Jump to content

GW's Tactical Deployment showcase


Lyraeus

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Brother Glacius said:

Did they really need to release a book on terrain? I think any other army book would have been more welcomed by the community. Plus, adding that now when the game is still so new? Why not a year from now in order to add that extra dimension to the rules...why right out of the gate when most people are still coming to grips with the existing meta.

Because, despite the attempts of a vocal minority of the player-base to paint them as a sinister cabal of nefarious, mustache-twirling villains... GW just ain’t that smart. It would make far more sense to release this special terrain system when the edition was a year or two old, as a way of injecting a bit of energy into it (and to move some boxes of plastic after everyone was winding down their army purchases).

But, well, someone in the design team probably came up with the idea six months ago, got the go ahead to type up a rough draft five months ago, and got everyone else on board, so they went to print with it now. Because “Oooh, shiny.” basically.

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." –Robert A. Heinlein, Logic of Empire (1941)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

The game isnt slated to WAAC players though, this is slated to those who are creative and want to have more control over their games. At least from my perspective 

I would disagree. In 40k, there are definitely different tiers of units within a given army; some are trash and some are overpowered. Which means that if you want to be creative and have control over the game, you're probably going to lose a lot of games while you futz around having fun. Some game systems are just like that, and 40k is one of them. A lot of the stuff they've put out so far, with the exception of the narrative stuff like Crusade, seems to be a lot more oriented towards tournament play, especially considering how much of the new mission stuff they lifted from the ITC stuff in 8th. Which is really kind of unfortunate, for a game that's so inherently imbalanced.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Brother Glacius said:

Did they really need to release a book on terrain? I think any other army book would have been more welcomed by the community. Plus, adding that now when the game is still so new? Why not a year from now in order to add that extra dimension to the rules...why right out of the gate when most people are still coming to grips with the existing meta.

Short answer? Yes. 

 

Long Answer: ALL of 8th edition was overshadowed by the fact that the terrain rules were hot garbage. They were just plain bad that tournament organizers had to take things into their own hands. 

This now lets us TO's and event organizers have a bit more leeway, get more ideas on fun, balanced, and interesting ideas to expand terrain or even add new terrain rules. This is also including Objectives IN terrain for instance which is not currently allowed in the rule book so this is expanding on methods of play.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

I would disagree. In 40k, there are definitely different tiers of units within a given army; some are trash and some are overpowered. Which means that if you want to be creative and have control over the game, you're probably going to lose a lot of games while you futz around having fun. Some game systems are just like that, and 40k is one of them. A lot of the stuff they've put out so far, with the exception of the narrative stuff like Crusade, seems to be a lot more oriented towards tournament play, especially considering how much of the new mission stuff they lifted from the ITC stuff in 8th. Which is really kind of unfortunate, for a game that's so inherently imbalanced.

Yes and no. 

Matched Play is based a lot off of ITC and for good reason it generated the MOST active gaming circles and player groups as well as tournaments so GW taking much of that and running with it was a smart idea. Why try and create something new when something is already working?

 

I disagree that the game is set for tournaments. The base rule book is not the Tournament book and tournament missions are handled differently than the base book does. 

To me, these terrain additions means more for creativity across the board for all types of players. Want to do a Crusade game and have a narrative why your moving from a city into my Ork shanty town? Well its a border skirmish and you are pushing back on my orks to drive them out and clear the area. Need a 3rd party to set up a terrain board with interesting and maybe useful abilities? That can be done now as well. 

 

I get that many people think this is stupid but for me it means more creativity and expansion.

 

We also dont know what 9th ed balance will be. We have not a single codex yet for 9th that has been released.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope we eventually get old-school Eternal War and Maelstrom missions back for 9e. I haven't played a single 9e game yet but I'm already bored as [big bad swear word] of the current ITC/Nova-style ones just by watching batreps on Youtube. 

We have Vanilla Ice Cream, French Vanilla Ice Cream, and Vanilla Bean Ice Cream... which would you prefer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, andy said:

I just hope we eventually get old-school Eternal War and Maelstrom missions back for 9e. I haven't played a single 9e game yet but I'm already bored as [big bad swear word] of the current ITC/Nova-style ones just by watching batreps on Youtube. 

We have Vanilla Ice Cream, French Vanilla Ice Cream, and Vanilla Bean Ice Cream... which would you prefer?

Malestrom was not an enjoyable format for me. Sure it seems fun but its so swingy. It could be that I hate unpredictable things like that...hmmm cant account for what could happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Malestrom was not an enjoyable format for me. Sure it seems fun but its so swingy. It could be that I hate unpredictable things like that...hmmm cant account for what could happen

I completely understand. The CA19 deckbuilding rules helped a LOT, but even then there were times when the Card Gods decided to crap all over you and it was very frustrating. But as a player who seldom plays the same list twice the current tournament-style mission focus feels pretty same-y.

Fortunately, this problem is easily fixed... I can't think of much reason why the CA18 and CA19 Eternal War and Maelstrom missions wouldn't work in 9e if one tires of the current ones.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, andy said:

I completely understand. The CA19 deckbuilding rules helped a LOT, but even then there were times when the Card Gods decided to crap all over you and it was very frustrating. But as a player who seldom plays the same list twice the current tournament-style mission focus feels pretty same-y.

Fortunately, this problem is easily fixed... I can't think of much reason why the CA18 and CA19 Eternal War and Maelstrom missions wouldn't work in 9e if one tires of the current ones.

Removing 10 cards is murrr

 

They should work and likely would, same with Psychic Awakening missions. Just need to test them out. Hell to manage Malestrom, use the cards as the Primary objective and keep Secondary Objectives so that people have a second memes of gaining points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

The real question about new terrain rules is:  Do they provide guidelines for how to alter the "pewpew" and "dakkadakka" sounds I make when rolling to shoot inside their boundaries?  It would be embarrassing to mimic the wrong kind of echo for missile launchers in a canyon.

They do! The terrain Keywords are on the card so the Storage Fane shown has; 

Terrain, Area, Ruins, Pipeway, Storage Fane. 

On the card is also the Terrain Traits so it has
Breachable, Defensible, Light Cover, Scalable.

 

So when a unit is in the areas of the terrain they get access to these traits like normal terrain rules

 

 

ZgB81Swn1ocODgAT.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, andy said:
A sound of happiness/contentment used by furries. A made-up 'animal noise' word along the same lines as yiff that probably came from the word 'purr.'
 
Gotta say, not the response I was expecting.

THAT i did not know....I will stick with Merrrr but then somehow I am saying something else....these fringe cultures I have no idea of... No thanks

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading/watching some stuff about both pre-order books, it seems like there actually IS something salvageable from both for essentially anyone willing to house rule.  The missions themselves seem solid overall stripped of the stuff that the books are supposed to be about.  Ignore that there isn't much story in Pariah, play the missions collecting crusade points or extra CP and pretend it is "chapter approved 2020 narrative".  For Tactical Deployment, either ignore pretty much everything to do with terrain and play "chapter approved 2020 matched play" (yes I am aware that some of the secondaries deal with terrain so ignore those as needed) or modify the terrain rules (adding generic ruins pieces seems borderline necessary as does agreeing "this thing is a storage fane even though it isn't made by GW or built to the exact footprint").  

If forced to say who these books are really "for", I would say people who are comfortable house ruling and/or people who mainly play at GW stores where they will surely have a storage fane and whatever else and there's often a focus on 1000 point games (the terrain points seem to make more sense here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.thumb.jpeg.5a82e88dbc8d5743eea962f17d6ba3b1.jpeg

Back in the days of WHFB 5th Edition, GW released a series of Campaign Packs. Small boxed sets that had special rules for a linked series of battles that combined to tell a story, with some card stock terrain, and other gubbins.

My favorite was Perilous Quest, pictures above, which featured the Bretonnians against the Wood Elves (and included a neat little mini game for running a jousting tournament). There was also the Idol of Gork (Empire v. Orcs), Tears of Isha (High Elves v. Dark Elves), Circle of Blood (Bretonnia v. Undead), and Grudge of Drong (Dwarfs v. High Elves).

I wish GW would bring back this format for WH40k. Leverage the Crusade rules, bundle in some cool plastic terrain, and really encourage players to embrace 40k’s narrative side of things.

How neat would it be to have four or five scenario campaign that retold the Massacre at Sanctuary 101 (the first encounter between the Necrons and Sisters of Battle), the invasion of Rynn’s World (where the Orks nearly obliterated the Crimson Fists), or some of the hundreds of other legendary moments in the backstory? (Or, heck, make up some new ones!)

It can’t cost that much to print a small scenario book, right? Bundle one in with the Battle Sanctum kit. Presto. Tons of value added and a reason to buy the GW terrain kit and not a third-party MDF set. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Yea it doesnt look like GW made it useable with player made terrain... This will be a wash

To be honest, you could make custom terrain to match the height and footprint easy.  I don't like them stating "this is best for competitive play".  That's a bold statement Cotton.

They should have incorporated the AoS style which was giving a piece of terrain to each faction.  Are they all created equal?  No, of course not, however, it was an option to get some kind of boost "some more than others" to your army.  However, it's not mandatory.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MexicanNinja said:

To be honest, you could make custom terrain to match the height and footprint easy.  I don't like them stating "this is best for competitive play".  That's a bold statement Cotton.

They should have incorporated the AoS style which was giving a piece of terrain to each faction.  Are they all created equal?  No, of course not, however, it was an option to get some kind of boost "some more than others" to your army.  However, it's not mandatory.

Sure but it looks like it will only be certain types of terrain. 

Every faction has their own terrain piece. They labeled them Fortifications

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...