40K 9th ed

[Lyraeus]

2 minutes ago, Ish said:

Can we table the Heroic Intervention argument until we have the complete rulebook in hand?

It’s quite possible that this is addressed in the full rules and was simply left out of the slimmed down basic rules PDF as a space saver. It’s also possible it’s not mentioned in the rulebook at all (it’s very rare for non-characters to be able to make Heroic Interventions) but will be addressed in one of the FAQs, Errata, or other such supplement.

At the moment, you two are just kinda arguing about what each you said, what you thought the other person said, what you meant when you said it, and what the other person really meant when they said it... and if I wanted to be part of that sort of conversation, I’d go talk to my husband about which of us was supposed to put the trash out for garbage day.

We have the rules. The only thing we are missing is an FAQ which all gw books need day 1, the missions, the crusade rules (which are supposedly laid out terribly but the video I shared helps), and the secondaries

[Sgt. Rock]

2 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Yes and no. The base is 50 PL and while sure you could stack your list with the best wargear, they dont really give you a TON of options per data sheet these days.

 

Options are great, take a Death Guard Plague Marine. Whats the best load out for that unit? Well it will depends on if you want to take them as melee or ranged then you have limited options from there.

 

What about Orks. Oh I could take 3 Rokkits for my Boyz squad each time sure no issues there but is that a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. (Orks actually love PL...we really do)

 

There is an objective best loadout for each situation. The thing is in this is that you cant change that loadout once you pick it. 

 

If I have 26 shoota boys, 3 rokkits, 3 tank busta bombs, and a Nob with Power Klaw and Kombi Rokkit, I cant change them later in the Crusade to Choppa boys.

As a marine player, I can tell you all about how busted PL is. Maybe it will work better with the battle roster thingy, but I know that in a straight up game, the differences in what you can get for PL vs. points is very, very stark. It removes the consideration of opportunity cost from list building. Perfect example, take a tactical squad. A basic 10 man tac squad with bolters is 7 PL and 120 points. Now, let's add some upgrades. We won't go too nutty, let's say we give the sarge a plasma pistol and power sword, and then add a plasma gun and a missile launcher. Not too out of hand at all, right? In matched play, that brings the cost up to 151 points from 120. But it's still 7 PL for an objectively better unit. That extra 31 points in matched play is something you have to add up and consider. In narrative using power level, you don't. For some armies where most of their stuff doesn't have a lot of upgrade options, it's fine, but when you throw in factions like Marines or Guard or even Orks where there are a million ways to tinker with your units, it becomes pretty unbalanced very quickly.

[Lyraeus]

9 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

As a marine player, I can tell you all about how busted PL is. Maybe it will work better with the battle roster thingy, but I know that in a straight up game, the differences in what you can get for PL vs. points is very, very stark. It removes the consideration of opportunity cost from list building. Perfect example, take a tactical squad. A basic 10 man tac squad with bolters is 7 PL and 120 points. Now, let's add some upgrades. We won't go too nutty, let's say we give the sarge a plasma pistol and power sword, and then add a plasma gun and a missile launcher. Not too out of hand at all, right? In matched play, that brings the cost up to 151 points from 120. But it's still 7 PL for an objectively better unit. That extra 31 points in matched play is something you have to add up and consider. In narrative using power level, you don't. For some armies where most of their stuff doesn't have a lot of upgrade options, it's fine, but when you throw in factions like Marines or Guard or even Orks where there are a million ways to tinker with your units, it becomes pretty unbalanced very quickly.

no doubt. Its 11 PL for that ork unit I described and its really 271 points currently. 

 

Its fine to have those things though and when you start taking scars and such then things can get good and bad.

 

Overall I am going to counter your argument with one point. 

 

This is a Narrative Set up for YOUR armies narrative. Not my narrative of your army, not Ish's Narrative of your Army. YOUR Narrative. Kit it out how you want to build that narrative.

[Dusldorf]

4 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

no doubt. Its 11 PL for that ork unit I described and its really 271 points currently. 

 

Its fine to have those things though and when you start taking scars and such then things can get good and bad.

 

Overall I am going to counter your argument with one point. 

 

This is a Narrative Set up for YOUR armies narrative. Not my narrative of your army, not Ish's Narrative of your Army. YOUR Narrative. Kit it out how you want to build that narrative.

The Crusade system in a nutshell:

[Lyraeus]

I mean, I am making a Ork Count as Primaris Army names the Midori Angels and I am going to load them out as I please because its fun and its my Narrative of how the Founding has gone and how they have overcome the challenges they face. 

[Sgt. Rock]

1 minute ago, Lyraeus said:

This is a Narrative Set up for YOUR armies narrative. Not my narrative of your army, not Ish's Narrative of your Army. YOUR Narrative. Kit it out how you want to build that narrative.

That's a perfectly valid point, and I would agree whole-heartedly... except that if I'm being perfectly honest, 40k players can't be trusted. No matter how much emphasis a club or LGS might place on casual, narrative fun for a league, there's always going to be one or two players who are going to take that as an opportunity to bust out their WAAC list. There is a LOT of variation in the seriousness with which players take this game. Other games you have a better idea of what to expect; WarmaHordes players are cutthroat WAAC hardasses, Infinity players tend to be very friendly, sportsmanlike, and professional, etc. 40k is the old box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get. I'm a very beer and pretzels player, and I would totally go for it that way. But I know a lot of players who would simply kit out all their stuff for optimal performance every single time, narrative be damned, just for the sake of winning. That's how a lot of players have fun, and that's fine. If that's your game, and that's all you know how to play, then go for it. But it doesn't jive with the narrative power level system. If you have enough control over your player base to weed people like that out, it's one thing, but it's otherwise impossible to police that, and 40k players are so inconsistent in what you get out of them that you just never know what to expect. At least with matched play, the granularity of the points makes it semi-balanced. 

[Lyraeus]

Just now, Sgt. Rock said:

That's a perfectly valid point, and I would agree whole-heartedly... except that if I'm being perfectly honest, 40k players can't be trusted. No matter how much emphasis a club or LGS might place on casual, narrative fun for a league, there's always going to be one or two players who are going to take that as an opportunity to bust out their WAAC list. There is a LOT of variation in the seriousness with which players take this game. Other games you have a better idea of what to expect; WarmaHordes players are cutthroat WAAC hardasses, Infinity players tend to be very friendly, sportsmanlike, and professional, etc. 40k is the old box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get. I'm a very beer and pretzels player, and I would totally go for it that way. But I know a lot of players who would simply kit out all their stuff for optimal performance every single time, narrative be damned, just for the sake of winning. That's how a lot of players have fun, and that's fine. If that's your game, and that's all you know how to play, then go for it. But it doesn't jive with the narrative power level system. If you have enough control over your player base to weed people like that out, it's one thing, but it's otherwise impossible to police that, and 40k players are so inconsistent in what you get out of them that you just never know what to expect. At least with matched play, the granularity of the points makes it semi-balanced. 

Its your game, if you want to go that way you go that way. I remember playing against you in the 2019 campaign and I get it, hell we all were learning and it can be frustrating but play the game you want to play. 

With how 9th seems to be turning its going to be harder to play and a more technical game which is going to be fine by me.

There is no right or wrong way to play or conduct your narrative. Its not about weeding people out. People play this game for various reasons and if you cut them off for wanting to play to win then thats on you. 

[WestRider]

3 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

As a marine player, I can tell you all about how busted PL is. Maybe it will work better with the battle roster thingy, but I know that in a straight up game, the differences in what you can get for PL vs. points is very, very stark. It removes the consideration of opportunity cost from list building. Perfect example, take a tactical squad. A basic 10 man tac squad with bolters is 7 PL and 120 points. Now, let's add some upgrades. We won't go too nutty, let's say we give the sarge a plasma pistol and power sword, and then add a plasma gun and a missile launcher. Not too out of hand at all, right? In matched play, that brings the cost up to 151 points from 120. But it's still 7 PL for an objectively better unit. That extra 31 points in matched play is something you have to add up and consider. In narrative using power level, you don't. For some armies where most of their stuff doesn't have a lot of upgrade options, it's fine, but when you throw in factions like Marines or Guard or even Orks where there are a million ways to tinker with your units, it becomes pretty unbalanced very quickly.

Yeah, the way it affects different Factions differently is a big part of why it has issues. Wolf Guard Terminators are a prime example, ranging from 163 to 305 points for a Squad of 5, but they're PL13 either way. 12.5-23.5 Points per PL is a massive swing.

I would note, tho, that for people who are relatively new to the game, who are just building Units with the options in the box rather than seeking out specific bits to equip everyone with the best options, it works a lot better. Further, it works much better for newer Units, which tend to have far fewer options than those from 5th ed or earlier. A Squad of 5 Intercessors, by comparison, varies in cost only from 85 to 100 points, so PL5 is a pretty reasonable approximation (17-20 Points per PL), regardless of loadout. As time goes by, and more and more of the older Units are discontinued, Power Level will probably become more and more usable.

[Sgt. Rock]

2 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Its your game, if you want to go that way you go that way. I remember playing against you in the 2019 campaign and I get it, hell we all were learning and it can be frustrating but play the game you want to play. 

With how 9th seems to be turning its going to be harder to play and a more technical game which is going to be fine by me.

There is no right or wrong way to play or conduct your narrative. Its not about weeding people out. People play this game for various reasons and if you cut them off for wanting to play to win then thats on you. 

I get that, and it's fine and good, but like I said, it only takes one or two guys to come in and dominate a league/campaign and sour fun for other people. If a game is balanced, that happens less, and unfortunately, GW games have always been, and probably always will be, imbalanced to one degree or another. The army book system shoulders a lot of blame for that. 

Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. And I feel like PL opens itself up to way too much opportunity for that kind of abuse. 

As you said, people should play the game the way they want to play it, but they also need to be prepared for their opponent to not have fun if they stomp their dick into the dirt because they were expecting a different type of game. 

[Dusldorf]

2 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

I get that, and it's fine and good, but like I said, it only takes one or two guys to come in and dominate a league/campaign and sour fun for other people. If a game is balanced, that happens less, and unfortunately, GW games have always been, and probably always will be, imbalanced to one degree or another. The army book system shoulders a lot of blame for that. 

Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. And I feel like PL opens itself up to way too much opportunity for that kind of abuse. 

As you said, people should play the game the way they want to play it, but they also need to be prepared for their opponent to not have fun if they stomp their dick into the dirt because they were expecting a different type of game. 

Which is why you should always have "the talk" with your opponent beforehand. The level of doom and gloom you're bringing to this discussion is impressive.

[Ish]

Bear in mind as well that a unit listed on your Crusade’s Order of Battle has their unit size and equipment load-out fixed in place unless you spend additional Resource Points on it.

If the pool of players is diverse enough, you’re eventually going to run into scenarios where your squad that’s been fine tuned for MEQ killing is going to get drowned in a sea of ‘gaunts or stepped on by a Knight.

The best way to optimize a Crusade force seems to be to lean into “Take All Comers” and not “WAAC.”

[Ish]

5 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. 

And that’s why I play 40k at Ordo and not at Guardian Games.

[Sgt. Rock]

3 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

Which is why you should always have "the talk" with your opponent beforehand. The level of doom and gloom you're bringing to this discussion is impressive.

Doom and gloom is what I do best! Also, I've had multiple instances where "the talk" has resulted in the other guy saying "Oh, yeah, I'm totally a casual player, this list isn't optimized at all." And then getting smeared like a grot under a Baneblade's treads, not because I'm a bad player, but because I didn't tune my list like a formula 1 care.

[Lyraeus]

1 minute ago, Sgt. Rock said:

I get that, and it's fine and good, but like I said, it only takes one or two guys to come in and dominate a league/campaign and sour fun for other people. If a game is balanced, that happens less, and unfortunately, GW games have always been, and probably always will be, imbalanced to one degree or another. The army book system shoulders a lot of blame for that. 

Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. And I feel like PL opens itself up to way too much opportunity for that kind of abuse. 

As you said, people should play the game the way they want to play it, but they also need to be prepared for their opponent to not have fun if they stomp their dick into the dirt because they were expecting a different type of game. 

The thing with a crusade game is that you can play crusade but I don't have to. So there is not a limitation to only playing people in the campaign. Lets say we have someone who doesn't want to play more than 750 points, then you pick units that equal that from your crusade list and give your opponent some bonuses.

Remember this starts off as a SMALL game of 50 PL which in theory is around 500 points but as pointed out that is  not accurate but that is fine.

You can still make this a point based system if you want. 

 

Its not hard to go "Ok for the creation of your Crusade Roster, you can have 50 PL or 500 points which ever is reached first" 

Boom, done, from there any thing you grab through Requisition Points is up to you.

 

Ish hits it on the head. My ork example is a perfect All comers unit but it will suffer as ALL orks do however from being too easy to shoot off the board, which means they are more likely to suffer battle scars. So sure I can sink a ton of PL into them more than a 5th of my starting amount but yeesh is it not always worth it

[Lyraeus]

1 minute ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Doom and gloom is what I do best! Also, I've had multiple instances where "the talk" has resulted in the other guy saying "Oh, yeah, I'm totally a casual player, this list isn't optimized at all." And then getting smeared like a grot under a Baneblade's treads, not because I'm a bad player, but because I didn't tune my list like a formula 1 care.

I hope you are not talking about any of the games with me....I didnt tune my ork lists...usually especially back them I was any meta for the most part. 

[Sgt. Rock]

No, not you. Mostly games with other people at other places, often in the distant past of previous editions. The games we've played have been pretty one-sided, but I think that's just because you're a better player than I am.

[Lyraeus]

9 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

No, not you. Mostly games with other people at other places, often in the distant past of previous editions. The games we've played have been pretty one-sided, but I think that's just because you're a better player than I am.

Fair, how has it been in Ordo for you then overall?

[Dusldorf]

1 hour ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Doom and gloom is what I do best! Also, I've had multiple instances where "the talk" has resulted in the other guy saying "Oh, yeah, I'm totally a casual player, this list isn't optimized at all." And then getting smeared like a grot under a Baneblade's treads, not because I'm a bad player, but because I didn't tune my list like a formula 1 care.

This is an indication that you need to do more before committing to a game: look at their list, or ask what's in it, compare it to yours, chat awhile before issuing/accepting a challenge. Making an informed decision always takes some effort. Just because you and your opponent had different definitions of "casual" doesn't mean "the talk" isn't the correct solution, nor does it make your pessimism more valid.

[Ish]

Bear in mind, as well, that it’s always possible to say “No.” when someone asks you for a game. If someone has consistently been That Guy in the past, just decline to play him in the future.

[Sgt. Rock]

@Lyraeus Honestly? At times it's been hit and miss. I've had games that were great, and I've had games that were less so. I do most of my 40k gaming at Fate & Fury, because while a lot of the players are toxic as human beings, there are two separate leagues, one for hardcore ITC players, and one for casual fluffy bunnies. The players that play in both leagues know what to expect from each league, and they act accordingly. Ordo has been awesome for Infinity, but like I said, I find there's a lot more consistency among Infinity players than 40k. But 40k at the clubhouse has been a bit of a gamble for me in the past, which is why I usually don't show up on Tuesdays much.

[Lyraeus]

4 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

This is an indication that you need to do more before committing to a game: look at their list, or ask what's in it, compare it to yours, chat a while before issuing/accepting a challenge. Making an informed decision always takes some effort. Just because you and your opponent had different definitions of "casual" doesn't mean "the talk" isn't the correct solution, nor does it make your pessimism more valid.

Best point made. 40k has evolved so much from the days of when I started in 5th edition. The "Talk" has become far more common place. Gods I remember 5th edition where I would just get roflstomped week in and week out that it ruined my enjoyment of the game and once 6th ed came about I was done so the idea of the "Pre-game Talk" has been very important to me. 

 

I am not a fluff bunny but to be honest... I play orks primarily... their fluff is simple. Can we fit it? If yes put it on, if no, put it on anyways. 

6 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

@Lyraeus Honestly? At times it's been hit and miss. I've had games that were great, and I've had games that were less so. I do most of my 40k gaming at Fate & Fury, because while a lot of the players are toxic as human beings, there are two separate leagues, one for hardcore ITC players, and one for casual fluffy bunnies. The players that play in both leagues know what to expect from each league, and they act accordingly. Ordo has been awesome for Infinity, but like I said, I find there's a lot more consistency among Infinity players than 40k. But 40k at the clubhouse has been a bit of a gamble for me in the past, which is why I usually don't show up on Tuesdays much.

Thats how it will be anywhere. Try crusade out. See if Fate and Fury will play it there. Your Crusade from Fate and Fury transfer over no matter where you play. 

[Lyraeus]

Huh... well a bit of googling and I found this...

https://imgur.com/a/HkV9euC

 

Seems someone posted direct book images of the Crusade rules

[MexicanNinja]

3 hours ago, WestRider said:

I guess they couldn't find any playtester/tournament winner who was willing to have their name attached to positive statements about the Blood Angels?

As a Blood Angel player, I am loving what I've seen so far.  Strategic reserve aggressors.....yup.

I have already been using 2 Impulsors and limited targets on the table.

My characters were either near units or left to 'fend' for themselves against the enemy.  I hardly ever let Mepgiston or my support Chappy run off on their own.

I'm really looking forward to the Chappy ob bike and the bike unit to help apply pressure with my double intercessor squad in Impulsors.

I'm not making any conclusions about list building until I have the rules.  What I will say is that I have 3 dreadnoughts ready to see play again.  Not having the -1 makes those assault cannons awesome.

[Sgt. Rock]

2 hours ago, MexicanNinja said:

I'm not making any conclusions about list building until I have the rules.  What I will say is that I have 3 dreadnoughts ready to see play again.  Not having the -1 makes those assault cannons awesome.

Right? That venerable dread I have in the cabinet is going to be on the board a lot more.

[Brandon]

2 hours ago, Ish said:

And that’s why I play 40k at Ordo and not at Guardian Games.

I only have played at Guardian with Ordo members... and I still get wiped turn 2!  Someday I will be decent at playing. Someday...