player. This is ok in a friendly game where you can trust both players to be reasonable about it and not bring skew lists that break the game, it doesn't work in tournaments where everyone is trying to win the game in the list building phase.

And yes, we know that you want to see tiny 40k games be a thing, but you keep asking this same question here and on reddit every month or so and the answer is still the same. Short of a massive redesign in the mission rules and core 40k game rules (like removing IGOUGO) you aren't going to find some tiny tweak to the mission pack that suddenly changes everyone's mind.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/10 03:34:10


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Please clarify what changed?

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Aecus Decimus wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Why should half of the missions and such be ignored out of hand?

GW obviously sees Incursion as a valid competitive game size. Maybe the issues with secondaries being too easy to complete is less of a problem.


"GW says so" isn't a very compelling argument. They can see whatever they want but the reality is that small 40k games have problems with skew lists and alpha strikes, and have had those problems across multiple editions. Games become rock/paper/scissors battles between skew lists because you can't bring enough units to cover all roles with redundancy, and the winner of the turn 1 alpha strike usually wins the game because there isn't enough left on the table for a comeback by the other player. This is ok in a friendly game where you can trust both players to be reasonable about it and not bring skew lists that break the game, it doesn't work in tournaments where everyone is trying to win the game in the list building phase.

And yes, we know that you want to see tiny 40k games be a thing, but you keep asking this same question here and on reddit every month or so and the answer is still the same. Short of a massive redesign in the mission rules and core 40k game rules (like removing IGOUGO) you aren't going to find some tiny tweak to the mission pack that suddenly changes everyone's mind.


Skew lists and alpha strike deciding game? You basically summed up 40k regaraless of point size.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




tneva82 wrote:
Skew lists and alpha strike deciding game? You basically summed up 40k regaraless of point size.


And those problems get worse the lower you go in point size.
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

Aecus Decimus wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Why should half of the missions and such be ignored out of hand?

GW obviously sees Incursion as a valid competitive game size. Maybe the issues with secondaries being too easy to complete is less of a problem.


"GW says so" isn't a very compelling argument. They can see whatever they want but the reality is that small 40k games have problems with skew lists and alpha strikes, and have had those problems across multiple editions. Games become rock/paper/scissors battles between skew lists because you can't bring enough units to cover all roles with redundancy, and the winner of the turn 1 alpha strike usually wins the game because there isn't enough left on the table for a comeback by the other player. This is ok in a friendly game where you can trust both players to be reasonable about it and not bring skew lists that break the game, it doesn't work in tournaments where everyone is trying to win the game in the list building phase.

And yes, we know that you want to see tiny 40k games be a thing, but you keep asking this same question here and on reddit every month or so and the answer is still the same. Short of a massive redesign in the mission rules and core 40k game rules (like removing IGOUGO) you aren't going to find some tiny tweak to the mission pack that suddenly changes everyone's mind.


The Nephilim changes weren't small.

I'm not talking about my own personal situation, or how we play here.

GW has continued to offer Incursion support for the competitive GT format. With different mission designs.

Have you tired playing any of the Nephilim Incursion content, or any you just assuming you know how it plays?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/10 04:03:42


213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




 Blndmage wrote:
The Nephilim changes weren't small.


Perhaps you could explain what exactly the changes were and why you think they fix the issues with 1000 point games?

GW has continued to offer Incursion support for the competitive GT format. With different mission designs.


And, like I said, "GW says so" isn't a convincing argument to many of us. I don't care what GW says is a "supported" format, if it isn't fun I'm not playing it.

Have you tired playing any of the Nephilim Incursion content, or any you just assuming you know how it plays?


Nope, because none of the new mission stuff does anything to address the fatal problem of skew lists and alpha strikes. Have you played the new 1000 point missions in a competitive environment? Given your posts about your situation and how you play 200 point games of stripped-down open play with a small group of friends I doubt you've done a lot of playtesting of the new missions.
   
Made in au
Calm Celestian




Wayniac wrote:
I personally feel 1k-1500 is the sweet spot. I think for an Incursion type tournament you'd need to have a way to reign in skews. E.g. no superheavies (which yes, screws over Knight players but feth 'em). Maybe force Patrol/Battalion only as the detachment? Either way you'd need to have adjustments to try and reign in the degenerate lists.

I'd love to see them gain more traction. A lot IMHO can be done with 1000 points. I'm still bummed 1500 isn't "standard" still as it seems in a better place than 2000 anyway.
Warrior bricks are more skew than knights at 1k points...

   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




That is mostly because of how necrons score. Things like the silent king are hard to kill in general, but at 1000-1500pts, for some armies they are practicaly impossible to kill. Wouldn't be bad if their high cost options were just a points sink, but the king generates heaps of points on his own. And in smaller games with fewer points it is easier for him to kill units on his own. At the same time the rest of the necron list, where practicaly everything is scoring, is doing primaris and secondaries unopposed.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Please clarify what changed?

I don't think I've played 1k all of 9th (in fact only 2k apart from the below), but I was under the impression there were still issues with the size of the maps and/or positioning of the objectives up until and including Nachmund. Seems to be the same impression as Blindmage, we could both be mistaken I guess.

I did do a recent 2k pairs/duos tournament and I did enjoy building a 1k list for it. I had 5 units at 1k and that felt tactical (and also maybe tacticool ). We each had our own secondaries to do so I got to experience trying to score them with 1k of units rather than 2k. It was somewhat noticeable how inconsistent the secondaries were. Kill secondaries stand out as often quite poor, action secondaries were also quite difficult with half as many units. The really good secondaries are often even more overpowered than at 2k though, as their competition is weaker.

I'm going to be playing in a 1.5k Tempest of War deck tournament and I'm interested to see how that plays too. It is on the larger board (60x44) but less units. I think Tempest of War might be the best bet for a good 1k tournament as well, because it eliminates the broken secondaries and evens out the scoring opportunities.

Karol - I feel like I can build compelling 1k GK skirmish forces that have roughly 5 units in them (200 points a unit). They look like they could score points, not give up any kill secondaries and they are good at the two things 1k forces need to be good at, moving fast and hitting hard (in combat preferred). Mortal wound output is also very good at 1k, where every model counts for the secondaries. You don't need have to take max size units, many units are good at min size.

I may try running my own tournament after this 1.5k Tempest and I'm thinking I might try 1k Tempest out. I am interested to see how fast 1.5k is, as often a limiting factor for 1 day tournaments is if you have 3 rounds and more than 8 players, two players can end up with 3-0 records and then the winner wins on points scored (which is a bit dull). So a 4 round 1k could have up to 16 players and have a single 4-0 champion.

Now (before the 10th ed reset) is probably the best time to try to run new player tournaments, as we finally seem to have a somewhat playable game for most factions to enjoy.
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




EightFoldPath wrote:
I don't think I've played 1k all of 9th (in fact only 2k apart from the below), but I was under the impression there were still issues with the size of the maps and/or positioning of the objectives up until and including Nachmund. Seems to be the same impression as Blindmage, we could both be mistaken I guess.


Were there? I was flipping through the two mission sets and the maps look the same. Maybe there's something where two dimensions didn't add up properly if you look at it carefully? But that kind of thing is a non-issue for a TO to fix if they want to do a 1000 point event. And removing the need to make a minor house rule isn't going to suddenly change everyone's opinion and create interest in 1000 point events where there wasn't any interest before.
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




Aecus Decimus wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
I don't think I've played 1k all of 9th (in fact only 2k apart from the below), but I was under the impression there were still issues with the size of the maps and/or positioning of the objectives up until and including Nachmund. Seems to be the same impression as Blindmage, we could both be mistaken I guess.

Were there? I was flipping through the two mission sets and the maps look the same. Maybe there's something where two dimensions didn't add up properly if you look at it carefully? But that kind of thing is a non-issue for a TO to fix if they want to do a 1000 point event. And removing the need to make a minor house rule isn't going to suddenly change everyone's opinion and create interest in 1000 point events where there wasn't any interest before.

There definitely was in the first CA 2020. The first map 11, on a 44x30 board, the 4 objectives form a square and are 20" apart on the 30" direction and 42" apart on the 44" direction (insert clown emote). If you count the squares carefully you can tell all the maps are 60x44 not 44x30. And yes it was fixable by the TO, but it was a teeny tiny hint that maybe this wasn't the most playtested version of the game in early 9th edition, as in, did anyone play a single 1k Incursion test game before the book went to print? Probably not.
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




EightFoldPath wrote:
There definitely was in the first CA 2020. The first map 11, on a 44x30 board, the 4 objectives form a square and are 20" apart on the 30" direction and 42" apart on the 44" direction (insert clown emote). If you count the squares carefully you can tell all the maps are 60x44 not 44x30. And yes it was fixable by the TO, but it was a teeny tiny hint that maybe this wasn't the most playtested version of the game in early 9th edition, as in, did anyone play a single 1k Incursion test game before the book went to print? Probably not.


Does fixing the typos in the map dimensions really indicate any meaningful increase in playtesting? No, IMO. It's a minor fix that does nothing to address the actual issues with small games.

But this is what BlindMage does. She wants 500-1000 point games to be more popular so every few weeks she posts the same "hey, small games can be a thing now!" thread (both here and on reddit), pretending that it's an innocent question and not a lobbying campaign. Whatever minor change is referenced in this month's iteration hardly matters, the goal is to generate the illusion of community interest and hope that this time people will give her a different answer.
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

I post on the r/WarhammerCompetitive Reddit when it's related the competitive gaming.

I post here for everything including competitive gaming.

The different communities have had different answers in the past, and still do.

If people can keep asking the same thing when there's a seasonal change, why can't I?

I didn't ask during Nachmud as I'd been told they'd removed Incursion from the book (just saw this minute that there WAS Incursion content). With them having brought it back, I assumed that's meant they got enough flak from the community that they added it back in.

The positive support of Incursion games here is really awesome. I'd glad folks are trying it.

I might not be playing Incursion any time soon (due to my mobility issues), but I have a Little that's fallen head over heels for Death Company, and we've got them up to ~ 16PL/285 points.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/10 23:23:38


213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Aecus Decimus wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
There definitely was in the first CA 2020. The first map 11, on a 44x30 board, the 4 objectives form a square and are 20" apart on the 30" direction and 42" apart on the 44" direction (insert clown emote). If you count the squares carefully you can tell all the maps are 60x44 not 44x30. And yes it was fixable by the TO, but it was a teeny tiny hint that maybe this wasn't the most playtested version of the game in early 9th edition, as in, did anyone play a single 1k Incursion test game before the book went to print? Probably not.


Does fixing the typos in the map dimensions really indicate any meaningful increase in playtesting? No, IMO. It's a minor fix that does nothing to address the actual issues with small games.

But this is what BlindMage does. She wants 500-1000 point games to be more popular so every few weeks she posts the same "hey, small games can be a thing now!" thread (both here and on reddit), pretending that it's an innocent question and not a lobbying campaign. Whatever minor change is referenced in this month's iteration hardly matters, the goal is to generate the illusion of community interest and hope that this time people will give her a different answer.
Maybe because they SHOULD be "a thing"?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/11 00:08:33


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Wayniac wrote:
Aecus Decimus wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
There definitely was in the first CA 2020. The first map 11, on a 44x30 board, the 4 objectives form a square and are 20" apart on the 30" direction and 42" apart on the 44" direction (insert clown emote). If you count the squares carefully you can tell all the maps are 60x44 not 44x30. And yes it was fixable by the TO, but it was a teeny tiny hint that maybe this wasn't the most playtested version of the game in early 9th edition, as in, did anyone play a single 1k Incursion test game before the book went to print? Probably not.


Does fixing the typos in the map dimensions really indicate any meaningful increase in playtesting? No, IMO. It's a minor fix that does nothing to address the actual issues with small games.

But this is what BlindMage does. She wants 500-1000 point games to be more popular so every few weeks she posts the same "hey, small games can be a thing now!" thread (both here and on reddit), pretending that it's an innocent question and not a lobbying campaign. Whatever minor change is referenced in this month's iteration hardly matters, the goal is to generate the illusion of community interest and hope that this time people will give her a different answer.
Maybe because they SHOULD be "a thing"?


Personally 500pts games are insanely fun ... note: With balance. Back in 5th I only did Combat Patrol events, it was some of the most fun I had.

  • 6 relaxing games a day
  • Small amount of models to carry
  • Due to the small amount you can make many small armies fully custom as well
  • Display boards could be easier and cooler to make
  • Some events did Best of 3 (8 games a day was a lot though, but best of 3 really made it feel good too)
  • Easy for new players to play


  • With that said old Combat Patrol had a lot more restrictions than you do now, some restrictions;

    0-1 HQ
    1-3 Troops (you MUST bring at least one Troop choice)
    0-1 Elite
    0-1 Fast Attack
    0-1 Heavy Support
    0-1 Additional slot for either a Troops, Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support
    Only Troops, HQs, and Swarms can have more than 2 wounds
    No Unique units
    Only dedicated transports for vehicles (with AV33 or less)
    MC and walkers only if they are troops
    No units with Invul saves of 2+

    I had a Zombie Tyranid army i loved for it, I also had fire khorne army, and a fun DE army with RWFs bc they were swarms, its the first time I also did Marines I picked Salamanders.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/11 00:47:05


       
    Made in ca
    Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





    Stasis

     Amishprn86 wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Aecus Decimus wrote:
    EightFoldPath wrote:
    There definitely was in the first CA 2020. The first map 11, on a 44x30 board, the 4 objectives form a square and are 20" apart on the 30" direction and 42" apart on the 44" direction (insert clown emote). If you count the squares carefully you can tell all the maps are 60x44 not 44x30. And yes it was fixable by the TO, but it was a teeny tiny hint that maybe this wasn't the most playtested version of the game in early 9th edition, as in, did anyone play a single 1k Incursion test game before the book went to print? Probably not.


    Does fixing the typos in the map dimensions really indicate any meaningful increase in playtesting? No, IMO. It's a minor fix that does nothing to address the actual issues with small games.

    But this is what BlindMage does. She wants 500-1000 point games to be more popular so every few weeks she posts the same "hey, small games can be a thing now!" thread (both here and on reddit), pretending that it's an innocent question and not a lobbying campaign. Whatever minor change is referenced in this month's iteration hardly matters, the goal is to generate the illusion of community interest and hope that this time people will give her a different answer.
    Maybe because they SHOULD be "a thing"?


    Personally 500pts games are insanely fun ... note: With balance. Back in 5th I only did Combat Patrol events, it was some of the most fun I had.

  • 6 relaxing games a day
  • Small amount of models to carry
  • Due to the small amount you can make many small armies fully custom as well
  • Display boards could be easier and cooler to make
  • Some events did Best of 3 (8 games a day was a lot though, but best of 3 really made it feel good too)
  • Easy for new players to play


  • With that said old Combat Patrol had a lot more restrictions than you do now, some restrictions;

    0-1 HQ
    1-3 Troops (you MUST bring at least one Troop choice)
    0-1 Elite
    0-1 Fast Attack
    0-1 Heavy Support
    0-1 Additional slot for either a Troops, Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support
    Only Troops, HQs, and Swarms can have more than 2 wounds
    No Unique units
    Only dedicated transports for vehicles (with AV33 or less)
    MC and walkers only if they are troops
    No units with Invul saves of 2+

    I had a Zombie Tyranid army i loved for it, I also had fire khorne army, and a fun DE army with RWFs bc they were swarms, its the first time I also did Marines I picked Salamanders.


    Yes!

    I ran 500 point monthly tounries back in 4th/5th.

    The modern Patrol detachment (your only option for 25PL/500point or lower games) still follows the same layout, and even requires and HQ now! No additional slot, but everything else is 0-2.

    You could put a maximum wounds per model rules in, but I'm not sure.

    I've got a thread further down about small games, we should move chat there.

    Back on Incursion talk. I feel like the pros for smaller forces (while not as huge as Combat Patrol games) still make them a great thing I think we should see more of. The smaller army size is a plus not a negative. It will let people into the competitive side of the community without the huge $ investment. The difference between Incursion and Strike Force circuits would mean a different group of players, some might stick only to one circuit, others might bounce between them.

    The smaller tables mean the size of the models themselves becomes more critical than in bigger games. From the tounrey angle, it would mean space for more tables, games tend to be much faster than Strike Force games, meaning more rounds.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/11 01:10:42


    213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
    (she/her) 
       
    Made in gb
    Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




    Aecus Decimus wrote:
    EightFoldPath wrote:
    There definitely was in the first CA 2020. The first map 11, on a 44x30 board, the 4 objectives form a square and are 20" apart on the 30" direction and 42" apart on the 44" direction (insert clown emote). If you count the squares carefully you can tell all the maps are 60x44 not 44x30. And yes it was fixable by the TO, but it was a teeny tiny hint that maybe this wasn't the most playtested version of the game in early 9th edition, as in, did anyone play a single 1k Incursion test game before the book went to print? Probably not.


    Does fixing the typos in the map dimensions really indicate any meaningful increase in playtesting? No, IMO. It's a minor fix that does nothing to address the actual issues with small games.

    But this is what BlindMage does. She wants 500-1000 point games to be more popular so every few weeks she posts the same "hey, small games can be a thing now!" thread (both here and on reddit), pretending that it's an innocent question and not a lobbying campaign. Whatever minor change is referenced in this month's iteration hardly matters, the goal is to generate the illusion of community interest and hope that this time people will give her a different answer.

    Just before posting the first time, I did spend quite a while browsing Blindmage's reddit post history as I did remember her shall we say "combatative" style of replying from the previous iterations of this question. I think the question is worth asking every time a new CA comes out, blame GW if that means it is worth asking every six months now rather than twelve months. I find myself on her side for once in wondering about it. Who knows, one (dark) day in the future I may even find myself on the same side as Karol in a discussion...

    At the end of the day threads about playing the game (by people who may actually play the game) are at least more interesting than threads about painting standards or the fifty page plus theorycrafting threads (from people who seem to often not play the game).

    As I said, this is probably the best time for anyone to try to get a 1k scene going with some relative playability for most factions in the wider game, plus 2k players like myself may have played 50+ games in the last 2 years and might be tempted to play 1k/tempest/crusade now as a change of pace. Once 10th edition drops we'll probably be back to wild imbalance with 1/3rd of factions/datasheets OP and 1/3rd of factions/datasheets unplayable and the three year cycle of "wait and see" for the unplayable factions/datasheets will have begun anew.
       
    Made in gb
    Fixture of Dakka







    Aecus Decimus wrote:
    EightFoldPath wrote:
    There definitely was in the first CA 2020. The first map 11, on a 44x30 board, the 4 objectives form a square and are 20" apart on the 30" direction and 42" apart on the 44" direction (insert clown emote). If you count the squares carefully you can tell all the maps are 60x44 not 44x30. And yes it was fixable by the TO, but it was a teeny tiny hint that maybe this wasn't the most playtested version of the game in early 9th edition, as in, did anyone play a single 1k Incursion test game before the book went to print? Probably not.


    Does fixing the typos in the map dimensions really indicate any meaningful increase in playtesting? No, IMO. It's a minor fix that does nothing to address the actual issues with small games.

    But this is what BlindMage does. She wants 500-1000 point games to be more popular so every few weeks she posts the same "hey, small games can be a thing now!" thread (both here and on reddit), pretending that it's an innocent question and not a lobbying campaign. Whatever minor change is referenced in this month's iteration hardly matters, the goal is to generate the illusion of community interest and hope that this time people will give her a different answer.


    Fixing the typos indicates an improvement in something, be it playtesting, proofreading, or taking care in the first place.

    And what's wrong with challenging the blinkered hegemony of 2k-Matched-Play-most-recent-tournament-pack games? Note that Blndmage - and at least do them the courtesy of spelling their username correctly - isn't saying that people shouldn't be playing larger games, merely suggesting that people consider trying smaller games as well.

    2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

    My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

    Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


     Kanluwen wrote:
    This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

    Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

    tneva82 wrote:
    You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
    - No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






     Dysartes wrote:

    Fixing the typos indicates an improvement in something, be it playtesting, proofreading, or taking care in the first place.

    And what's wrong with challenging the blinkered hegemony of 2k-Matched-Play-most-recent-tournament-pack games? Note that Blndmage - and at least do them the courtesy of spelling their username correctly - isn't saying that people shouldn't be playing larger games, merely suggesting that people consider trying smaller games as well.


    Yeah, pointing out that small games are an option is fine, the thing is most people who have tried them immediately noticed their flaws. An IGOUGO system with such high lethality does not work in smaller point level. At these levels you'll usually have 1-2 heavy hitters, so if your opponent manages to pop it on turn one, its a non-game.
       
    Made in us
    Paramount Plague Censer Bearer





    My first 9th edition game was 500 points, and it was decided turn 1, ended turn 2, with my opponent never starting their second turn.

    ‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
    - Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley 
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






     TheBestBucketHead wrote:
    My first 9th edition game was 500 points, and it was decided turn 1, ended turn 2, with my opponent never starting their second turn.


    Pretty much my experience too, and god forbid someone is playing fast armies like elves with the small board. Then it's pretty much decided on turn 0
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: