More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[Mogger351]

39 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

"I enjoy not having to think about it." is not great design. Thats honestly pretty sad.

That's a dangerously reductive response though.

[Scribe]

13 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

That's a dangerously reductive response though.

 

I'm ok with that.

 

Everyone with sense mocked AoS for how it was designed. No restrictions, no points. They have just been slowly moving 40K that direction, and its still trash tier design and always will be.

[Mogger351]

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

I'm ok with that.

 

Everyone with sense mocked AoS for how it was designed. No restrictions, no points. They have just been slowly moving 40K that direction, and its still trash tier design and always will be.

No wargear points is fine if the options provided are of reasonable equivalency, it's not always applicable or appropriate, but it's not inherently "trash tier".

 

I'm sure you can adequately explain to me how many points a bolt pistol is worth on a guard sergeant with some logic.

[Blindhamster]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

"I enjoy not having to think about it." is not great design. Thats honestly pretty sad.

I think you missed the point being made - which seemed to be "I enjoy the freedom to build models how I like and worry about list building somewhat separately" - vastly different to what you said. 

 

THAT SAID, I prefer having points for wargear, purely from a balance perspective, there is no world where a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol are worth the same points. 

I'd like to see the return of points, but would still prefer units to come in multiples of X. I've always preferred 10 man tactical squads (or intercessor squads now) because it fits what I expect units to be deployed like based on lore. I always hated the 6 man squad to get lascannon and plasma gun in days of old for example. 

My hopes for the new edition in terms of list building:

• bring back points for wargear (but it needs to be specific to a unit, probably)
• keep unit sizes as multiples of X
• have a bit more structure to the actual list building (i.e. something like a looser force org maybe)
• ensure battleline are useful, my favourite thing in most armies is their core units, it makes me sad when people just spam the elite stuff.
• if combined detachments are a thing now (they are), make it max 2 and require they are different factions with a return of an ally matrix (doubt it)

Edited Sunday at 04:33 PM by Blindhamster

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

No wargear points is fine if the options provided are of reasonable equivalency, it's not always applicable or appropriate, but it's not inherently "trash tier".

 

I'm sure you can adequately explain to me how many points a bolt pistol is worth on a guard sergeant with some logic.

 

They are not (or have not been) equivalent however. Flamers were pretty bad/niche for a real real real long time, while Plasma/Melta, was not.

 

If we got rid of a lot of the bloat, could a Bolt Pistol be assigned a value that makes sense in relation to other weapons?

 

Absolutely, through some combination of lethality, and platform (aka Model/Unit) survivability. Problem is, they introduced Strats which then throws balance out the window!

 

This is not some impossible task, its only made so by the constant shifting of goal posts, the fact they do not design an edition completely, they do not have any guiding design principles that are applicable, and they have to get started on the next reboot of the rules because the 3 year cycle must be fed.

 

I quite honestly cannot think of a worse designed game, than AoS on release, and 40K now.

[Blindhamster]

2 minutes ago, Scribe said:

and 40K now.

Dunno, thats your opinion (which is fine) but as mentioned, I know my gaming group have enjoyed this edition. We also enjoyed 8th, 9th was just a bit too "just remove that unit" for us though. 

p.s. I love stratagems, their implementation in 10th has been so much better than 9th, and the tweaks mentioned (max 1 per unit per turn) seems like a good limiter too.

Edited Sunday at 04:36 PM by Blindhamster

[Crimson Longinus]

3 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

No wargear points is fine if the options provided are of reasonable equivalency, it's not always applicable or appropriate, but it's not inherently "trash tier".

 

Sure, but making all options equally good is way harder than just assigning some cost to the better ones and in some cases the lore demands that some options simply are better.

 

3 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I'm sure you can adequately explain to me how many points a bolt pistol is worth on a guard sergeant with some logic.

 

Probably one or two points. Relatively trivial cost, but not nothing, so there is still a reason for the laspistol option to exist. 

 

 

In the current method I find it frustrating how there simply is no rational reason to take certain options. Why would I ever give a marine sergeant a power or chain sword when the power fist just is better? It is boring that everyone gets equipped the same. And sometimes it is big options for new models. Like the (IMO better looking) dual battle cannon option on the Rogal Dorn might not exist as the other option is just obviously significantly better. 

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I love stratagems, their implementation in 10th has been so much better than 9th, and the tweaks mentioned (max 1 per unit per turn) seems like a good limiter too.

 

Yeah they seem to want to hold onto them, while they understand that they are the problem with the game and continue to limit them further.

[Mogger351]

14 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I think you missed the point being made - which seemed to be "I enjoy the freedom to build models how I like and worry about list building somewhat separately" - vastly different to what you said. 

 

THAT SAID, I prefer having points for wargear, purely from a balance perspective, there is no world where a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol are worth the same points. 
 

Absolutely, but this is why I was saying "I like it when I don't have to think" was too reductive. There's a lot at play with the points and game state and contrary to some people's stances, it's not that it lowers the IQ requirement of the game.

 

I agree a bolt and plasma pistol is too much of a jump, but a las and bolt pistol is 1 point of strength on a model that had no place trying to use it offensively in that example, so maybe 1 in 4 games it'll have a minor impact. Is that worth 1 point which might be 20/25% of the bearers total cost?

12 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Sure, but making all options equally good is way harder than just assigning some cost to the better ones and in some cases the lore demands that some options simply are better.

 

 

Probably one or two points. Relatively trivial cost, but not nothing, so there is still a reason for the laspistol option to exist. 

 

 

In the current method I find it frustrating how there simply is no rational reason to take certain options. Why would I ever give a marine sergeant a power or chain sword when the power fist just is better? It is boring that everyone gets equipped the same. And sometimes it is big options for new models. Like the (IMO better looking) dual battle cannon option on the Rogal Dorn might not exist as the other option is just obviously significantly better. 

I agree it is a lot of work to hit true parity, hence I think a blend is fine. Sisters squads having a choice of free heavy bolter or heavy flamer then paying +10 for the multimelta seems a fair compromise for example.

[phandaal]

24 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

No wargear points is fine if the options provided are of reasonable equivalency, it's not always applicable or appropriate, but it's not inherently "trash tier".

 

I'm sure you can adequately explain to me how many points a bolt pistol is worth on a guard sergeant with some logic.

 

Should a bolt pistol be equivalent to a plasma pistol though? That isn't even a goal we need to shoot for.

 

Every single game system where you are not simply given two equal sets of pieces has some kind of resource cost built in. To account for what is stronger or weaker.

 

Whether it is Points in 40k (back in the old days that is), or something like Teef in Gorkamorka. Hell, even Monopoly tiles have a different cost to account for what you can do with them.

 

This is not some kind of groundbreaking new thing GW came up with. It is just a bad idea that other people do not use because it does not work.

[Mogger351]

22 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Should a bolt pistol be equivalent to a plasma pistol though? That isn't even a goal we need to shoot for.

 

Every single game system where you are not simply given two equal sets of pieces has some kind of resource cost built in. To account for what is stronger or weaker.

 

Whether it is Points in 40k (back in the old days that is), or something like Teef in Gorkamorka. Hell, even Monopoly tiles have a different cost to account for what you can do with them.

 

This is not some kind of groundbreaking new thing GW came up with. It is just a bad idea that other people do not use because it does not work.

No it's not but the same is also true the other way, a plasma pistol should be more unless they find a way to make the bolt pistol do something "more" that isn't pure damage.

 

Arbitrarily lapping numbers against stuff doesn't always make sense, GW are historically not good at getting the numbers right and there are defacto correct wargear choices even under points.

 

As above a hybrid would probably suit them better. Plasma pistol? Sure 5pts or whatever, replacing an auto pistol with a bolt pistol? Hard to justify the 1 pt necessarily so just make it free, give the last pistol an extra shot if it smooths it out, or reduce the range/accuracy of a sergeant bolt pistol to represent them struggling with the weight.

 

Fundamentally it doesn't matter between las/bolt pistol unless youre a fine connoisseur of infantry squads existing inside pistol range.

[Rhavien]

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

I'm ok with that.

I didn't expect to get verbally attacked by an internet stranger today, but hey hope you are feeling better now. Don't know what keeps you coming back though, if everything that this game has become since 8th or even sooner seems to be driving you mad.

 

Initial AoS was a complete joke and completely killed our gaming groups interest for wh fantasy to this day. Loosing wargear points however is not comparable to what happened to WHFB.

 

 

 

 

 

[Scribe]

13 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

 

Initial AoS was a complete joke and completely killed our gaming groups interest for wh fantasy to this day. Loosing wargear points however is not comparable to what happened to WHFB.

 

Every step closer to AoS is a mistake, 10th was a big step, and 11th doesn't seem to be fixing it.

[Bryan Blaire]

There will always be arguments about game design because of opinions.

 

I preferred to have points with flexible unit sizes and FOCs, and did not enjoy the modern design enough to continue playing past a few games. At this point, I’m sure I’m not missed, and my personal funds have definitely appreciated the break, but I’d like to have something to do with my minis besides just paint them.

 

I’m not sure an “everything uses the same FOC” is a great thing, and still believe that the FOCs should be based more on scenarios played - which you can roll off for. You can also have various unit types represent different FOC positions to reflect how that kind of army uses them, or even that certain selections of equipment in a squad shift the FOC designation for the unit.

[HeadlessCross]

7 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Every step closer to AoS is a mistake, 10th was a big step, and 11th doesn't seem to be fixing it.

AoS is super tight and balanced though, and there's few complaints about lack of flavor there. 

 

What about going towards that is a mistake?

[Shinespider]

A lot of people haven't updated their understanding of AoS since the day it launched. 

[Schurge]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

AoS is super tight and balanced though, and there's few complaints about lack of flavor there. 

 

What about going towards that is a mistake?

In my experience AoS was limited in its tactics and games were always kind of samey, all but the melee phase was lackluster with movement in particular being limited. Every game devolved into meat grinders. (Though the latter has as much to do with it being a primarily melee game as anything.) It was also lacking in customization/RPG elements. (I use that term broadly to include builds as an RPG mechanic.) There was a broad loss of tactics in comparison to WFB.

It was balanced. My local GW shifted towards it because of that. And I played two editions.

Balance doesn't make a game good, and balance comes at a cost. (Asymmetrical balance or "mirrors" is a better form of balance IMO.) There is no shame in liking it. I enjoyed it for what it was, in the same way I enjoyed Warcry for what it was. But for those who don't like it, becoming more like it is intrinsically a bad thing.

Truth is though I don't know that GW has ever made a good game. Its the World of Warcraft of miniature tabletop games.

Edited Monday at 04:40 AM by Schurge

[Antarius]

The problem with reductive statements is that a) they're reductive and b) they invite reductive statements in return. It simpy does not make for constructive discussion.

 

For example, a perfectly cromulent response to "I enjoy not having to think about it is not great design" is that most wargames are obviously better for not incorporating rules for how wind resistance affects your troops' movement. It is a bit flippant, yes, but it's prefectly true; there are many things that simply should not have rules, because they take up time, space and contribute to bloat/mental load when playing the game.
However, if we're discussing wargear options, both these statements are probably a bit too reductive. So, it would probably be better to adopt a slightly more nuanced look, if we want to interact constructively with each other.

Similarly, while I think most people would agree that 1st edition AOS wasn't a good game, it is not a productive stance that anything used in any edition of AOS is bad by definition. If they come up with a good rule for AOS that would work well in 40K, there's no serious reason to be against it. If it doesn't work in 40K it's another story, of course, but in that case an explanation beyond "AOS bad" is necessary.

[Antarius]

18 minutes ago, Schurge said:

Truth is though I don't know that GW has ever made a good game.

That seems a tad hyperbolic. Even assuming everything they've ever done with their mainline games is bad, there's still games like Blood Bowl (3rd ed), Necromunda (1st ed.), Warhammer Quest 95, Blackstone Fortress and many others. I also really struggle to see Warcry as a bad game, especially when I try to assume an "objective" stance and just look at rules design and gameplay.

I really don't know how to phrase this, since the whole internet ting will inevitably make it come off as snarky, but I promise that that is not my intention and I am genuinely curious and well-intentioned, so forgive the clumsiness of the question, but: if you genuinely don't think GW has ever made a good game, why are you in the hobby?
Again, this is not intended as a "if you don't like it move to Russia"-response, I'm just curious what keeps you around and why you got into these games to begin with. I'm also curious as to what you would consider a good game, but that might be going too far off topic.

I completely agree that balance on its own doesn't make a good game, btw.

[Mandragola]

I do agree that GW makes good games. However I think there’s something inherent to GW’s release strategy that makes it extremely difficult for 40K to be good. 
 

The business model is based on us buying new releases. Those releases need rules, meaning either a new codex or something like the eye of terror releases were getting now. But adding new stuff means a constantly changing set of rules, probably not even by the same people who did the codex.

 

I got sick of competitive 40K because of the churn. The best army at any given time was the one GW had messed up most recently. Winning meant building that army very quickly and taking it to an event before it inevitably got nerfed. I’m not interested in that as a hobby. 
 

For what it’s worth I don’t think power creep is deliberate. It’s just that GW is not all that good at this. I remember them making Thunderfire cannons incredibly good at a point when they only existed in finecast and were totally sold out everywhere. There have been loads of new releases that were simply bad, and ignored. Other times they do manage to produce nonsense like the original Votann book.

 

At the moment I play Kill Team mostly. It has all the same problems but it doesn’t matter as much because you’re only doing about a squad per team. I quite like always having a new project to work on but a lot of people are getting fed up with that too. 

Edited Monday at 09:33 AM by Mandragola

[Dezron]

 

Rumors:

40k:

- Nobz Kill Team rather then Meganobz Kill Team

- SM get 1-2 new dreadnoughts, one with flame weapon

-Nazdreg Ug Urdgrub will recive a model

 

HH:

- Scouring Expansion

 

[phandaal]

8 hours ago, Shinespider said:

A lot of people haven't updated their understanding of AoS since the day it launched. 

 

Are we talking about the very first iteration of Age of Sigmar? When GW replaced WFB with a ruleset that was "vibes not balance, and lol we are so random, now have some extra victory points for your mustache"?

 

Lucky for GW, most people know that abomination is dead and gone, if they know about it at all.  

[Lord Marshal]

21 minutes ago, Dezron said:

Rumors:

40k:

- Nobz Kill Team rather then Meganobz Kill Team

- SM get 1-2 new dreadnoughts, one with flame weapon

-Nazdreg Ug Urdgrub will recive a model

 

HH:

- Scouring Expansion

 

I guess the normal Nobz KT makes more sense. They've been surprisingly conscious of not getting into Terminator-esq territory with this version of Kill Team ('21 onwards), so seeing them break from that when there was still plenty of other barrels to scrape the bottoms of for new teams felt off. 

 

That and the existing Meganobz kit is one of the 'newer' ones, being about a decade old iirc?

 

Edited Monday at 12:54 PM by Lord Marshal

[ThaneOfTas]

35 minutes ago, Dezron said:

Scouring Expansion

Well this has been pretty broadly agreed to be a when rather than an if for a while now, but nice to know that there's some movement on it I guess, especially if it means updated mk VII armour and Castaferrum Dreads

Edited Monday at 01:09 PM by ThaneOfTas

[Antarius]

37 minutes ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Well this has been pretty broadly agreed to be a when rather than an if for a while now, but nice to know that there's some movement on it I guess, especially if it means updated mk VII armour and Castaferrum Dreads

This could be super awesome!