Do you think future cycles will have an actual story line built in revolving around the wars of the Traxis sector or will they all just be generic theme blocks?

I think I'd like a story line to run through it all.

There is usually a theme of some sort for each cycle if not actual story. Fluff for Warhammer tends to be controlled by GW. The first cycle was Warlords. What other themes could be coming? I'm not sure what themes might work.

In my experience, it is more likely to be a central theme, but no actual storyline.

There is usually a theme of some sort for each cycle if not actual story. Fluff for Warhammer tends to be controlled by GW. The first cycle was Warlords. What other themes could be coming? I'm not sure what themes might work.

They could do a cycle focusing on unique units

They could do a cycle focused on relics

They could add a new mechanic like sacrificing planets or new type of event that stays in play or a unit that comes into play face down "like shadows in agot"

They could use armegeddon or eye of terror or black crusade or holy Terra. There is literally so much lore for 40k. Warlord cycle should have had a better name...

What would you have called it then, to better sum up the cycle's main theme of 'adding a new warlord to each faction'?

What would you have called it then, to better sum up the cycle's main theme of 'adding a new warlord to each faction'?

Netrunner

Genesis cycle: added new id

Spin cycle: added double events

Lunar cycle: added currents

San San cycle: [not sure as I got out of netrunner]

Star wars

Hoth cycle: added a lot of edge cards iirc

Echos of the force: stopped playing before this came out but I think the added new mechanics based on force struggle

Rogue squadron: added pilots I think

40k conquest

warlord cycle: added warlords for each faction

they could have called it legendary leaders or heroes of traxis. (Mind you my job duties aren't to name the 40k cycles and I'm sure they had a few weeks to think of something. It feels like warlord cycle was a working title and they put off coming up with a name or the names got rejected)

My only real gripe with the name of the cycle is using the unit type. I just hope we don't have the event cycle or army unit cycle.

I was thinking more of a story theme to a block of expansions rather than introducing new mechanics, much like Magic does. For example, just off the top of my head, you could have a story about Zarathur (or whichever new Warlord really) seeking a relic hidden somewhere in the sector and how certain factions must ally to stop him. Maybe I would just be told in the flavour text but it could also be part of the set design especially if the relic becomes a card in the final pack or we get cards that allow for more ease of allying.

The 40K universe is full of lore and tales of heroism and villainy. Making the Traxis sector come alive through the game would be a nice game addition in my mind.

Netrunner wasn't about adding card types. The names were appropriate to the overall theme of the cycles. Genesis was the first, spin was about saying public opinion (hence bad publicity coming out in more force). Lunar was about exploring a different part of the setting (the moon). The upcoming SanSan cycle explores that region of America.

The Warlord cycle was about the warlords for each army and not much else apart from just rounding the factions out a bit. I'm sure the upcoming cycles will be named after something thematically appropriate to whatever the cycle is exploring fluff-wise.

I was thinking more of a story theme to a block of expansions rather than introducing new mechanics, much like Magic does.

I don't see this as something that GW will allow. This is a tactical game and GW is going to want to keep the focus on the game and its mechanics. In the minds of GW if you want story then go buy their books.

I was thinking more of a story theme to a block of expansions rather than introducing new mechanics, much like Magic does.

I don't see this as something that GW will allow. This is a tactical game and GW is going to want to keep the focus on the game and its mechanics. In the minds of GW if you want story then go buy their books.

If that's true then GW has changed radically since I used to play. The rulebooks always encouraged you to have a story reason for your conflicts, and emphasised the narrative aspect of how battles unfold (particularly over the course of a campaign).

They still do but strongly recommend their own meta plot as the only starting point. They have gone so far as to create entire books of scenarios from their plot that you can 'recreate'. Worse though is that any one who tries to add to the meta plot without a license is immediately sued. They are claiming that they own the term Space Marine and have sued authors for placing 'Marines' in 'Space' regardless of universe or time setting.

The near fanatical desire for control at GW is making the company very difficult to deal with at both the retail and consumer levels. I hope this problem does not extend to the licensing level that FFG works through but industry talk suggests otherwise.

The difference is that in this case FFG are licensing the universe so I can't see that GW will have an issue. Also, GW lost the attempt to copyright "space marines".

That's unfortunate. I'm pretty sure the 'Space Marine' thing was thrown out though, as they can't claim any kind of monopoly on that phrase (it's existed long before GW was even a thing). I know they like to rabidly enforce their copyrights, but depending on the terms of the licence, FFG might have enough autonomy to do something with this. Zarathur and Kith are brand new creations, and AFAIK the Traxis Sector never existed before Conquest either. I don't see any reason they can't start to craft an ongoing storyline about heroic and villainous deeds in this region of space.

I hope in the future, they will create something akin to the Saga expansion from LOTR for this game, and set it in a different sector with new planets and new challenges. It will spice the game up and keep it from getting stale.

Yeah I think we'll see some particular flavours. However not before each faction has it's own trio of Warlords:

- The Typical Warrior/Soldier

- The Alternate Warrior/Soldier

- The Psyker

Currently each faction seems to have 2 of the above and as such guessing the next Warlord isn't even that hard. If people want to hear some of my guesses feel free to ask.

After this second cycle that will include the 3rd kind I expect to see more flavoured Warpacks.

Yeah I think we'll see some particular flavours. However not before each faction has it's own trio of Warlords:

- The Typical Warrior/Soldier

- The Alternate Warrior/Soldier

- The Psyker

Currently each faction seems to have 2 of the above and as such guessing the next Warlord isn't even that hard. If people want to hear some of my guesses feel free to ask.

After this second cycle that will include the 3rd kind I expect to see more flavoured Warpacks.

I would love to hear your theory. I think they will wait till necrons before releasing 3rd warrior. Might be the 3rd deluxe expansion that add 9 new warlords.

I don't see Warlords in the next cycle, it is more likely to be mechanics balance and Army biased. It is possible that we get one new Warlord for all nine factions as part of expansion 3 so that there is a second evergreen set for everybody.

In netrunner each cycle has new versions of the corps and runners. If FFG goes a similar way with 40C we should get a new warlord for each faction in every new cycle.

I'd love to see some metaplot develop for upcomming expansions. "Abbadons 14th black crusade" or something like that.

In netrunner each cycle has new versions of the corps and runners. If FFG goes a similar way with 40C we should get a new warlord for each faction in every new cycle.

I'd love to see some metaplot develop for upcomming expansions. "Abbadons 14th black crusade" or something like that.

The problem is each warlord is 9 cards instead of 3. Also we will have 9 factions instead of 7 like in netrunner. So 81 cards vs 21 is a lot of real estate when you are working with 360 cards

My thoughts as well. I just don't see there being as many Warlords as there are Identities in Netrunner. By placing the third Warlords in a deluxe expansion you get two evergreen and then can cycle back to a forth Warlord that rotates out in the 4th cycle. This would need to be two Warlords in three packs and one in each of the other three. Even then that leaves only 93 other new cards for the entire cycle.

In netrunner each cycle has new versions of the corps and runners.

Well, Spin only had Reina and GRNDL. Do there's no reason to think they can't do 1-3 Warlords in a cycle and some factions (likely those with a Deluxe scheduled sooner) wait a bit longer for another Warlord in a Warpack.