New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Antarius]

I'm not saying it won't be a problem (and I agree that it sucks), but I think the best solution is to talk to your opponent and offer them the use of an extra detachment point too. That should give them a bit of incentive to agree and remove the spectre of "but what if playing BA is somehow an advantage for my opponent?!?" from their mind. And yeah, if it's about RAW see if they'll agree to play 1001 points.

It's not perfect, but it'll hopefully work in almost every case and if someone flat out refuses, maybe you dodged a bullet by not playing them.

On another note, I wonder to what degree those missing rules will cause problems and/or be available in print(able) formats. I acitvely like that this is a hobby where we're not interacting with/through screens and all the distractions they tend to cause and that may well be old-fashioned, but I don't think I'm alone in this approach.

In any case, if you do publish an actual book, it seems super weird to leave all that stuff out of it. It's almost gotta be a mistake, right?

[Sabadin]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

It's almost gotta be a mistake, right?

I mean, this is the same GW that changed the The End and the Death from a 2 book to a 3 book series between when book 1 was sent to the printers and when it was released for sale, omitting things from the printed rulebook to push digital engagement and thus push Warhammer+ is fully on brand here.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

I'm not saying it won't be a problem (and I agree that it sucks), but I think the best solution is to talk to your opponent and offer them the use of an extra detachment point too. That should give them a bit of incentive to agree and remove the spectre of "but what if playing BA is somehow an advantage for my opponent?!?" from their mind. And yeah, if it's about RAW see if they'll agree to play 1001 points.

It's not perfect, but it'll hopefully work in almost every case and if someone flat out refuses, maybe you dodged a bullet by not playing them.

On another note, I wonder to what degree those missing rules will cause problems and/or be available in print(able) formats. I acitvely like that this is a hobby where we're not interacting with/through screens and all the distractions they tend to cause and that may well be old-fashioned, but I don't think I'm alone in this approach.

In any case, if you do publish an actual book, it seems super weird to leave all that stuff out of it. It's almost gotta be a mistake, right?

 

It's so that they have a lever to modify if things get out of hand; not every single one of those rules is something that they expect to change, but being able to quickly and easily modify rules that don't require a book reprint should help close the gap for some people about making books invalid.

 

It is a bit silly, but it's all in service of bringing people into their app ecosystem.  That's the real draw for them, as they can then use the data they harvest from the app (That you will have to agree to give them to utilize the app, I'm sure) so that can help inform balancing from a wider perspective; those here who complain about the game catering to ONLY tournament people should be rejoicing, as their voices will now be heard a lot more... as long as you use the app.

[Evil Eye]

That's the bit I'm not looking forwards to with 11th. I REALLY hope the app isn't an absolute necessity. The most digital integration I want in a wargame is rules being available as PDFs (even paid) as well as books. It's an analogue medium and forcing electronic elements in seems...not very good.

 

But we will see.

[DemonGSides]

It's so much nicer than having to watch someone unload a library and refer to their tomes for a simple "What does that rule do?".  Having your opponents list without having to print anything or have to read through a text entry on a discord is going to be great, as well as being able to quickly reference their rules without having to utilize their book.  Having all the scoring in one place instead of a tertiary app that is only allowed to use SOME of the wording so that GW doesn't get Lawyer-y.

 

As long as it's implemented right, everything they've mentioned sounds great.  Just being able to reference other armies rules is a huge benefit.

[Mogger351]

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

If Strikeforce starts at 2K that would be a big change. We often play 1500 points at our club and changing that to an Incursion would feel very odd.

It was in the q&a video they did, they were asked what to use for 1500 point games and they clarified 1k+ was incursion and 2k+ strikeforce, it was near the end somewhere of you wanted to check.

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

If Strikeforce starts at 2K that would be a big change. We often play 1500 points at our club and changing that to an Incursion would feel very odd.

It was in the q&a video they did, they were asked what to use for 1500 point games and they clarified 1k+ was incursion and 2k+ strikeforce, it was near the end somewhere of you wanted to check.

[Evil Eye]

Eh. Agree to disagree I guess. IMO excessive amounts of book-keeping is something that can and should be reduced without forced app integration, just by writing better, more concise rules to begin with and not overly relying on "we'll fix it later".

 

I think the community has developed a somewhat unjustified fear of physical books due to (entirely justified) PTSD from 7th edition, where you could end up needing 4-5 books for a single army. You can have a physical book based ruleset and not have thousands of tomes to leaf through for one game; thinking back to 3rd/4th edition, the vast majority of armies had all their rules in one Codex with some having entirely optional supplements. The only real exception I can think is traitor guard, where you needed the 3.5 edition Imperial Guard book and Codex: Eye of Terror (and Chaos Space Marines IF you wanted to use some units from there). Also the supplements were just that- supplements. They contained cool nice-to-have things but you could absolutely have a great time just using the core Codex. Compare that to 7th where many factions were absolutely kneecapped without several extra volumes and the actual problem becomes more apparent.

 

Of course this is all fairly academic anyway as the proper digital solution would be PDF or eBook releases rather than a dedicated app.

[Ahzek451]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

As long as it's implemented right

Key part right here, GW does not have the greatest history with this.

I like having both, again as long as it is handled and maintained properly. An app is convenient in a lot of ways, but staring at a screen, battery life, and a reliable internet connection leaves room for printed material. I prefer this often, easier on the eyes and there's something about flipping pages that feels better. Now, as the concern with lugging around a library, this is on GW. If they wanted, they could make things modular and more user-friendly. Have your core texts, and then any updates or new rules could be printed and slotted in your rulebook or codex accordingly. Be more clear with what updates were made and where they were made along with version numbers printed at the top of the pages. 

[DemonGSides]

55 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Eh. Agree to disagree I guess. IMO excessive amounts of book-keeping is something that can and should be reduced without forced app integration, just by writing better, more concise rules to begin with and not overly relying on "we'll fix it later".

This is two completely different complaints wrapped up in one super complaint.  Excessive Amounts of Book-Keeping is quite literally what we're doing; this is like wanting to play D&D without a character sheet; what are we doing here if not just doing book-keeping for a reason.  The App allows you to circumvent the unknowns of that book-keeping; who's keeping track?  What's your list?  What is that one guy actually equipped with because I don't know the difference between an Ion blaster and a Scatter-gun at a glance and having it in a list lets everyone keep each other honest without needing to bother anyone else in the minute to minute.

 

Not wanting those rules to change or worrying about them leaning on "Fix it later" has nothing to do with over-all book-keeping; very easy to eliminate all bookkeeping with a future 'balance' patch that just rips things out wholesale, so I'm not really sure how the first half of your complaint really relates to the second half of your complaint.

 

55 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I think the community has developed a somewhat unjustified fear of physical books due to (entirely justified) PTSD from 7th edition, where you could end up needing 4-5 books for a single army. You can have a physical book based ruleset and not have thousands of tomes to leaf through for one game; thinking back to 3rd/4th edition, the vast majority of armies had all their rules in one Codex with some having entirely optional supplements. The only real exception I can think is traitor guard, where you needed the 3.5 edition Imperial Guard book and Codex: Eye of Terror (and Chaos Space Marines IF you wanted to use some units from there). Also the supplements were just that- supplements. They contained cool nice-to-have things but you could absolutely have a great time just using the core Codex. Compare that to 7th where many factions were absolutely kneecapped without several extra volumes and the actual problem becomes more apparent.

 

I haven't played 7th in... almost 15 years, so no it's not really a fear of mine (Or probably the vast majority of the playerbase, of whom most are post 7th ed. I know, tough pill to swallow, but post 8th population is much larger than pre-8th population, and a lot of people self selected themselves out of the hobby around that same time).  I just don't think bringing along a bunch of extra weight is necessary when we have both Datasheet cards (if you HAVE to have something physical) and then your one sheet for Detatchment rules, and then a BRB for ultimate rules checking.  Or I can bring one of the various electronic devices and they're all right there at the same weight as a single book, or often less.  No one is carting lots of books around unless they want to, but my speaking to the tomes wasn't so much a "We have too much" it's a "We can just get it all in the size of a phone and it's easy to navigate; just search and you can find any rule, and if you've got the command bunker with your list in it, you've got everything ready to go without any of the extraneous stuff such as weapons your not taking or datasheets you're not including in your army."  I like lean.

 

55 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Of course this is all fairly academic anyway as the proper digital solution would be PDF or eBook releases rather than a dedicated app.

 

They used to release PDF books and those suck; PDF's suck in general, and they had a much cooler interactive codex for one edition (I can't remember if it was 7th or 8th) that was way cooler, but is impractical if you want books to release in a quick cadence (Which we should all want).  The 'proper digital solution' is just free rules.  If they're stored in an app, so be it, that's fine by me, as long as they're accessible.

 

42 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

Key part right here, GW does not have the greatest history with this.

10th App started anemic and got better with time.  I remain cautiously optimistic about 11th's app, especially with the things they say are going to be included from the get-go.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9 by DemonGSides

[Lord Marshal]

Xenos Faction Packs (WarCom).

 

Downloads link.

[Antarius]

Huge "well, ackchually", so don't take it as a serious counter to anything, but 7th ran from 2014-2017. I only mention this because the "almost 15 years" made me go "oh crap, was it really that long ago that I lived in that apartment or am I completely misremembering what edition we played there?", which made me feel old enough that I felt inclined to go check.

 

Still, a book that sends you to the app is obviously not in any way a viable solution for people who don't use the app.
They can do what they want with their product line, of course, but it's going to make some people unhappy and it's not a groundless complaint (like so many others in this hobby) - I mean, you do expect a rulebook to contain the rules you need to play the game and it's hard to argue that that's not a fair expectation.

I hold out hope that it's a somewhat overstated problem, though. Hopefully it's not a big deal in practice.

[SvenIronhand]

14 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

Xenos Faction Packs (WarCom).

 

Downloads link.

Aspect Host and Warhost being 3DP is a bummer, but Seer Council is OK IG. 

[phandaal]

19 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Huge "well, ackchually", so don't take it as a serious counter to anything, but 7th ran from 2014-2017. I only mention this because the "almost 15 years" made me go "oh crap, was it really that long ago that I lived in that apartment or am I completely misremembering what edition we played there?", which made me feel old enough that I felt inclined to go check.

 

I often think "yeah that thing was like 10 years ago right?" Only to find upon checking that it was actually 20+ years ago. Don't even get me started on realizing the 80s are as far from today as the last World War was from the 80s. 

 

22 minutes ago, Antarius said:

you do expect a rulebook to contain the rules you need to play the game and it's hard to argue that that's not a fair expectation.

 

It is not unreasonable at all. A physical rulebook specifically calling out missing rules and pointing to an app is pretty strange. (Now that I said that, someone will give me twenty-five examples of other games where every rule alternates between a book, an app, a mailing list, and the author's cousin's Discord server.)

[Ahzek451]

2 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

It is not unreasonable at all. A physical rulebook specifically calling out missing rules and pointing to an app is pretty strange. (Now that I said that, someone will give me twenty-five examples of other games where every rule alternates between a book, an app, a mailing list, and the author's cousin's Discord server.)

Exactly, and that's just it, just because others are doing it doesn't make it optimal or right. 

[Rowland]

Being very new to all this, Here’s my take on the book/app thing…ATM I just play Combat Patrol so I print off the sheets onto card. So if I can go analogue it gets me away from screens (which is nice…). I like having a book for rules, just to have it there for both of you to reference.  I’m glad they have produced just a rulebook.  I’m not interested in the lore surrounding armies, or at least not in a rulebook.  At £15 I can afford to buy one every year if changes are large enough, in the meantime I can just do with a pencilled in addendum if necessary.  

However, GW’s rules are terribly written and referenced, although apparently this book is better?  I have found the app really useful when building armies, selecting the army types and their strategies (sorry I can’t remember the right name for the strategy things).  I also like that your weapons and abilities have a keyword, you press that and it goes to the rule definition which is much better explained than in the book.

ATM I’m glad they do the digital side for free but I expect they will add a code to a book sooner or later (like the codexes).

[DemonGSides]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/8dl5ikuv/new40k-world-champions-top-5-changes/

 

New article. Buried in the part about points is an interesting comment about how some units have a tax on the second or third instance of the unit; Defilers specifically mentioned as getting more expensive as you have more of them.

 

Depending on how heavy the hand is on those increased points, it might make it better/cheaper for a one off of something that isn't oppressive and allow more army diversity. I like it. 

[01RTB01]

From today's article:

 

"Second, a new system of point steppers will typically increase the cost of some datasheets on your third unit. Some extremely powerful datasheets, like the Defiler, may have this additional cost if you take a second and third unit. This change will help with internal diversity for armies and encourage players to consider their other available options."

 

Be interesting to see how significant this is. 

[Antarius]

The idea is certainly a good one and should, in theory, be quite a bit easier to balance than having to price the first unit after how oppressive three of them might be.

[Crimson Longinus]

Some wargear points coming back is excellent news, and multiple unit surcharge is a good idea, as long as they only use it when it is actually warranted. 

[Vassakov]

I think this is them fully embracing the whole digital side of things - if you assume 90% of your audience is using the app, then it can (theoretically) do all this for you, without having to worry too much.

 

It's also a good way to limit spam without penalising those who are just taking one. One Defiler/Rogal Dorn/RepEx/EC Daemon Prince/Riptide is good, but three in half the lists can be an issue.

 

They could also do it the other way to "buff" some underused units by giving them a bit of a discount, then making multiple copies much less attractive so you don't accidently break something when it turns out taking 3 Triach Stalkers (or whatever) is Quite Good Actually. 

[Ahzek451]

I do like the idea, as always will be skeptical in GW's handling when put in practice. Hopefully we dont get units punished that don't deserve it. 

[01RTB01]

15 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

I do like the idea, as always will be skeptical in GW's handling when put in practice. Hopefully we dont get units punished that don't deserve it. 

Being cynical I fear they will. Too often they miss gentle and have gone heavy handed. 

[Indy Techwisp]

Chaos Faction Packs are up, and it looks like GW did just go "Make the most played Detachments 3DP" as that looks to be the case across the board for Chaos.

 

Rubricae Phalanx and Grand Coven at 3dp makes sense, but none of the 1dp detachments we have are really worth combining with the 2dp detachments since they either don't combo with what the main Detachment wants or are locked out of combining.

 

Edit:

Looking at the TSons' three 1dp detachments, Ritual of Regen seems weirdly focused on Flesh and mutation in the fluff.

Makes me wonder if it wasn't devved as another Tzaangor focused one before someone remembered we actually have Marines in this army (before deciding we couldn't use it with the 2 detachments we have that actually favour Marines).

Edited June 10 by Indy Techwisp

[Emperor Ming]

The unit duplication thing is interesting depending on how much it is

[Indy Techwisp]

25 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

The unit duplication thing is interesting depending on how much it is

 

I have a feeling it's either going to barely affect anything or cripple multiple armies for years.