Wh40k 10th Edition Gambits and Missions (in 10th)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

26 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

No offence intended as this will sound a bit provocative which isn't my intention; but maybe you are the problem? I played through 8th + 9th and enjoyed it more as it went on and evolved; currently 9th is in a real good place thanks to the quarterly balance updates.

 

When 9th introduced ITC style secondaries it was better; the game went beyond smashing armies to actually having a bit more strategy regarding scoring.

 

Just a couple of hours ago I finished a close game with a buddy in which I would have tabled him if we had a battle round 6; but he beat me 69 - 49 on points by playing objectives and keeping me on my side of the board. It's adds more variety and a level of depth not seen previously which I really prefer.

 

I have friends who have played since the 90's and say 9th is the best so far (with the exception of GW's silly codex creep mid edition)

 

 

You stated you didn't play 8th/9th so maybe all this doom and gloom is actually just you; myself and plenty of others enjoy the game and the hobby. Everyone I speak to at my local club actually looks forward to 10th.

 

Again no offence intended just sharing a different view; but maybe the community has moved forward onto green pastures while you refuse to give it a chance and choose to stay stuck in the past.

 

Just a thought please don't let me start something.

I’m not a fan of so many objectives, but I think he’d be fine with just objectives and dice, no need for gimmic-I mean gambits and stratagems. Your stratagems should be literally your ability to strategize and implement your army/prevent your opponent from implementing theirs.

[Nephaston]

If I read it right the Gambits are also only a part of the chapter approved mission system so Only War games remain perfectly serviceable for everyone.

And if these Gambits prove to be too powerful they can always be nerfed or swapped come the next season.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 minutes ago, Nephaston said:

If I read it right the Gambits are also only a part of the chapter approved mission system so Only War games remain perfectly serviceable for everyone.

And if these Gambits prove to be too powerful they can always be nerfed or swapped come the next season.

Yay! More constantly changing rules!

[Scribe]

48 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

You stated you didn't play 8th/9th so maybe all this doom and gloom is actually just you; myself and plenty of others enjoy the game and the hobby. Everyone I speak to at my local club actually looks forward to 10th.

 

For context. I played 3rd to 8th inclusive.

 

Most of my group went with HH, and the largest portion quit by 8th.

 

You are not wrong, its a me issue, I personally find much of what GW has been doing since 5th, as having a net negative impact on the rules side, but I had most of my tournament success in 7th. I just dont believe the direction has been beneficial to the game, to make 40K 'apoc-lite'.

[BluejayJunior]

11 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

For context. I played 3rd to 8th inclusive.

 

Most of my group went with HH, and the largest portion quit by 8th.

 

You are not wrong, its a me issue, I personally find much of what GW has been doing since 5th, as having a net negative impact on the rules side, but I had most of my tournament success in 7th. I just dont believe the direction has been beneficial to the game, to make 40K 'apoc-lite'.

It’s perfectly okay to not like the newer rules. But saying the direction hasn’t been good for the game when it’s the most popular it’s ever been doesn’t exactly hold a lot of water. 

[Nephaston]

23 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Yay! More constantly changing rules!

That's why it's separate from the basic Only War. Chapter Approved for the constant flux, Only War for no changes beyond the occasional FAQ or Errata. The existence of Only War also provides for the crowd that eshews anything beyond the main objectives; so no secondaries, no gambits. Just basic objectives and killing.

[Subtleknife]

I like the proposed rules although hopefully gambit are just kept to casual games and not tournaments. 

 

I think gambit potentially can add thematic nail biters that mates will chat over even long after the match has finished. Ie do you remember that one time when my marines had been overrun by your orcs but I managed to withdraw and call the orbital bombardment gambit down to win the game etc.

[Scribe]

17 minutes ago, BluejayJunior said:

It’s perfectly okay to not like the newer rules. But saying the direction hasn’t been good for the game when it’s the most popular it’s ever been doesn’t exactly hold a lot of water. 

 

And an appeal to popularity leaves me, unmoved.  ;)

 

Tell me again how it's a good idea to turn on unit abilities with a secondary layer of resources.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

22 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

It keeps the game fresh for people who play regularly. People were complaining "PLEASE GW DO SOMETHING" when balance was broken.

 

GW adding the balance data slates has been a great addition to the hobby.

Maybe they should just make balanced rules then instead of changing the rules every few months or weeks.

11 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

And an appeal to popularity leaves me, unmoved.  ;)

 

Tell me again how it's a good idea to turn on unit abilities with a secondary layer of resources.

This seems like different metrics of what is good for the game.

 

[BrainFireBob]

6 hours ago, MoshJason said:

 

But that's the thing - it's not really "luck" - it's a rubber-band mechanism, similar to what a lot of videogames do.

If your losing, and you look at the board and go, yeah, I'm not coming back, but draw a gambit that *you might* be able to pull off, well, great. Your opponent can stop it - like, in this case, the opponent can easily prevent you from being able to call in the orbital strike - and if they "miss one guardsman" as someone said, well, it's a 2.7% chance for them to get it, and you didn't win thoroughly enough to prevent that. And even if they do do that - it only adds points to their score. It's possible for someone to succeed with a gambit - and still lose.  If your not good enough to prevent that, than maybe you don't deserve the win?

Like, I don't really understand the hate for a mechanic that should make the game feel better? Is winning so important to everyone that they don't just have to win, they have to crush the opponents spirit into the dust? I mean, this is a game lol the social contract is that we are *both* supposed to have fun. 

EDIT: I am also seeing some confusion - Gambits also don't prevent your opponent from scoring primaries, just the player who plays the gambit.

Someone has to lose. 

 

And it's OK to win, and it's OK to feel good about winning. 

 

@Lemondish: Yes, out of some vague sense of integrity. I always play out my games, even if being spanked.

 

I've always felt it a dump and run not to, to say "you're winning, I quit" instead of trying to make it close.

[Khornestar]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Ah yes, suck it up and play a game you don’t like. 
that’s a totally logical response.

Certainly more logical than complaining on a forum, if one’s goal is to actually enjoy and do something. Tell me, has that resulted in the product you desire so far? Maybe not trying hard enough?

 

No system is perfect, and it is extremely unlikely a system will be created with a particular individual’s desires at the forefront. If a single feature kills someone’s ability to enjoy a game, too bad for them, I suppose. Hopefully there exists some other game or hobby more in line with their desires and preferences that will bring them the joy they seek.

 

It’s immaterial to me whether or not any of the chronic malcontents play or enjoy the game at all. I just struggle to see the point of complaining over a period of *years* as if it will achieve a positive outcome. Carry on, though. Nobody needs my endorsement.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Khornestar

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

This seems like different metrics of what is good for the game.

 

Certainly. Popularity isnt exactly a metric for 'good game design'. What is the competition to 40K? There is none. Its the only game in town, their rules can be (have been/are) comically broken, and it will still be played. Heck, you dont even have to play to engage with the hobby.

 

Lets look up one of my past army units. Harli Troupe.

 

You dont even get to use the abilities of the unit if you buy the weapons, unless you then flip through the book to find the correct strat, and spend the CP needed to have the weapons you paid points for work correctly for that specific fight phase anyway... 

 

Nobody is going to convince me that is good game design, and seeing as GW is moving 'many strats back to unit abilities' maybe this "most popular edition" (citation?) that is being replaced with index lists in a few months, that has been supposedly rebuilt from the ground up, isnt actually all its cracked up to be?

[Emperor Ming]

Gw does love cards

 

[Scribe]

7 minutes ago, Khornestar said:

It’s immaterial to me whether or not any of the chronic malcontents play or enjoy the game at all. I just struggle to see the point of complaining over a period of *years* as if it will achieve a positive outcome. Carry on, though. Nobody needs my endorsement.

 

You know how GW came out and said 'we heard you regarding the game, and we are aiming to make changes for 10th'.

 

Guess who they 'heard'? ;)

[Scribe]

6 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

Hate to go down the path of "Nuh uh you're wrong" but honestly this is the most popular edition and people generally enjoy it.

 

Clearly you dont hate it enough, and you are missing the point. Popularity, does not make for 'good design'.

 

9th benefited in the same way D&D and MTG benefited, the Covid bubble.

 

I'm not saying you didnt have a good game. Its not to say that a good game of 9th is impossible, but we can simply take GW's word for it. They heard the complaints that some of us have been making for years, and they have rebuilt the game.

 

If thats because 9th is gods gift to table top gaming, well that seems a weird reaction no?

[Toxichobbit]

3 hours ago, Khornestar said:

Perhaps an answer would be, “suck it up and enjoy the experience as much as you can in spite of the feature(s) you don’t love” instead of getting no games whatsoever?
 

Legitimately, this is what I believe. No edition is perfect, but the game can still be enjoyed. And if not, then that’s that, I suppose. Time for a new hobby, if it proves to be truly impossible.

 

That's an option, yeah. But in my case, it's not for me. There are a lot of other games out there, many with better rules sets than 40k, so I'm not going to waste my finite amount of leisure time on a game I don't enjoy. Sucking it up for the sake of continuing to play feels counter-intuitive. I love the universe & the models, I can still enjoy them without playing & still give feedback on the parts of the game that are making things unfun for me. 

 

Not that I'm saying this about 10th - it has stuff I don't like and it has stuff I do like. Jury is still out on to whether the game will be worthy of my time & money. Once the full rules are out & I'm knee deep in new Tyranids, I'll play a few games and decide if I want to continue with 10th or if I switch to one of the many other games I can choose from.

[KnightofSigismund]

Lately this place is getting to feel as negative as the competitive Reddit forum. 

[Arkangilos]

I’m pretty sure this is why they invented the doctrine of nuking it from orbit.

 

No one has to worry about mission objectives, and no one has to argue about why gambits are or are not good.

[WrathOfTheLion]

2 minutes ago, KnightofSigismund said:

Lately this place is getting to feel as negative as the competitive Reddit forum. 

Depends on where you are, but clearly some folks are intent to derail this thread here.

 

I get their opinion, but if they've already written it off (which they were going to do no matter what), then they don't have anything to discuss here in the news thread about the thing they aren't going to participate in, beyond perhaps a comment stating so.

Edited April 29, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Khornestar]

15 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

That's an option, yeah. But in my case, it's not for me. There are a lot of other games out there, many with better rules sets than 40k, so I'm not going to waste my finite amount of leisure time on a game I don't enjoy. Sucking it up for the sake of continuing to play feels counter-intuitive. I love the universe & the models, I can still enjoy them without playing & still give feedback on the parts of the game that are making things unfun for me. 

 

Not that I'm saying this about 10th - it has stuff I don't like and it has stuff I do like. Jury is still out on to whether the game will be worthy of my time & money. Once the full rules are out & I'm knee deep in new Tyranids, I'll play a few games and decide if I want to continue with 10th or if I switch to one of the many other games I can choose from.

That seems totally reasonable. Gotta decide how best to spend one’s time and what’s worthwhile or not. And 10th may end up good/enjoyable, once we see the full rules and try it. Not everyone is gonna like the scoring system or gambits, but there’s more to the game than *just* that.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Khornestar

[BluejayJunior]

41 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

You know how GW came out and said 'we heard you regarding the game, and we are aiming to make changes for 10th'.

 

Guess who they 'heard'? ;)

They heard the majority of the people who are actually playing the game. 

17 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Clearly you dont hate it enough, and you are missing the point. Popularity, does not make for 'good design'.

 

9th benefited in the same way D&D and MTG benefited, the Covid bubble.

 

I'm not saying you didnt have a good game. Its not to say that a good game of 9th is impossible, but we can simply take GW's word for it. They heard the complaints that some of us have been making for years, and they have rebuilt the game.

 

If thats because 9th is gods gift to table top gaming, well that seems a weird reaction no?

If anything, Covid hurt 9th edition. Not sure how you think that was a benefit. Half of the edition was during a lockdown. 

[Scribe]

4 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

Nobody has said 9th is gods gift to table top gaming; what's being said is that 9th seems to generally be viewed as "The best edition so far". How have your complaints been heard when just a few posts ago you stated you didn't play 8th, 9th and you won't be playing 10th either?  You've even stated you've not enjoyed the game since 5th so again maybe you are the problem.

 

From what I'm seeing it appears GW is listening more to the active competitive community rather than peopld who don't actually play the game and instead just doom and gloom online over a game they don't play. This community is not representative of the larger community; it seems to be a generally negative place occupied largely by either non-players or former players. 

 

Returning unit abilities, back to the units?

Cutting back on extra layers of rules?

Return of the USR?

 

These are very common complaints against 9th, which are being rectified.

 

I noted that the game has not been improving since 5th, but that I played an absolute ton of it in 4th-7th specifically. One doesnt need to have played a ton of 9th, which has many similar systems and traits of past editions, after gaming across multiple platforms and systems and rules sets for decades, to see choices (seriously, I have to turn on my weapons each time I want to use them GW, seriously I cannot just pop smoke? seriously you have the same rule written multiple times and you didnt just use USR when you have some weird keyword fetish this edition??) that are not an 'evolution of the rule set'.

 

Again though, thankfully GW has recognized some of their errors, so we will see if they made enough course corrections to their 'best edition' to bring it back to a...better edition and maybe they will come to their senses over a logical matched/pickup game ruleset, while including Crusade and various optional rules for those who want them.

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, BluejayJunior said:

If anything, Covid hurt 9th edition. Not sure how you think that was a benefit. Half of the edition was during a lockdown. 

 

The stock price and sales sure didnt reflect any harm, almost like the rules/game are not the only aspect of the hobby. 9th was released July 2020, go look up the stock image for the last 5 years. We all should have invested. :D

[Interrogator Stobz]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

If that’s the case why not just set up armies, roll off and whoever got higher wins, then pack the armies back up?

 

sure really bad luck resulting in you failing basically everything can and does happen, but it’s not a common occurrence.

 

the game relies on skill at least as much as luck. If you run your WL out into the open ahead of any other models, even with bad luck your opponent will likely kill it.

skill can get you into a position to target an enemy character, bad luck can keep that character alive, but the averages for a lot of units depending on factions, will kill that WL or bring him so low an opponent can’t afford to take any risks with him.

Please stop with the ridiculous strawman argument. 

If that is what you took from my statement then the issue is not my statement.

 

As to your counter point: The chance of the Gambit happening is also not going to be a common occurrence, 1 in 36 games maybe slightly better if the player using it manages to hold more corners. Through skill and luck. 

 

10th looks like it will be different to the blatant mathhammer of 8th and 9th. That is a very good thing. I'm sick of games that you can tell who will win at list building time.

 

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, KrakenBorn said:

I think we are all going to debate this until we die of old age or a mod locks this thread.

 

There is nothing to debate honestly.

 

You are probably (hopefully) correct that gambits are irrelevant. Its the design principle however, the idea of the 'spiny shell' as a game design element, for some is great, for others its a joke. You can probably imagine what side of the line I sit on.