New Rules Incoming - 40k

[Tiny]

My thoughts.

- The animated trailer is pretty cool. Looks like a new box dread, Biovore, mini-Carnifex thing and probably a new Hive Tyrant are possibilities if that is anything to go by.

- The studio description makes me less interested. I hear words like "streamlined" and "accessible" and shudder a little. It feels like they mean "AoS style datasheets where every unit has its own "special snowflake" rules which are slightly different to the same named rule on another unit". Still, if they remove the need for dozens of books and stratagems it may be interesting.

- They also say it will play faster... which since my last few games of 8th ed lasted 2 turns before we called the game because both armies were almost wiped out, seems like its probably not even worth setting up the scenery anymore.

- "We've never shown conflict at this scale" means "you'll have to fit even more minis onto the same size battlefield and they'll be wiped out before firing a shot."

- They already have a rules contradiction in that there are two different termagant datasheets on that launch page, one in the video and one in the article.

"Army selection is equally straightforward: pick a faction, a warlord, and the units you like (just no more than three of any one type*), and stay within your points limit. That’s it!
You no longer have to fit your army into a force organisation chart, or compromise on the army you really want. It’s a simple and liberating system, and opens the door to all kinds of fun, thematic or unusual armies."

I hate this. More than anything.

 

[Ben_S]

"On the first day of the new edition, the rules for every datasheet in 40k will be free to download, or available to buy as convenient and portable card decks."

I like the sound of this, though I hope that means 'from the first day' rather than being a one-time special offer...

 

[Tiny]

"On the first day of the new edition, the rules for every datasheet in 40k will be free to download, or available to buy as convenient and portable card decks."

I like the sound of this, though I hope that means 'from the first day' rather than being a one-time special offer...

This was the case at the beginning of 8th edition too.... hence my scepticism.

 

[Stoof]

So, WH40k 10th Ed has just been announced, so I'll pop this thread up so people who play it can voice their enthusiasm, concerns, creative interpretations here without it being merged with New Models. If it gets too gritty please wash it to the sump.

 

[Stoof]

- "We've never shown conflict at this scale" means "you'll have to fit even more minis onto the same size battlefield and they'll be wiped out before firing a shot."

It could also mean "we're going to piecemeal release new models at our wonderful new 36mm scale! Too big to quite fit with your recent old models, and absolutely dwarfing your old-old ones! Buy new stuff!"

Every time I contemplate perhaps playing 40k again, they release a new version. For me, whose army was "legal" in 2nd and 3rd, the "pick what you like" rule looks like it would be good on the surface. However I am deeply deeply skeptical about how good an idea it to allow that lack of force organisation for many of the 40k players I've known over the years.

 

[Tiny]

Every time I contemplate perhaps playing 40k again, they release a new version.

Yep. I managed to get my Death Guard army right at the start of 8th ed so got 2 years out of it before 9th ed killed my interest. Otherwise I'd never have time to finish an army before the next edition.

I am deeply deeply skeptical about how good an idea it to allow that lack of force organisation for many of the 40k players I've known over the years.

To me, the armies just end up looking shite and make no sense. Why would Space Marines field a dozen dreadnoughts and nothing else? All the while it just *happens* that dreadnoughts are this week's broken unit of choice.

 

[Greyhart]

I'm also having feelings of dread and trepidation on the new rules.

"Faster" does not necessarily equate to "better".

If they make the datacards a "one and done" deal like they seem to do with every other game they make, forget it. I won't even look at 10th.

And call me an old grognard - because I am - but I don't think doing away with ForceOrg charts is the way to go. Sounds to me like "they listened to the players" alright. The little munchkins who whined "WHHHHHYYYYY can't I have 57 of 'x' to make my leet-super-ultra-mega-roxxorz army of DOOOOOOOOM!? MOOOOM!!! They won't let me play what I want!"

.. I hate munchkins.

I played 40K from Rogue Trader to 4th. Then got back to it in 8th, and promptly quit again in 9th. I'm not holding out much hope for 10th, but I could be surprised.

.. nah.

 

[Punktaku]

I can see getting rid of Force Org charts for certain armies like Orks who supposedly fight as mobs. Maybe Tyranids, but only if they get rid of the hive mind node models (or maybe they already did this? The last version I actually played was third edition). Possibly chaos because force org charts order things up, and well, chaos. But for actual military forces, that doesn’t make much sense.

And that is my obligatory comment to follow this thread. I have no plans on ever rejoining this game, despite saving three of my old armies. May be time to consider making room for other stuff…

 

[Willnox]

My thoughts.

- The animated trailer is pretty cool. Looks like a new box dread, Biovore, mini-Carnifex thing and probably a new Hive Tyrant are possibilities if that is anything to go by.

- The studio description makes me less interested. I hear words like "streamlined" and "accessible" and shudder a little. It feels like they mean "AoS style datasheets where every unit has its own "special snowflake" rules which are slightly different to the same named rule on another unit". Still, if they remove the need for dozens of books and stratagems it may be interesting.

- They also say it will play faster... which since my last few games of 8th ed lasted 2 turns before we called the game because both armies were almost wiped out, seems like its probably not even worth setting up the scenery anymore.

- "We've never shown conflict at this scale" means "you'll have to fit even more minis onto the same size battlefield and they'll be wiped out before firing a shot."

- They already have a rules contradiction in that there are two different termagant datasheets on that launch page, one in the video and one in the article.



I hate this. More than anything.

Force orgs never should have left the game...it made the armies look more thematic and not just a jumbled up mess of "I need to take these units so they fit my characters bubble buffs" I miss it so much.

 

[Tiny]

How hard is it to take 2 basic troops units and a HQ before you get access to all the silly toys? Or even further back to minimum 25% troops, maximum 25/50% of each of the other categories?

 

[Willnox]

How hard is it to take 2 basic troops units and a HQ before you get access to all the silly toys? Or even further back to minimum 25% troops, maximum 25/50% of each of the other categories?

Can't make people do percentages...don't want them to think to hard....

 

[bcurd85]

Must admit, i did really like the force org mechanic. As said previously, why would armies field just one type of unit? No doubt players will spam a combo and then GW will just have to FAQ.

Overall though i am optimistic. As someone who played 2nd to 3rd and then rejoined at 9th i was appalled at the damage creep and bloat! The codex was always the holy grail and now it seems like a 'rough guide'. Paying £30 for a codex and then having a good proportion of the rules nerfed because rules testers apparently couldn't discover combos that youtubers take 5 minutes to find, is depressing.

 

[Ben_S]

rules testers apparently couldn't discover combos that youtubers take 5 minutes to find, is depressing.

It's not necessarily that they couldn't, but more likely that they didn't really try. It seems the GW studio/staff generally play in a fluffy manner, rather than looking to break the system for advantage.

 

[daveh]

i think there were 3 codexs between me buying my first ultramarine figure and haveing enough painted to play a game.
i could not paint fast enough to keep up with the changes , please in the emprahs name stop altering things .

 

[MusingWarboss]

i think there were 3 codexs between me buying my first ultramarine figure and haveing enough painted to play a game.
i could not paint fast enough to keep up with the changes , please in the emprahs name stop altering things .

That’s very familiar. It’s always been a combination of lack of money for models, lack of time and a desire to paint my models nicely, that has scuppered many an effort to get an army usable before it’s been rendered non-compliant or it’s points value reduced by 50% in the next edition.

I was so proud of my 2000pt 2nd Edition Eldar army, it took me years to piece together (I was a teenager with limited cash) and then 3rd arrived. I’m not even going to speak of the blasphemy of the Ork Codex!!!

 

[Greyhart]

@MusingWarboss I had the same thing happen. I played Dark Angels starting in 2nd Ed and it took me years to get the money for models, assemble, and paint them. I did some great conversions. Then "WHAM!" New edition and a bunch of my models are invalidated.

We - as consumers of GW products - always seem to be behind the power curve getting hit with one change after another in rapid fire succession.

I was musing (heh) the other day on "how the hell do these people keep up with it all?" Not only on rules, but rearranging and painting their armies?

I'm retired. I have all day to play with my toy soldiers. I've been working on whittling down my pile of shame. But I'd need to paint 20 hours a day to get things done like some of these people I see do.

I'm tired of chasing the brass rules ring for ANY game but specifically 40K. I have a Necron army - which I love - that I'll probably never finish because by the time I do it'll be so different from what I'm doing now as to be unplayable. I have an Imperial Knights army still in boxes.

I play Aeronautica Imperials and Adeptus Titanicus. 2019 and 2018 releases respectively. No "NEW AND IMPROVED EDITION WITH MOAR DAKKA AND LESS FILLER!" for either game. Granted, they're specialist and not main line, but still.

This '3 year cycle' GW is in isn't good for us, the players. And I will politely disagree with anyone of a differing opinion. It can't continue. It's going to implode eventually.

Anyway, a bit off to the side of topic.

Back on topic, anyone know what that "OC" stat is on the new datacards? Other than "Obviously Crap"?

 

[Ardavion]

Back on topic, anyone know what that "OC" stat is on the new datacards? Other than "Obviously Crap"?

Objective Control.

It's a value assigned to a model for how well it can, well, control an objective. I think it's meant to be that you total up the OC for models around an objective and the player with the most points has control/gets the victory point. The example, I think, from the livestream was that a Titan would have crazy high OC and can just sit on an objective despite it being just one model; I'm not aware of the "holding objectives" rules from 9th, but I assume that people were taking specific models/units to cheese the system.

Quite how "points cost per model" couldn't be used (with other caveats like "only models with [KEYWORD1],[KEYWORD2] or [KEYWORD3] keyword can take and hold objectives"), I'm not sure. I suppose it make it easier to just assign an OC of "0" to models that can't take objectives, and make characters really strong but only one model, so shouldn't be able to hold objectives (despite the rule of cool where a badass character stands atop a pile of corpses taking out enemies all around them, holding an objective), but a Titan be a massive machine that can vaporise anything within miles so should be able to keep control of that terrain feature.

 

[Greyhart]

@Ardavion Ah, thank you. Not sure how well that's going to work in practice but we'll see.

 

[daveh]

thankfully at my club we dont bother with stratagems , force org or objectives.
no sir , we dont like em

 

[Ilgoth]

Personally I like the overall taste of things. Hopefully this time they stick with the plan, and dont do the same mistakes they did with 8th edition.