Rumours for WFB and 40k

Discussion of Games Workshop's systems and their universes

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Thursday 22nd May, 2014 12:58 pm

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/ps ... eaked.html

Issue with biomancy is you're committing your librarian to combat on the offchance it goes through. Not got a feel for how reliable powers will be with one ML2 yet.

Lots of other stuff on that blog if people want other rumours - the perils table is in another post f/ex.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Thursday 22nd May, 2014 4:42 pm

Well I always thought this would be minor changes and v6.5

I bet most of the more interesting rumours are complete "BS" ;)

- especially as they start falling apart themselves and unbalancing the game as you pick them apart...
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Comrade_Nikolai » Saturday 24th May, 2014 10:04 pm

"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine."
Comrade_Nikolai
Treasurer
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Monday 29th June, 2009 8:57 am

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Rick » Saturday 24th May, 2014 10:56 pm

Interesting read, I've not got that far going through the rules yet so its nice to have an overview. Missions sound like a game of ticket to ride now :0

GW have obviously decided that unfettered openness and choice are best. So it seems they haven't learnt from past experience.

I have a suggestion I'd like to float to avoid any balance issues. I think we should agree as a society that list construction should not be a competitive aspect of the game and instead players should aim to play each other with lists of equal power. We already have a rating system for list power (yellow, black etc.) by which players can rate their own lists and be given feedback by the rest of the society to check its fair. If players construct multiple lists at different power levels they can match lists when they play someone and have a fair and fun game. If players do end up playing different powered lists against each other maybe there could be some campaign balancing to make it worthwhile for the underdog.

Also, using maelific daemonology as a non-chaos faction should result in the very fluffy sanctions of a) being excommunicated from your faction b) being hunted down and exterminated by your former brothers in arms c) whatever's left has to join the chaos faction (if they'll have you).
40k: Tau (gothic, AI), Tyranids (NetEpic, gothic), Dark Angels
WFB: Skaven (uncharted seas)
Also Played: Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Flames of War
Rick
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Thursday 2nd July, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Saturday 24th May, 2014 11:05 pm

d) The mockery of everyone nearby.

I agree with the list design thing. I'm already working on various different power level versions of my list, though it'll need some testing and feedback to see if I'm getting it right.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Talorian » Saturday 24th May, 2014 11:47 pm

Rick wrote:
Also, using maelific daemonology as a non-chaos faction should result in the very fluffy sanctions of a) being excommunicated from your faction b) being hunted down and exterminated by your former brothers in arms c) whatever's left has to join the chaos faction (if they'll have you).


And for those not bothered about the campaign, fluff background etc, they can just do it for the lols
User avatar
Talorian
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wednesday 1st July, 2009 7:51 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Saturday 24th May, 2014 11:52 pm

Let's put it this way, I'll play most things, and I'm not interested in a game vs Daemon summoning spam.

I realise that eg a random Eldar army using Malefic isn't quite the same - better game experience, worse narrative - and I *might* play that on occasion, but would be put off doing so regularly. The campaign narrative is one of the main things interesting me in 40k, otherwise WFB is to my eye just a better game, and certainly more interesting to me on the tabletop.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Sunday 25th May, 2014 12:27 am

Fluff wise - fluff rapes have never been allowed in the campaign, and anyone who isnt daemons summoning daemons will be subject to campaign consequences...

As for "equal power" games - sure, for "pay and play" games I agree. However campaign meta is a fun thing to do between TWO consenting players, and I'll be writing up how the new 40k rules - including unbound, meta-ing and daemon summoning, will work in the campaign.

Of course some players aren't interested in the campaign, and those who are turning up with abusive lists to our society "just for the lolz" (i.e. to win a game without in game effort) will a)not have their games counted in the campaign (which will put off fluff players playing them) and b) won't get games against players who are in it "for the game".

So they won't last long.

Uber daemon summoning spam sounds like a great themic game if done in the right way, with the consent of the opponent and against someone who can deal with it. Full on daemon incursion with grey knights etc coming in to save the day sounds like fun!
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Talorian » Sunday 25th May, 2014 11:48 am

I can just imagine the Daemon army summoning more daemons of doomzor being super bent.
User avatar
Talorian
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wednesday 1st July, 2009 7:51 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Sunday 25th May, 2014 1:36 pm

Well that stupid farsight bomb was broken now it's not. But I need to write down some guidelines. Super daemon summoning is fun only if it's a special theme game.
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Rick » Sunday 25th May, 2014 1:51 pm

Talorian wrote:I can just imagine the Daemon army summoning more daemons of doomzor being super bent.


History is repeating itself - once more daemons are the army that broke 7th ed :)
40k: Tau (gothic, AI), Tyranids (NetEpic, gothic), Dark Angels
WFB: Skaven (uncharted seas)
Also Played: Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Flames of War
Rick
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Thursday 2nd July, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Comrade_Nikolai » Sunday 25th May, 2014 2:00 pm

Rick wrote:History is repeating itself - once more daemons are the army that broke 7th ed :)


Nice.

I remember those heady days when only High Elves stood a chance against them, all because you could take armour that made you immune to flaming attacks.

Although thats not really fair to Eldar. Special mention should be made to how they ruined 5th, 6th and now 7th edition...
"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine."
Comrade_Nikolai
Treasurer
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Monday 29th June, 2009 8:57 am

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Talorian » Sunday 25th May, 2014 11:35 pm

How did Eldar ruin fifth?

I can see the issues in 6th, but mostly when allied with Tau. I'm yet to really wrap my head round 7th, but initial impressions I don't think Eldar are taking as big a hit as other armies, but I'm not seeing any huge boosts either.
User avatar
Talorian
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wednesday 1st July, 2009 7:51 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Rick » Monday 26th May, 2014 12:41 am

Talorian wrote:How did Eldar ruin fifth?

I can see the issues in 6th, but mostly when allied with Tau. I'm yet to really wrap my head round 7th, but initial impressions I don't think Eldar are taking as big a hit as other armies, but I'm not seeing any huge boosts either.


Could an unbound eldar pyschic spam army all using maelific daemonology but the ultimate in cheese?
40k: Tau (gothic, AI), Tyranids (NetEpic, gothic), Dark Angels
WFB: Skaven (uncharted seas)
Also Played: Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Flames of War
Rick
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Thursday 2nd July, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Comrade_Nikolai » Monday 26th May, 2014 8:52 am

Talorian wrote:How did Eldar ruin fifth?

I can see the issues in 6th, but mostly when allied with Tau. I'm yet to really wrap my head round 7th, but initial impressions I don't think Eldar are taking as big a hit as other armies, but I'm not seeing any huge boosts either.


It might not have been fifth. Which edition was the harlie bomb? Also, wasn't there an edition where the foot ulthwe seer council was the top dog because warlocks didn't have to take a power and were 10 points each?

They had lots of issues in 6th, waveserpents, wraithknights, seer councils ets. (And apparently something called a "Wraithstar" but I'm not sure what that is. Word on them there internets is that they didn't need tau as allies, and it was all about their good friend the Baron (who wears a necklace of farseer bones)

This edition they lost auto-jink on waveserpents but gained objective secured. They lost having all the powers, but I think got more reliable at casting them against everyone but really psyker heavy armies. Then the also gained invisibility. Wraithknights got better compared to other monsters as they didn't need smash. They also got to keep Dark Eldar as battle brothers. Theres probably some stuff that they're worse at though.

Edit: I'll retract that. I think Eldar ruined 4th and it was Grey Knights that ruined 5th.
"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine."
Comrade_Nikolai
Treasurer
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Monday 29th June, 2009 8:57 am

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Monday 26th May, 2014 8:31 pm

OK - let me know (here, not in the other thread pls!) what you think of these 7th Ed campaign guidelines...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&p=9404#p9404
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 11:12 am

Seems reasonable - harsher language than I've noticed you use before, but then, I can't imagine it'll actually be an issue. Even the stronger armies at the society do tend to stay within certain bounds. Specific tieins for Unbound forces are interesting, wonder what we'll see.

Is anyone planning to make use of multiple force-orgs, now that seems to be a more standard thing that you can do? Strikes me as having significant potential for abuse still - just immediately, as a Marine player, the possibility to put down multiple 2+/3++ characters is quite notable.

Similarly, as Frontline say, Invisibility, wow... I've been using a Telepath for ages, but if it turns out to be overpowered even in non-deathstar games I may have to switch out for something else. Biomancy maybe, we'll see.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 11:19 am

I think I'm putting down harsher language so that anyone "new" knows those bounds. If people want to have an "ard boyz" style tournament - great! Organise one! I'll not be playing. If people want to play within limits (like the ones on that link Nik shared - which seem reasonable) then they only need ask.

Our club does not have a 40k "league" so the guide I've written ought to make it possible for people to play broadly waht they want. In fact the way I've written it happens *anyway* - as the guideline I've given about "declaring whats in your unbound army" - we kind of already have been doing (how many flyers in your army? Oh that many? I may need to change my army a bit...) I've just codified it as good sense.

Overall I'm really happy with the flexibility of the new edition. However this is like libertarianism. Let idiots get hold of it and they spoil everyone else's fun :)

2 Saturdays left where we have rooms. Will be posting soon some ideas for some campaign events depending who is showing up (am aware there are many things on next Sat, though I am not attending them)
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Comrade_Nikolai » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 12:49 pm

The Kremlin wrote:Is anyone planning to make use of multiple force-orgs, now that seems to be a more standard thing that you can do? Strikes me as having significant potential for abuse still - just immediately, as a Marine player, the possibility to put down multiple 2+/3++ characters is quite notable.


You can put down two 2+/3++ from your primary now, and at least one from detachments (can spacewolves take 2?) So I'm not sure whether that makes any difference to be honest. Personally I don't think its the 2+/3++ that does it, I think its the eternal warrior; which you can get two of now anyway if you ally in a wolf lord). (obviously better when combined with 2+/3++, but eternal warrior is such a fantastic advantage).

to be honest, we've stayed away from FOC abuse so far, with only some abuse of allies so hopefully it'll be fine, but if in any doubt when writing an army, building it from up to two sources should really be the default.

Although to be honest, I've stayed away from allies so far as I really don't like the idea in a 1 on 1 game.
"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine."
Comrade_Nikolai
Treasurer
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Monday 29th June, 2009 8:57 am

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Rick » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 1:43 pm

The Kremlin wrote:Is anyone planning to make use of multiple force-orgs, now that seems to be a more standard thing that you can do?


I was thinking of doing that with my nids. After they reduced the cost of everything I actually struggle to reach 2k points using a single force organisation chart without padding my army with about 500pts of crap. A second chart would allow me to field my tervigon as a 3rd HQ choice (since I can't field it as troops without using up all of termagants to actually make out of it).
40k: Tau (gothic, AI), Tyranids (NetEpic, gothic), Dark Angels
WFB: Skaven (uncharted seas)
Also Played: Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Flames of War
Rick
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Thursday 2nd July, 2009 4:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Dark Nightmare of the Grim Dark Nightmarish Future

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron