New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Focslain]

4 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Honestly, I'd rather they stuck to their guns with 3DP detachments being unplayable in smaller games. 

Honestly that would just punish causal players. I'm glad they confirmed you can use 3DP detachments in lower games. Cause there will be those that are stickler to the rules at any level. 

 

Having some detachments be at 3DP for tournament balance makes sense since tournaments are usually at 2K. So the DP system is balanced towards that unfortunately.   

[HeadlessCross]

1 minute ago, Focslain said:

Honestly that would just punish causal players. I'm glad they confirmed you can use 3DP detachments in lower games. Cause there will be those that are stickler to the rules at any level. 

 

Having some detachments be at 3DP for tournament balance makes sense since tournaments are usually at 2K. So the DP system is balanced towards that unfortunately.   

Casual players are the ones helped the most by stopping said detachments. There's absolutely zero reason two new players should be led to believe that Liberator Assault Group and Angelic Host are equal detachments in 1000 point games. 

[Focslain]

6 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Casual players are the ones helped the most by stopping said detachments. There's absolutely zero reason two new players should be led to believe that Liberator Assault Group and Angelic Host are equal detachments in 1000 point games. 

The question is do causal players care? If they do, they aren't causal, their competitive now. 

[Rhavien]

That is odd... Why do they tell us to have 2 DPs at 1k and then say you can also choose a 3DP detachment? While it fixes my problem with not being able to play LAG in a 1k game it makes no sense. 

 

[Blindhamster]

12 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Casual players are the ones helped the most by stopping said detachments. There's absolutely zero reason two new players should be led to believe that Liberator Assault Group and Angelic Host are equal detachments in 1000 point games. 

Based on win rates... 

 

Blood angel win rates

 

One of these is very much not the same... 

[Mogger351]

8 minutes ago, Focslain said:

The question is do causal players care? If they do, they aren't causal, their competitive now. 

It's not that clear cut, I'm definitely casual but want a reasonably fair game out the box. 

 

Even though the sudden 180 benefits some causal players (who I'd tag more as narrative in this context rather than casual), it flies in the face of common sense in terms of game design.

 

It's quite close to saying something like "well, it sucks you couldn't take 1100 points of units for 1k games, but for 30% of detachments? Go on then gain 10%".

 

You don't have to be a competitive player to see it's a problem.

 

I also wish people would stop referring to 10th win rates for detachments. There's a points adjustment and a completely new mission structure to apply before the data is valid.

[Blindhamster]

19 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I also wish people would stop referring to 10th win rates for detachments. There's a points adjustment and a completely new mission structure to apply before the data is valid.

people keep asserting "x is super strong, thats why its 3dp"

 

the ONLY way to state relative strength right now, is the 10th win rates. 

 

LAG actively works against your disposition, so there's no world where it should be 3dp but firestorm (which works toward its disposition) is 2dp

[Focslain]

2 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

LAG actively works against your disposition, so there's no world where it should be 3dp but firestorm (which works toward its disposition) is 2dp

There is a good chance these will flip after the first quarter. But until GW gets a larger datapool to work with (ie tournaments) as others have stated, they are basing it on what they have.

 

Gladius might not even exist by then if the rumour rework of the SM army rule holds any water. 

[DemonGSides]

20 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

people keep asserting "x is super strong, thats why its 3dp"

 

the ONLY way to state relative strength right now, is the 10th win rates. 

 

LAG actively works against your disposition, so there's no world where it should be 3dp but firestorm (which works toward its disposition) is 2dp

 

LAG has been good basically the entire time it's existed in 10th, regardless of what other detatchments existed.

You're restricting the conversation to basically the past 4 months and acting like it's the only data that matters (Assuming your data is coming from 40k Stats, which looks at the most recent quarter).  We both know that isn't true.  LAG has stayed good the entire edition it's existed (Since it got the upgrade to 2 strength, I guess I should say), whereas FAF isn't even a BA specific detatchment.  It also has 75 total games played that have been reported, whereas LAG has... 19 THOUSAND games.
 

If you look at the full data for the entirety of 10th, you get a BIT of a different story than the one you're putting forward (Caveats: This is still JUST Chapter Approved 25-26 games, so it isn't even REALLY looking at the full scope of the edition, but it is consistent across the entirety of 10th);

 

Makes it pretty obvious what their reasoning behind what was 3 DP and what wasn't, doesn't it?  (It's the most played, not the most winning.  Most played is a better indicator of 'strength' because people want to play what is strong, especially at a tournament, even if they aren't capable of piloting it to the best of it's ability).

Edited June 12 by DemonGSides

[Blindhamster]

Except it’s also the most played because it’s the only one that actually gives the blood angels traditional red thirst

 

anecdotal as it is, you’ve repeatedly had long time blood angels players saying they’ve used it because it’s the one that gave “the red thirst” regardless of precisely what the rules of that are.

 

so no, I don’t buy into the idea that it’s the most used specifically because it’s the best. 
 

and even if it is the best, it still plays totally counter to its disposition given in 11th

[Lexington]

Y'know, I remember in the run-up to 10th's release, GW communicated a clear intent for Detachments to not become a game-dominating mechanic in the way the Command Points/Stratagems system had during 8th and 9th. Three years later, I barely even hear people talk about basic factions - the only question is "which Detachment"?

 

Really wish GW had taken the opportunity to just toss the whole system out for 11th. It's terrible, purely detrimental to the game, and that's ignoring how the name doesn't even make sense anymore...

Edited June 12 by Lexington

[Blindhamster]

It’s because what should be faction rules are often tied to detachments (again, look at LAG)

[Lexington]

5 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

It’s because what should be faction rules are often tied to detachments (again, look at LAG)

I know! It's awful! What a silly system that is. Just make Space Wolves be Space Wolves because they're Space Wolves! You could just give army-wide special rules again, dump Detachments and Stratagems and have yourself a much better game system.

[Focslain]

2 minutes ago, Lexington said:

I know! It's awful! What a silly system that is. Just make Space Wolves be Space Wolves because they're Space Wolves! You could just give army-wide special rules again, dump Detachments and Stratagems and have yourself a much better game system.

So serious question. Have you tried this? If not, why not?

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

Based on win rates... 

 

Blood angel win rates

 

One of these is very much not the same... 

You didn't look at how much those detachments were actually used, did you? 

[HeadlessCross]

29 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Except it’s also the most played because it’s the only one that actually gives the blood angels traditional red thirst

 

anecdotal as it is, you’ve repeatedly had long time blood angels players saying they’ve used it because it’s the one that gave “the red thirst” regardless of precisely what the rules of that are.

 

so no, I don’t buy into the idea that it’s the most used specifically because it’s the best. 
 

and even if it is the best, it still plays totally counter to its disposition given in 11th

That doesn't make sense because you'd be assuming that tournament players are now suddenly concerned about fluff, even though fluff bunnies in this thread have stated they have no concern about going to tournaments. 

[Indy Techwisp]

OK, so let me get this straight:

 

GW reveal the Detachment Points and multiple popular Detachments are 3dp (regardless of the reason why) and not usable in a 1k points game.

 

This reaches critical mass with IA who were straight up unusable in a 1k points game with all their Detachments being 3dp.

 

People complained about this to GW who "clarified" (changed the rules so) that at under 2k points you always have the option of choosing only 1 Detachment regardless of its dp cost.

 

People are now mad that GW actually listened to the community and made the change they were directly asking them for.

 

Did we want it to be legal to use IA and  thematic Detachments in 1k points games or not?

[ursvamp]

30 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

/…/

It also has 75 total games played that have been reported, whereas LAG has... 19 THOUSAND games.
/…/

if I’ve understood it correctly, the goal with Detachment Points is to get player to try the less played detachments some more. To give the obvious choice detachments some competion, so to speak.

So basing high points value on how played the detachment is (rather than on how successful) seems to make sense, to me. (At least in this first stage of the system!)

 

12 minutes ago, Lexington said:

I often don't even hear people talk about basic factions anymore - the only question is "which Detachment"?

I mean… that makes sense to me?

Since the thing that used to be called factions/sub-factions (the system where you chose what buff affected your army, and that you built your list around) is now called detachments.

I don’t really see that there is a problem with that. Am I missing something? :O

[HeadlessCross]

14 minutes ago, Lexington said:

I know! It's awful! What a silly system that is. Just make Space Wolves be Space Wolves because they're Space Wolves! You could just give army-wide special rules again, dump Detachments and Stratagems and have yourself a much better game system.

Nah, because the old system is Planet Of Hats. It assumes White Scars are incapable of being stealthy and can never use rules befitting a Vanguard Spearhead.

[Focslain]

Since the DP system is supposed to be based on power level of the detachment you now have detachments that are considered 50% more powerful then their opponent.  Combined with the disposition system, the cost of the detachments are most likely off. But we (and GW) don't know if the points are accurate until we get some games in and good chance GW did do enough for an accurate rating. 

[HeadlessCross]

14 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

OK, so let me get this straight:

 

GW reveal the Detachment Points and multiple popular Detachments are 3dp (regardless of the reason why) and not usable in a 1k points game.

 

This reaches critical mass with IA who were straight up unusable in a 1k points game with all their Detachments being 3dp.

 

People complained about this to GW who "clarified" (changed the rules so) that at under 2k points you always have the option of choosing only 1 Detachment regardless of its dp cost.

 

People are now mad that GW actually listened to the community and made the change they were directly asking them for.

 

Did we want it to be legal to use IA and  thematic Detachments in 1k points games or not?

Imperial Agents are a whole can of worms that need a redesign from the ground up. 

[DemonGSides]

25 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

OK, so let me get this straight:

 

GW reveal the Detachment Points and multiple popular Detachments are 3dp (regardless of the reason why) and not usable in a 1k points game.

 

Yes.  For some, they think this is a good thing, as it forces diversity and keeps powerful detatchments out of a low powered version of the game.

25 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

This reaches critical mass with IA who were straight up unusable in a 1k points game with all their Detachments being 3dp.

 

"Critical mass" is doing a lot of work to support your belief that the DP system was wrong.  There were a few people complaining on here, the expected reddit meltdowns as well of course.  Most people saw it as a thing to keep competitive tournaments balanced by not allowing something like LAG to be combined with anything else, as LAG is very strong for your whole army and letting them get access to another set of enhancements/strategems could be oppressive.  We won't really know until we get a chance to play the game.

 

25 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

People complained about this to GW who "clarified" (changed the rules so) that at under 2k points you always have the option of choosing only 1 Detachment regardless of its dp cost.

 

We will never know what their original intent is beyond what they say, and they say they are clarifying their original intent to allow 1k games to use a single detatchment or a combo of 2 1 DP detatchments.  So not a rules change, just not made explicit when they were introducing the DP system.

 

25 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

People are now mad that GW actually listened to the community and made the change they were directly asking them for.

 

No one is mad.  I think a few people think it was silly to give into the complaints, and more people who just don't care.  I don't see anyone posting in anger besides people who are mad that their detatchment they preferred is an expensive one, not that it even matters anymore, and a few people who are mad that the Disposition of a detatchment isn't a way for them to be even stronger and instead being a way to balance the game in competitive circles.  When you're at home, you can, as always, play how you want.

 

25 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Did we want it to be legal to use IA and  thematic Detachments in 1k points games or not?

 

"Illegal" is doing a lot of work when it comes to a board game.  No one should be that serious about toy soldiers.  Most people understand that the way IA is set up is not for it to be an actual army, but to be used as a sprinkling in other armies.  GW doesn't want to make that explicit, so they get to be a weird inbetween type of codex, and that gives people big feelings.  They are allowed to feel that way, just as others are allowed to feel that it's not that big of a deal.

 

Similarly, some people understood that in a 1k game, it's automatically more casual (No one's playing 1k in tournaments competitively unless it's a duo's tournament, and I honestly expect them to fall on the side of the original expected intent of the DP system, that at small points games, you'd be locked out of powerful detatchments, but maybe now it won't matter and they'll let you do whatever), and therefore these high minded competitive prognostications don't matter; my group had almost immediately decided that they weren't going to worry about DP for stuff like 1k games unless you were going to do combo's, at which point you'd be limited in the same way GW has decided it was going to go.  There was no fighting and no one got upset about their 'theme' not coming across.  It was solved in about an hour of discord postings.

 

57 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Except it’s also the most played because it’s the only one that actually gives the blood angels traditional red thirst

 

That's a statement that is unprovable, and once again, these are tournament reports not kitchen table reports.  People are playing the things that are going to let them win, and then a small population is going to play what makes them happy.

 

57 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

anecdotal as it is, you’ve repeatedly had long time blood angels players saying they’ve used it because it’s the one that gave “the red thirst” regardless of precisely what the rules of that are.

 

Sure, casually.  The win-rate percentage and stats that YOU cited from the get-go don't include those people.

 

57 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

 

so no, I don’t buy into the idea that it’s the most used specifically because it’s the best. 
 

and even if it is the best, it still plays totally counter to its disposition given in 11th

 

You should buy it, because it's true.  Giving 2 strength and 1 attack on the charge is massively strong and the enhancements and strats are pretty much all useful.  It's a very strong detatchment, and it is rightfully 3 DP and I don't see that ever changing.

 

The disposition is a balancing act.  IT can (And probably will) change, but is that way from the get-go so you can't just table your opponent by turn 3 since you're also scoring points for doing exactly what your detatchment wants to do, and is extremely good at doing.  If you don't like the T&H disposition and you're playing casually... play a different disposition?  If it's SO BAD, making a compelling case to your buddy that you want to try Purge or whatever should be easy as pie.

Edited June 12 by DemonGSides

[Mogger351]

16 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

OK, so let me get this straight:

 

GW reveal the Detachment Points and multiple popular Detachments are 3dp (regardless of the reason why) and not usable in a 1k points game.

 

This reaches critical mass with IA who were straight up unusable in a 1k points game with all their Detachments being 3dp.

 

People complained about this to GW who "clarified" (changed the rules so) that at under 2k points you always have the option of choosing only 1 Detachment regardless of its dp cost.

 

People are now mad that GW actually listened to the community and made the change they were directly asking them for.

 

Did we want it to be legal to use IA and  thematic Detachments in 1k points games or not?

I expected them to put a tiny drop of effort into imperial agents and give them some rules so they could play the game as intended rather than choosing to break their own game rules before day 1.

 

Would it have been so hard to either redesign or invent a single 1 and 2 dp detachment for IA? That's the right answer to the problem.

 

Or, actually communicate their intent for the army long term rather than just feigning ignorance.

 

I get some fluffy detachments are too high impact for small games, I was fine with the limitation. I'm unhappy with their less than 1/4 ass attitude to fixing the issues.

[Focslain]

10 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Or, actually communicate their intent for the army long term rather than just feigning ignorance.

They might legit not know what to do with IA as a full army.  

[Mogger351]

2 minutes ago, Focslain said:

They might legit not know what to do with IA as a full army.  

That would be a frankly terrifying situation, but the codex (if there is one) is likely already drafted to some degree.