|
I agree with a shakeup but WHFB only need a shakeup too.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
SteelMentor posted:They pretty much stated at the reveal that this isn't 40k's End Times, it's a much less cataclysmic shift in the status-quo. They're being a million-times more transparent without just outright giving spoilers. 40k needs a shakeup. You better hope you're right or you're going to see the same overnight death-knell that Fantasy did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I don't think you understand TTerrible's posting gimmick I don't have a gimmick I'm just an awful poster, I'm sorry you thought I had depth beyond that. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Said it before, and I'll say it againHamshot posted:Ya don't move the plot forward and people complain, ya move the plot forward and people complain, waddayagonnado? Although to be fair, the time when people complained about the 40k clock forever being stuck on one minute to midnight and the original eye of terror campaign having no real resolution, all that happened before age of sigmar caused everybody to go  at what GW considers (or considered) Plot Progression.What imperial poo poo (excluding Terra) is left for GW to wreck on the same scale as Fenris and Cadia? We've got Armageddon, McCragge, The Rock, Necromunda, Mars, Titan, anything else before they'd need to have plot progression on Terra?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:You better hope you're right or you're going to see the same overnight death-knell that Fantasy did. AoS seems to be doing OK now, from what I can tell. I really don't believe they'll AoS 40k, but only because the sales numbers for 40k are much, much better than the Fantasy sales numbers, and so there's much more to lose if they botch the transition. It also seems really unlikely that they'll scuttle any of the existing armies when they do, but combined "forces of the Imperium" and "forces of chaos" armies seem fairly plausible, and not particularly undesirable. TTerrible posted:I don't have a gimmick I'm just an awful poster, I'm sorry you thought I had depth beyond that. Oh, my bad. You posted the same think like 10 times in the last hour, so that's what I figured. We're definitely getting 40k End Times, but an AoS at the end seems unlikely, but only for business reasons. Well, and also that the current GW CEO plays 40k.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Shitposting about age of the emperor aside, I agree that 40k needs a shakeup. I just cannot understand how anyone can have any faith whatsoever in GW to do it well. However much they import from aos, it's going to be a shitshow in both the rule and fluff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
catachan supremacy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:Shitposting about age of the emperor aside, I agree that 40k needs a shakeup. I just cannot understand how anyone can have any faith whatsoever in GW to do it well. However much they import from aos, it's going to be a shitshow in both the rule and fluff. time used to be that editions got better, and streamlined things. Then 6th edition came out and it all went to poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Hamshot posted:Said it before, and I'll say it again
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
I honestly think 6th edition was a net benefit. One of the biggest problems 5th had was that Vehicles could be simultaneously be nearly immune to damage and easily destroyed - it all depended on how quickly you could roll a Destroyed result. Too many times I'd just pointlessly get pens on Razorbacks, resulting in no damage. 6th fixed that. It went a little far with it, and the tweak to the damage table in 7th did good. The biggest problems people found with 6th was allies and fliers, and in the end neither were all too big a deal. That was mostly just nerds being nerds and resisting change in all its forms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
6th/7th editions are the editions of making things monstorous/gargantuan creatures that clearly should not be (riptides, wraithknights) because vehicles were too squishy to represent the full majesty of these big expensive models.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Yeah 40k had a good year which might be related to the guy who was in charge during the whole AOS debacle getting poo poo-canned and the company actually being run by somebody competent who plays the game. Youll have to excuse me if im a little optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Hamshot posted:6th/7th editions are the editions of making things monstorous/gargantuan creatures that clearly should not be (riptides, wraithknights) because vehicles were too squishy to represent the full majesty of these big expensive models. Nah, that's the result of choices made back in 3rd. Crisis Suits and Wraithlords were not Walkers, and Riptides and Wraithknights are just bigger versions of those. I doubt that the relative value of Walkers and MCs factored at all into the decision making process. GW, especially the GW of that age, had little interest in how the game actually played.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Hihohe posted:Yeah 40k had a good year which might be related to the guy who was in charge during the whole AOS debacle getting poo poo-canned and the company actually being run by somebody competent who plays the game. They certainly have been a better company recently, but we've really only seen this 'blow everything out of the water' scenario once before, and it was not a good scenario. Excuse me if I'm more than a little concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:List of successful large scale setting shake ups gw have made: Well they're 0-1 so we don't have the biggest sample size.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:AoS seems to be doing OK now, from what I can tell. The biggest problem is that they completely erased decades of fluff and lore, and the replacement is like when I used to world build- at 12. I see all these awesome minis on the GE site but they mean almost nothing- I liked my Bretonnians, with the French Medieval knights but also hiding the fact that many of the lords are pretty much vampires. I liked the Aztec lizardmen who knew more about the universe but they are freakin lizards. Elves were assholes, Chaos Warriors coming from the Wastes were imposing, Skaven were a persistent annoyance and had so many cool quirks like the "musk of fear" and how it's honorable to lead from the back. You had your dwarves, who could fly freakin helicopters and fire machine guns, and then the Chaos Dwarves (RIP) which I barely knew because I began in 5th. No, gently caress all- AoS is doing better as a game, but this Realmgate poo poo is a shoehorned way to have random factions fight with no depth, and no reason. It's a random royal rumble. I hope they don't do this with 40k, like have the EoT expand and consume the galaxy and isolate everything in another AoD, only to have the Emps return and make a special new world with every faction in their own fishbowls
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
40k needs to be shaken upside down and re-written from the ground up (rules) The game is a total mess and small changes are not going to fix that Hoping for a big shift tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
 Just leave the fluff alone, but just bulldoze the rules and start again. Because it's a loving mess right now. Imagine being a totally new player trying to learn 40k, where basically every rule has, like, a dozen exceptions, and you need to know all of the rules AND exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:
Already too late to keep the fluff as is. What they just did with Cadia pretty much means that it can't be status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
you also kind of need to have access to every codex and supplement, because it's not uncommon for people's armies to be made up of crazy ally detachment shenanigansTKIY posted:Already too late to keep the fluff as is. What they just did with Cadia pretty much means that it can't be status quo. What if the Emperor comes back and Celestine wishes Cadia back to not being exploded? Or it could all be a dream?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Hamshot posted:6th/7th editions are the editions of making things monstorous/gargantuan creatures that clearly should not be (riptides, wraithknights) because vehicles were too squishy to represent the full majesty of these big expensive models. That's because they hosed up when it came to fixing vehicle rules. It's not even that vehicles are too easy to destroy; it's also that as soon as you penetrate their armor, there's more than a 50% chance they'll be unable to do anything meaningful for a turn. MasterSlowPoke posted:I honestly think 6th edition was a net benefit. One of the biggest problems 5th had was that Vehicles could be simultaneously be nearly immune to damage and easily destroyed - it all depended on how quickly you could roll a Destroyed result. Too many times I'd just pointlessly get pens on Razorbacks, resulting in no damage. 6th fixed that. It went a little far with it, and the tweak to the damage table in 7th did good. Flyers were fine, but don't work well with the scale of 40k; Allies as implemented are pretty bad--they're wildly uneven and make faction distinctions less meaningful, which is bad. 6th introduced a bunch of new random nonsense like rolling for warlord traits and random psychic powers, and removed cover abstraction. The 7th edition changes to vehicle damage helped a great deal, but 7th introduced a ton of other issues like summoning and re-adding the psychic phase to the game. MasterSlowPoke posted:Nah, that's the result of choices made back in 3rd. Crisis Suits and Wraithlords were not Walkers, and Riptides and Wraithknights are just bigger versions of those. I doubt that the relative value of Walkers and MCs factored at all into the decision making process. GW, especially the GW of that age, had little interest in how the game actually played. I'm not convinced that it's not also related to the fact that MCs and GCs are much better than vehicles, and making bit new poo poo fall into that category is more likely to move more units.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:The biggest problem is that they completely erased decades of fluff and lore, and the replacement is like when I used to world build- at 12. the new lizardmen fluff is a loving hatchet job though and the new Empire fluff screams 'we didn't think people liked the empire fuckfuckfuck bring them back'. and this may all change as new terrible factions like sigmarines and stripper dwarfs emerge to supplant the old ones. (also Chaos Dwarves have been given to forge world and their new daddies are looking after them way better than GW). Saint Drogo fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Moola posted:What if the Emperor comes back and Celestine wishes Cadia back to not being exploded? Or it could all be a dream? Abaddon reveals he was wearing a mask all along, and it was actually Old Man McGillicutty. He would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for these meddling Inquisitors!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Saint Drogo posted:actually as long as you're not into empire, Bretonnians or lizardmen you're still pretty much sorted. most of the new factions/subfactions are cool and good in their own ways too. Dude... Ur-Gold. UR-GOLD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
 I'm trying here man. fyreslayers are somehow even loving worse than their name would suggest. fluff-wise anyway. I like the big lizard models.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:
I'm all for big changes (I think alternating unit activations on shared turns is almost a must-have for 40k to be workable), but I'm not on board for anything that invalidates all the existing codexes and supplements, and I don't think that's a smart business strategy, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
TKIY posted:Dude... Ur-Gold. UR-GOLD. My gold? Or Ur-Gold?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Saint Drogo posted:
I get it, I would like to be optimistic too. Ideally, the storyline moves but doesn't throw away everything. Import a few things from AoS that work like large creature wounds affecting abilities and a better armour/armour piercing system. Put the unit rules and points online, but keep the special rules universal and don't pull the '40 different shields' bullshit. Simplify fliers and vehicles, make sure stupidly powerful formations cost points or have other limitations. That would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I'm all for big changes (I think alternating unit activations on shared turns is almost a must-have for 40k to be workable), but I'm not on board for anything that invalidates all the existing codexes and supplements, and I don't think that's a smart business strategy, either. Ideal world, codexes and supplements would remain at least playable until they're replaced by something using the new ruleset. But grandfathering poo poo in from previous editions is how we ended up in this mess in the first place. At some point, sadly, GW need to just salt the earth and start over, ruleswise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Ideal world, codexes and supplements would remain at least playable until they're replaced by something using the new ruleset. If the Generals Handbook thingy was realeased *with AoS* that would have given them more of a fighting chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Ideal world, codexes and supplements would remain at least playable until they're replaced by something using the new ruleset. On the one hand, I kind of agree, but on the other hand, I just got rules for all 9 traitor legions again, so gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:catachan supremacy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Ideal world, codexes and supplements would remain at least playable until they're replaced by something using the new ruleset. 40k straight-up needs a 3e-style makeover. The state of the game is arguably worse than it was in 2e, since you don't have virus bombs ending the game on turn 1 and saving you 6 hours of shuffling wound markers around. I would be honestly shocked if GW did that before the year is out. They're too tied up to the 3e framework, and all their good talent left for greener pastures years ago, so even if they had the balls to do a total rehaul they'd likely gently caress it up in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
I think the game COULD be good with roughly the current framework (See: 30k), though some stuff is clunky. It would require a massive rebuild of all the codexes SIMULTANEOUSLY though. Theoretically, I guess they could shift to warscrolls or something, but then how are they going to charge you $150 for the rules to run an army over three book? I guess 30k does kinda have the advantage that the armies are all fairly similar, so balance is easier, but I think a lot of work and investment could do that to 40k as well. No matter what, fixing the game is going to require a complete burndown of all the codexes at the same time. While their other businesses are recovering, could GW really stomach the break in releases and pause in purchases that would require, with 40k being their cash cow? Long term, business wise, making the game good could have a great payback if they pulled it off, but drat would the attempt be expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:On the one hand, I kind of agree, but on the other hand, I just got rules for all 9 traitor legions again, so gently caress you but what if those rules were actually good?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
While invalidating the rules of every book I owned would bother me, I think it'll be better for the game overall if it's rebuilt from the ground up. I like a lot about AoS (not everything, especially not fluff, but a lot) and how approachable it is to a new player is huge. I have a few friends asking to get into 40k and I have to keep telling them to wait til summer because it's so dense and there's so much to remember that I don't have the patience to teach them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Flyers were fine, but don't work well with the scale of 40k; Allies as implemented are pretty bad--they're wildly uneven and make faction distinctions less meaningful, which is bad. 6th introduced a bunch of new random nonsense like rolling for warlord traits and random psychic powers, and removed cover abstraction. The 7th edition changes to vehicle damage helped a great deal, but 7th introduced a ton of other issues like summoning and re-adding the psychic phase to the game. I think gunship-style flyers are fine, even with zooming rules. Valkyrie, Stormraven, that new Deathwatch thing are all fine. I agree about jets, but I wouldn't mind there being a Stronghold Assault (or whatever it's called now) equivalent to bolt on jets in big games. Death From The Skies, sort of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
I am on the camp of a 3e full wipe, however I started right when 3e began so I don't know how many models/units were invalidated. I would absolutely love to see GW release rules, and warscrolls with each unit as they are made. Formations aren't bad. They bring out thematic compositions that gives some flavor to the usual FoC. However when a book is released, it contains all valid formations on that faction from that point forward. Any released previously are invalid. This allows GW to make adjustments without needing to do massive FAQs and also keeps sales flowing. I think allies should be limited, as well as detachments. I think it was the NoVA open where the winner had some odd 5-6 detachment Marine force utilizing the best Death Stars. One of the biggest 7e things I've noticed is that the assault was nerfed to hell and back- they seem to be making up for it but doing it horribly wrong-through individual exceptions and special rules. Why not have units get a "unit trait" so that some units, let's say "assault troops" can get an assault trait and be able to assault from deep strike/whatever. Things like that. I don't know, maybe make it so you can choose to assault if you run... why you cannot do that still boggles my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
I love the 13th Black Crusade popping off. The setting has felt constipated for the last decade, and this is the first I've cared about the setting outside of Black Library novels. They're even finding a way to throw bones to xenos players in narratives centered on Imperium vs. Chaos! Today I helped my little brother start painting Dark Angels from the Dark Angels boxed set and hoooooly poo poo, why didn't anyone tell me Space Marines were this easy to paint? I started with Eldar and Dark Eldar, and these are like... you butter it green, paint red bits, wash, drybrush highlights, and you're done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Formations aren't bad. They bring out thematic compositions that gives some flavor to the usual FoC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 04:08
|
|
