If the two pics we’ve seen are indeed the contents? It seems more than we usually get in starter sets. If that’s right, that’s an important lens to view the price through.
Comparing the Marine part to Dark Imperium, same number of models and 3 of both are some special "speedy" dudes
Dark Vengeance was identical, 10 standard Marines, 3 Bikes, 5 Veterans 3 Heroes
Black Reach, there was a Dreadnought instead of 3 Bikes, and just 1 Hero
Black Reach was 60€, Dark Vengeance 85€, Dark Imperium 125€, so a price of 185€ for the 9th Edition Starter Set would fit the standard GW price increase without increasing the content.
No it doesn’t lower the price, or make it more affordable. But it would be a reminder that a higher price doesn’t necessarily means lower value.
I mean, the Intercessor Assaulr Squad would likely retail for the same as an Intercessor squad. Or £35. So that alone is a little over 25% of the cost.
Necron Warriors? Box seems to contain 20. They’re currently £22.50 for 10. Let’s say in the region of £45 (could be higher, could be lower. But I’m assuming the same, as you can see)
So already, that’s a retail of £80.00, leaving £40.99
This is not really compareable, easy to build without option are cheaper than the regular boxes
The old AoS Core Box costs 125€, buying each faction as stand alone from GW costs 65€, saving you 5€ on the models + dice/rules
the only difference is that the cheap core box stuff is usually not available as stand-alone product but this might change (may also be a reason why they have their own preview pictures)
One thing to keep in mind is that we'll see these cool new models that are coming in 9th Edition...
And if you think even half of that stuff you're seeing in the Necron picture will come in the box you are sorely mistaken. And they'll show us what's coming in that box a few days before pre-order. And then it'll be a month or so before we start seeing the rest of the models. Probably 5-6 months later, just in time for the Holidays.
Remember: Dark Imperium and Shadowspear were roughly the value of 2 'Start Collecting' boxes.
The multi-part kits came out over a month later for Dark Imperium and 6 months for Shadowspear.
Keep in mind that in both instances, the multi-part kits were the ones that had the actual weapon options and an actual Codex with updated rules.
I'm waiting to see what is coming in that Necron box before I get too excited, other than that... I can wait until Christmas.
Yeah I remember the Centurion freakout. They weren't even the most offending model visually and were easily modified to look better. I blame people that get their opinions from 1d4chan since they're basically the Fox News/MSNBC of 40k info.
Centurions were just a stupid idea from a fluff point of view, the rules did not really fit the rest of the game and just because the GK Dreadknight exists and you could use them as base for conversions does not make them any better
If people come argument that the high prices are ok because this is a premium product, anything that need a "modification" to look good is therefore a big fail and not worth the price GW asks for
Eh, 160€ is bad. Not "not gonna buy it if I like the contents" bad, but a ridiculous jump compared to DI. Blergh. Maybe the Necrons could be a christmas present to my bro.
I was thinking about this and I'm betting we're not going to see the codexes right away. It'll be booklets like they did in Shadowspear and then when they get around to a proper army release later with multi-part kits then we'll see proper codexes.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that we'll see these cool new models that are coming in 9th Edition...
And if you think even half of that stuff you're seeing in the Necron picture will come in the box you are sorely mistaken. And they'll show us what's coming in that box a few days before pre-order. And then it'll be a month or so before we start seeing the rest of the models. Probably 5-6 months later, just in time for the Holidays.
Remember: Dark Imperium and Shadowspear were roughly the value of 2 'Start Collecting' boxes.
The multi-part kits came out over a month later for Dark Imperium and 6 months for Shadowspear.
Keep in mind that in both instances, the multi-part kits were the ones that had the actual weapon options and an actual Codex with updated rules.
I'm waiting to see what is coming in that Necron box before I get too excited, other than that... I can wait until Christmas.
Luckily for Necron players, the monopose is basically just as good as the full kit. There'll be none of this "you get a sister of battle squad with mandatory flamer and power sword" problem.
the_scotsman wrote: Luckily for Necron players, the monopose is basically just as good as the full kit. There'll be none of this "you get a sister of battle squad with mandatory flamer and power sword" problem.
Yeah, that's a good thing.
Honestly, I actually hope that some of the Start Collecting kits take a dip in price at some of the local places. The current kits aren't bad at all, either.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that we'll see these cool new models that are coming in 9th Edition...
And if you think even half of that stuff you're seeing in the Necron picture will come in the box you are sorely mistaken. And they'll show us what's coming in that box a few days before pre-order. And then it'll be a month or so before we start seeing the rest of the models. Probably 5-6 months later, just in time for the Holidays.
Remember: Dark Imperium and Shadowspear were roughly the value of 2 'Start Collecting' boxes.
The multi-part kits came out over a month later for Dark Imperium and 6 months for Shadowspear.
Keep in mind that in both instances, the multi-part kits were the ones that had the actual weapon options and an actual Codex with updated rules.
I'm waiting to see what is coming in that Necron box before I get too excited, other than that... I can wait until Christmas.
Luckily for Necron players, the monopose is basically just as good as the full kit. There'll be none of this "you get a sister of battle squad with mandatory flamer and power sword" problem.
Luckily for Necron players, the monopose is basically just as good as the full kit. There'll be none of this "you get a sister of battle squad with mandatory flamer and power sword" problem.
from what we have seen from the preview pictures I expect that to change and the 10 Warrior Squad will need its 2 special weapons as well (and the core box will come with the bad ones)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah I remember the Centurion freakout. They weren't even the most offending model visually and were easily modified to look better. I blame people that get their opinions from 1d4chan since they're basically the Fox News/MSNBC of 40k info.
You have always seemed like a person with a decent head on your shoulders, so I'm sure you won't be shocked at these things:
-A lot of people have opinions on 40k stuff that are basically 'meme' opinions. Very few of them actually play 40k, in fact- I'd wager that a huge chunk of this very site doesn't actually play the game, at best they own (or have pirated) a Codex.
-A lot of people just look at a Codex and do what I call 'Speculative Wargaming'. It's even worse with Necromunda, because based on the complaints about certain things I can tell exactly who's played an actual campaign and who's read the rulebook at home by themselves and just speculated.
-Out of the people that actually DO play the game, you could double the time they spend playing, building, painting, and learning their army and it wouldn't equal the amount of time they spend whining about it on the internet.
Speculative is pretty easy to do though once you kinda know what the roles are in the game and which units in codex fulfill them. I mean, I don't HAVE to use Reivers to know they aren't worth anything besides the helmet they come with for nice models.
Luckily for Necron players, the monopose is basically just as good as the full kit. There'll be none of this "you get a sister of battle squad with mandatory flamer and power sword" problem.
from what we have seen from the preview pictures I expect that to change and the 10 Warrior Squad will need its 2 special weapons as well (and the core box will come with the bad ones)
From what can be seen in the picture there are at least seven of the mini gauss blasters - so I'd assume ten total.
Luckily for Necron players, the monopose is basically just as good as the full kit. There'll be none of this "you get a sister of battle squad with mandatory flamer and power sword" problem.
from what we have seen from the preview pictures I expect that to change and the 10 Warrior Squad will need its 2 special weapons as well (and the core box will come with the bad ones)
From what can be seen in the picture there are at least seven of the mini gauss blasters - so I'd assume ten total.
Unless they pull a CSM kit and give you 7 blasters and 7 rifles and rules that allow 10 models to be equipped with either
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Speculative is pretty easy to do though once you kinda know what the roles are in the game and which units in codex fulfill them. I mean, I don't HAVE to use Reivers to know they aren't worth anything besides the helmet they come with for nice models.
In a game like 40k, you could probably Speculate how some things would go, if you really REALLY studied all the armies and scenarios. Granted, one small part of a game that people tend to forget about or ignore is that there's another person involved and people are unpredictable. And also, once you drift away from matched play games and tinker around with some of the other scenarios in 40k- things get a bit less easy to speculate.
Speculation a bit less credible with something like Necromunda- hence why I call it "Necromaybe" when people try telling me how certain things work online and why it's broken/underpowered/whatever- but that's only in the very rare scenario where two gangs of equal rating are fighting in the most ideal one-off scenario that might happen a couple of times in a Campaign at most, but usually the best laid plans go to doodoo just as soon as you pull a mission where you're deploying your guys a couple of inches from your opponent, or some NPC entity is involved, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Unless they pull a CSM kit and give you 7 blasters and 7 rifles and rules that allow 10 models to be equipped with either
Ah, I call this "the thing that made me pretty much stop giving a damn about WYSIWYG".
Also "the thing that pretty much confirmed 40k will emulate what AOS does"
Tauris_Blazestar wrote: I bit of pipe dreaming for the new Warrior box, option to buy boxes in sets of 5 models, 10 models or 20 models with pricing to match the tiers.
Unlikely, but the (presumably Easy-to-Build?) Warriors from the (presumed?) starter box should be dirt cheap on Ebay soon after release. While the new Necrons are cool, Marine-players will still outnumber Necron-players significantly, I would guess.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Speculative is pretty easy to do though once you kinda know what the roles are in the game and which units in codex fulfill them. I mean, I don't HAVE to use Reivers to know they aren't worth anything besides the helmet they come with for nice models.
In a game like 40k, you could probably Speculate how some things would go, if you really REALLY studied all the armies and scenarios. Granted, one small part of a game that people tend to forget about or ignore is that there's another person involved and people are unpredictable. And also, once you drift away from matched play games and tinker around with some of the other scenarios in 40k- things get a bit less easy to speculate.
Speculation a bit less credible with something like Necromunda- hence why I call it "Necromaybe" when people try telling me how certain things work online and why it's broken/underpowered/whatever- but that's only in the very rare scenario where two gangs of equal rating are fighting in the most ideal one-off scenario that might happen a couple of times in a Campaign at most, but usually the best laid plans go to doodoo just as soon as you pull a mission where you're deploying your guys a couple of inches from your opponent, or some NPC entity is involved, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Unless they pull a CSM kit and give you 7 blasters and 7 rifles and rules that allow 10 models to be equipped with either
Ah, I call this "the thing that made me pretty much stop giving a damn about WYSIWYG".
Also "the thing that pretty much confirmed 40k will emulate what AOS does"
In the IGOUGO based game where you can basically ignore morale rules, it is a pretty darn safe prediction.
Dark Imperium has to be one of the best boxes GW released because both Nurgle and Spacemarines are very popular. Not sure if necrons is as popular as Nurgle so I would assume there is going to be more boxes splits than DI and will probably generate less interest.
While I got previous box set I doubt I will get this one because I cannot justify necrons on my collections and only like half of the SM units. Its a safe bet for me to wait for the bit I want to hit eBay or just invest on the multipart versions later.
120 is a bit of money to fork for this box set but nothing out of this world and still for sure a good value for money if you want both factions, starter sets are most of the times good deals.
40k is a little luxury and its good to see it going stronger each edition, just need some cool Primaris drop pods and Im set.
Terrain not good start. More terrain block LOS...okay so some of the "terrain improvements" is what players have done on their own for past couple years already. So in that sense nothing actually changes. Any half decent board this time has been with plenty of LOS blocking terrain ALREADY. Hiding entire army T1 isn't that impossible. And if your army is slow moving(like necrons) and opponent is fast one it can be literally you never have anything in LOS if you just bunker in one clump.
Well guess standard examples of board helps. Assuming it's not less than what already people use.
edit: Monsters seems to be shooting out of combat as well. "what tanks can do so can big beasts like in tyranids" or somethign to that effect
Destroyers are fast. Immortals move 5-6". Doomsday ark can't move and shoot efficiently. Many of the necron core units including one of their few serious AT weapons can move slowly or not at all. Moving DDA=not threat to tanks anymore.
1) Hive Tyrant (and anything that is that big) can fight 2nd floor
2) Monsters can do the same things of tanks (and better)
3) Everything will hit on 6´s, at worst.
Necrons aren't fast, but they did have options to get around quickly.
In third ed they could use the Veil of Darkness multiple times, and the monolith teleported units to the gate at will.
In 5th ed they still had some teleportation options, Ghost Arks could transport more than warriors and Night Scythes weren't as clunky to use.
In 8th ed they have...none of that, really, unless you want to pay Command Points. Having to pay for a resource for movement abilities that were previously free is a downgrade, imo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Where's the link for this twitch stream, and what have they revealed so far?
Honestly this is really good. Not specifically the rules themselves (you need to see that holistically to judge), but the openness and communicative nature of it.
Also the campaign crusade system sounds like its copying warcry's system of letting individual players play their own crusades with random pickup matches against others. So you don't "need" to have an organised group to make it work.
Again building into the idea of random games or of people dropping in and out of campaign groups
Does this mean that we are back to walkers being inferior monstrous creatures?
Also totally thought to myself, wouldn’t it be messed up if New codices were all the old codex with CA approved changes and stratagems from PA supplements...
H wrote: So apparently allied forces, or "running soup" will take CP from whatever the game size pool was. So, a more "real" cost now?
If the cost is steep it effectively kills all the factions that need Soup to be viable though.
Aye but at the same time factions that "need" it might get benefits or bonuses. Eg being able to take X number of points from a specific other codex without paying a command point. So there's potential for some armies to balance that way. Meanwhile armies like Yinnari might not have any cost for Dark Eldar or Craftworld; but might have to if they pick more than one subfaction from either of them.
tneva82 wrote: Destroyers are fast. Immortals move 5-6". Doomsday ark can't move and shoot efficiently. Many of the necron core units including one of their few serious AT weapons can move slowly or not at all. Moving DDA=not threat to tanks anymore.
But yeah bad try. Maybe open necron codex one day
Immortals have Assault 2 24" guns, and despite your rambling about the Doomsday Ark it IS fast. Deep Strike options count as fast too. So yeah I've opened up a Necron codex thanks a bunch.
macluvin wrote: Does this mean that we are back to walkers being inferior monstrous creatures?
as I said days ago, everything depends on who get which keyword
if TANKS and MONSTER work against everything INFANTRY it is something different than if they work against everything, and if Walkers get the TANK keyword it might be a thing, unless not all of them get it
120 is a bit of money to fork for this box set but nothing out of this world and still for sure a good value for money if you want both factions, starter sets are most of the times good deals..
what do we get with the 2 player set?
buy it one and share it, you get enough points to start with the minimum Crusade or matched play game?
if yes, the value is not bad and the price kind of ok, if you need 2 of them to start (like it was in the past), the cheapest entry point for the game is 120+Codex and this is a little bit too much
They openly admit new codexes for marines and necrons coming. Honest.
Monsters shoot out of combat like tanks as well.
Pete is good troll. 10th ed no dices
Hopefully you pay CP for new detachments and not just new codex. In-codex souping should come with price and rewarding say staying mono evil sun rewarded rather than taking best orders(and this with ork army that was built pre-8th already mix of klans...I have to pay plenty of CP as is if each detachment needs paying. I don't have good playable mono force for any klans really...And this was before 8th ed even was in rumours...)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blast weapons defined in appendings back of book(and in future in codexes). Oddly despite question mentioning horde I think they skipped that or answer was so quick I missed it(my connection cuts audio once in a while so could have happened there)
Sasori wrote: No longer have to take units to unlock Command Points anymore.
Troops are dead, nobody will be fielding them if they don't have to (unless they're really good)
Unless the missions are very troop focused.
Troops generating double VPs for holding an objective (especially if it counts up every turn) would certainly be a an incentive to take Troops.
Command points are determined by the mission - everyone starts with the same, but you spend them to mix codices.
Missions are specific to points values and play area size
Tanks and Monsters use the same rules
Everyone hits on a 6
Modifiers are capped at +1/-1
Terrain has a lot more rules, biggest being that some large bits will be "obscuring" which means it blocks all LOS. Swamps were mentioned and "Jungles and ice worlds will feel different."
A few more universal strats - including one that seems to give you some ability to strike at a unit that is falling back.
Old books are staying relevant, the new codexes will dip into the old stuff (Codex and PA) to be a 'Greatest hits' rather than the single point for everything.
There are new codexes coming, all space marines (including Deathwatch) have access to the new marines in the box. Deathwatch are also getting something early on in this edition.
Blast weapons will be specifically named, hordes are still just 'bigger units'
Astartes chainswords are going to get better (and have AP), compared to IG chainswords.
Sasori wrote: No longer have to take units to unlock Command Points anymore.
Troops are dead, nobody will be fielding them if they don't have to (unless they're really good)
Unless the missions are very troop focused.
Troops generating double VPs for holding an objective (especially if it counts up every turn) would certainly be a an incentive to take Troops.
Also screens and bubble wrapping. With stuff coming out of reserves even more ability to have cheap screens between enemy reserves and your main units is still valuable.
Old books are staying relevant, the new codexes will dip into the old stuff (Codex and PA) to be a 'Greatest hits' rather than the single point for everything.
My impression from his comments was not that the new codex is a "greatest hits" but more that he was confirming that new codex will collect previous content (eg the PA stuff) and roll it into one book. So it become an up to date one-stop source for all material. I can't see them making all the codex .5 versions that rely on the previous book. Just that we are rolling back a bit to when codex rolled over into new editions (unlike 8th where everything re-set at launch). So its a step back perhaps to the older days of updates; but with GW being more open to adapting things as they go with FAQ/Errata and annual updates so you don't get left behind for 5 years without any update. GW is also more keen to release one off and expansion models without a codex release; so again armies shouldn't be sitting there for 5 year or more without getting anything new and shiny.
With minus to hit capped at 1 and the reroll everything we have now it might feel that way through 9th
Haha certainly. But this was in reference to Pete's whiteboard texts. Wasn't able to read what other fun there was though. To help with my network connection I put up screen quality to lowest. Anybody could tell if they got? Those are funny.
Eldarain wrote: Have they addressed being able to casually stroll away from melee?
Yes. They mentioned new core stratagems in relation to getting into melee and staying there to make it rewarding.
Some tweaks to the overwatch mechanic as well.
tneva82 wrote: They openly admit new codexes for marines and necrons coming. Honest.
Monsters shoot out of combat like tanks as well.
Pete is good troll. 10th ed no dices
Hopefully you pay CP for new detachments and not just new codex. In-codex souping should come with price and rewarding say staying mono evil sun rewarded rather than taking best orders(and this with ork army that was built pre-8th already mix of klans...I have to pay plenty of CP as is if each detachment needs paying. I don't have good playable mono force for any klans really...And this was before 8th ed even was in rumours...)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blast weapons defined in appendings back of book(and in future in codexes). Oddly despite question mentioning horde I think they skipped that or answer was so quick I missed it(my connection cuts audio once in a while so could have happened there)
When you say shoot outside of combat, you mean not the unit they're engaged with?
When you say shoot outside of combat, you mean not the unit they're engaged with?
To be 100% clear, they don't say one way or the other on that. Just that "it won't just be hitting you in the combat phase, it will be shooting you too".
Knowing that the Codexes to replace the PA books are already queued does make me a little less likely to invest for PA books for my secondary armies. Not worth the asking price if I'll only have time to play 2-3 games with them before the update.
I just realized that night time -1 and what not to hit means that... -1 to hit traits or pusher powers, if redundant, may be gak. Do positive and negative modifiers cancel each other out?
macluvin wrote: I just realized that night time -1 and what not to hit means that... -1 to hit traits or pusher powers, if redundant, may be gak. Do positive and negative modifiers cancel each other out?
I took it to mean a max of +/-1 so if you had 3 x -1 via chapter trait, psychic powers etc. And your opponent used a +1 to hit aura, you'd net average at -2 and defer to the -1 cap.
macluvin wrote: I just realized that night time -1 and what not to hit means that... -1 to hit traits or pusher powers, if redundant, may be gak. Do positive and negative modifiers cancel each other out?
I took it to mean a max of +/-1 so if you had 3 x -1 via chapter trait, psychic powers etc. And your opponent used a +1 to hit aura, you'd net average at -2 and defer to the -1 cap.
Yeah. So -2 might still have use but -3 and better is basically worthless.
Good though. -2 or worse are just annoying to deal with making rather binary stuff where some units are practically unkillable except for certain anti units.
Eldars are going to get hit but that can be compensated with points with the point revamp that's likely to coming along with launch of 9th ed.
All in all cautiously positive. So far nothing hugely worrying hasn't come up with.
I think an insightful question might be what are they doing with detachments in light of command point changes?
Honestly as much fun as it is to build gimmick armies like a Necron Destroyer Cult or Ten Dreadnoughts, I'd be willing to return to the good old 1hq 2 troops CAD if it meant less bullcrap overall and less HQ tax in armies with woefully undiverse HQs like Custodes.
changemod wrote: I think an insightful question might be what are they doing with detachments in light of command point changes?
Honestly as much fun as it is to build gimmick armies like a Necron Destroyer Cult or Ten Dreadnoughts, I'd be willing to return to the good old 1hq 2 troops CAD if it meant less bullcrap overall and less HQ tax in armies with woefully undiverse HQs like Custodes.
Not sure but if I were designing different detachments would have different CP cost so the more tax the less you pay. Ergo taking brigade costs less CP than patrol.
If you can fit your army in single detachment like with custodes you will be fine. 1 detachment is going to be more CP for you than 2.
You def don't need to take multiple detachments to generate CP. No more loyal 32 to bring in CP for your custodians. Guess main reason mono custodians would be taking multiple detachments if they run out of slots but that's pretty unusual probabl.
Everybody hits on 6´s
Capped modifiers
Capped CP (everybody has the same amount)
Veichles and monsters can fight second floors as Titatic
Monsters can shoot in CC as tanks
Also
Terrain block LOS (obscuring is gonna be a thing: terrain have a footprint)
Mininum terrain amount implemented.
NO alternate activation.
1 CP for having units in DS.
They can come from different from different table edges as the game progresses.
Overwatch is gonna change (helping CC armies)
Eldarain wrote: Have they addressed being able to casually stroll away from melee?
According to one post here there's a generic Strat to hit a unit falling back.
Already sounds terrible because you'd have to pay for it in that case.
The majority of casualties in melee combat is during a rout. Units trying to just walk out of a fething melee should automatically trigger the opposing side getting to hit them, ala attacks of opportunity in DnD.
Obviously we have no real information to go off of for drawing conclusions, but I really hope this doesn't turn into yet another edition of the balance team walking on eggshells for the sake of gunlines.
changemod wrote: I think an insightful question might be what are they doing with detachments in light of command point changes?
Honestly as much fun as it is to build gimmick armies like a Necron Destroyer Cult or Ten Dreadnoughts, I'd be willing to return to the good old 1hq 2 troops CAD if it meant less bullcrap overall and less HQ tax in armies with woefully undiverse HQs like Custodes.
I really hope we go back to the CAD as well. It's pure insanity to look at army construction nowadays.
Eldarain wrote: Have they addressed being able to casually stroll away from melee?
According to one post here there's a generic Strat to hit a unit falling back.
Already sounds terrible because you'd have to pay for it in that case.
The majority of casualties in melee combat is during a rout. Units trying to just walk out of a fething melee should automatically trigger the opposing side getting to hit them, ala attacks of opportunity in DnD.
Obviously we have no real information to go off of for drawing conclusions, but I really hope this doesn't turn into yet another edition of the balance team walking on eggshells for the sake of gunlines.
Frankly that's not going to be big thing eitherway. Issue isn't with fallback you can't kill the unit. Problem is you are open for revenge. Remnants running safely is rarely big issue anyway.
The way to do it is still same. 3 point so they can't fall back. If they fall back you are likely dead and the attack back wouldn't likely help much anyway.
(what this does do though is slow down the game more)
You're right and I thought about that after posting. The real issue is that being locked in combat is how melee units can survive being shot off the board.
changemod wrote: I think an insightful question might be what are they doing with detachments in light of command point changes?
Honestly as much fun as it is to build gimmick armies like a Necron Destroyer Cult or Ten Dreadnoughts, I'd be willing to return to the good old 1hq 2 troops CAD if it meant less bullcrap overall and less HQ tax in armies with woefully undiverse HQs like Custodes.
I really hope we go back to the CAD as well. It's pure insanity to look at army construction nowadays.
I don't because that just buffs armies with cheap min squad troops. You would see the army builds now except 1 less HQ and 1 less troop.
Old books are staying relevant, the new codexes will dip into the old stuff (Codex and PA) to be a 'Greatest hits' rather than the single point for everything.
My impression from his comments was not that the new codex is a "greatest hits" but more that he was confirming that new codex will collect previous content (eg the PA stuff) and roll it into one book. So it become an up to date one-stop source for all material. I can't see them making all the codex .5 versions that rely on the previous book. Just that we are rolling back a bit to when codex rolled over into new editions (unlike 8th where everything re-set at launch). So its a step back perhaps to the older days of updates; but with GW being more open to adapting things as they go with FAQ/Errata and annual updates so you don't get left behind for 5 years without any update. GW is also more keen to release one off and expansion models without a codex release; so again armies shouldn't be sitting there for 5 year or more without getting anything new and shiny.
They did say specifically that it was a Greatest hits, I expect we'll see almost all units make it over (maybe a few finecast SC disappearing into legends or morphing into more regular plastic characters) and I expect we'll see the DIY things make it over.
But not all the strats are going to make it into the codex, or the relics and warlord traits I suspect. But probably just the ones that aren't usually taken or used.
Everybody hits on 6´s
Capped modifiers
Capped CP (everybody has the same amount)
Veichles and monsters can fight second floors as Titatic
Monsters can shoot in CC as tanks
Also
Terrain block LOS (obscuring is gonna be a thing: terrain have a footprint)
Mininum terrain amount implemented.
NO alternate activation.
1 CP for having units in DS.
They can come from different from different table edges as the game progresses.
Overwatch is gonna change (helping CC armies)
Everybody hits on 6´s
Capped modifiers
Capped CP (everybody has the same amount)
Veichles and monsters can fight second floors as Titatic
Monsters can shoot in CC as tanks
Also
Terrain block LOS (obscuring is gonna be a thing: terrain have a footprint)
Mininum terrain amount implemented.
NO alternate activation.
1 CP for having units in DS.
They can come from different from different table edges as the game progresses.
Overwatch is gonna change (helping CC armies)
Hmm. I am feeling optimistic.
Just CP = X (by battle size) and capped modifiers goes a long way. So does no CP-farm detachments and using CPs for strategic options.
Hmm. I am feeling optimistic.
Just CP = X (by battle size) and capped modifiers goes a long way. So does no CP-farm detachments.
It also makes characters that add another CP pre-game or during the game, plus relics that regain CPs, much more valuable (assuming they stay the same).
Everybody hits on 6´s
Capped modifiers
Capped CP (everybody has the same amount)
Veichles and monsters can fight second floors as Titatic
Monsters can shoot in CC as tanks
Also
Terrain block LOS (obscuring is gonna be a thing: terrain have a footprint)
Mininum terrain amount implemented.
NO alternate activation.
1 CP for having units in DS.
They can come from different from different table edges as the game progresses.
Overwatch is gonna change (helping CC armies)
Modifiers are now capped. NEVER better than +1 or -1.
Which is my biggest question ... is that really ALL modifiers?
Lots of rules already come in-built +2 modifier (e.g. Bullgryn Shields, Chaplain charge aura, etc..). Are those capped at +1/-1? Or just no longer stackable?
I'm sure they mean by external abilities for the modifiers to hit. However knowing GW like we both do it's incredibly possible that it'll only ever be a -1 to hit total and now Heavy Weapons will be king. We will need to wait for the full rules of course but that transcript is bad.
- no more stacking of modifiers. Finaly... Took you Long enough.
-6allways hit. Finaly again.
Cp/gamesize, on one side huge improvement, on the other, armies that have been built around cp Generation and that waste swaths of cp /combo (Cough csm Cough) get exposed to what they are , sick, with stackitis. Maybee when the new dex rolls around we get Units maybee worth their Salt at their pricepoint and not over reliant on stacks....
A good number of heavy weapons are probably dead though, if modifiers are capped at +1/-1
The entire point of things like Lascannons or Meltaguns or giant necron Death Cannons is that they have Armour save modifiers a whole lot better than -1, lol.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A good number of heavy weapons are probably dead though, if modifiers are capped at +1/-1
The entire point of things like Lascannons or Meltaguns or giant necron Death Cannons is that they have Armour save modifiers a whole lot better than -1, lol.
I feel pretty confident that Stu was not referring to AP when he mentioned capped modifiers. I think AP has a ruleset all its own.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A good number of heavy weapons are probably dead though, if modifiers are capped at +1/-1
The entire point of things like Lascannons or Meltaguns or giant necron Death Cannons is that they have Armour save modifiers a whole lot better than -1, lol.
Pretty sure AP values aren't included in this, as opposed to things like Alpha Legion's legion trait and the Dark Apostle's prayers.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A good number of heavy weapons are probably dead though, if modifiers are capped at +1/-1
The entire point of things like Lascannons or Meltaguns or giant necron Death Cannons is that they have Armour save modifiers a whole lot better than -1, lol.
AP isn't going away. They are talking about modifiers to hit and to wound.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A good number of heavy weapons are probably dead though, if modifiers are capped at +1/-1
The entire point of things like Lascannons or Meltaguns or giant necron Death Cannons is that they have Armour save modifiers a whole lot better than -1, lol.
I don't like this actually, because lethality was over the top and this makes it worse. They should've chose either modifier caps OR 6s always hit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Speculative is pretty easy to do though once you kinda know what the roles are in the game and which units in codex fulfill them. I mean, I don't HAVE to use Reivers to know they aren't worth anything besides the helmet they come with for nice models.
In a game like 40k, you could probably Speculate how some things would go, if you really REALLY studied all the armies and scenarios. Granted, one small part of a game that people tend to forget about or ignore is that there's another person involved and people are unpredictable. And also, once you drift away from matched play games and tinker around with some of the other scenarios in 40k- things get a bit less easy to speculate.
Speculation a bit less credible with something like Necromunda- hence why I call it "Necromaybe" when people try telling me how certain things work online and why it's broken/underpowered/whatever- but that's only in the very rare scenario where two gangs of equal rating are fighting in the most ideal one-off scenario that might happen a couple of times in a Campaign at most, but usually the best laid plans go to doodoo just as soon as you pull a mission where you're deploying your guys a couple of inches from your opponent, or some NPC entity is involved, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Unless they pull a CSM kit and give you 7 blasters and 7 rifles and rules that allow 10 models to be equipped with either
Ah, I call this "the thing that made me pretty much stop giving a damn about WYSIWYG".
Also "the thing that pretty much confirmed 40k will emulate what AOS does"
I hope so. AoS has been the been the better tournament game for a while now.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A good number of heavy weapons are probably dead though, if modifiers are capped at +1/-1
The entire point of things like Lascannons or Meltaguns or giant necron Death Cannons is that they have Armour save modifiers a whole lot better than -1, lol.
Pretty sure AP values aren't included in this, as opposed to things like Alpha Legion's legion trait and the Dark Apostle's prayers.
Probably. Though it would be nice what modifiers are included and what modifiers arent?
Charges +/- (hello Impulsors, Chaplain Auras, Tanglefoot grenades, etc..)?
Morale (I guess LD will be reworked anyhow)
Movement and/or Advance?
Positive AP modifiers (e.g. Bullgryn Shields (which is already a +2 modifier) AND Cover)
To wound?
Psychic Cast modifiers? (cutting Magnus down to +1?)
Etc..
- no more stacking of modifiers. Finaly... Took you Long enough.
-6allways hit. Finaly again.
Cp/gamesize, on one side huge improvement, on the other, armies that have been built around cp Generation and that waste swaths of cp /combo (Cough csm Cough) get exposed to what they are , sick, with stackitis. Maybee when the new dex rolls around we get Units maybee worth their Salt at their pricepoint and not over reliant on stacks....
I agree we need a new codex with good rules for our units bad, but at least now it looks like we can spend points on the units actually worth using instead of spreading them on ineffective tax units until that happens.
Sunny Side Up wrote:A good number of heavy weapons are probably dead though, if modifiers are capped at +1/-1
The entire point of things like Lascannons or Meltaguns or giant necron Death Cannons is that they have Armour save modifiers a whole lot better than -1, lol.
That's not what they were talking about and you know it.
One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)
That's not what they were talking about and you know it.
Technically if you take them literally that's what it means though. Howver even I'm going to give GW benefit of doubt and assume even they don't blew it like that
Maybe it is just to hit so stuff like armour save and charge modifiers still are same as they have been. But for sure not for AP
General Kroll wrote: One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)
GW has already been writing rules for FW units for quite some time.
General Kroll wrote: One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)
Eh that's been the case for almost 3 years. In that time the GW studio has left them to rot except for nerfs including stuff like 300% price hike to what wasn't dominating or even really appearing in tournament tops.
FW wrote the initial rules(project which started when they heard of 8th ed along with players. They heard of 8th ed when you and I were told there would be 8th ed and FW rules would be on launch as well ) and after that nothing.
General Kroll wrote: One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)
Eh that's been the case for almost 3 years. In that time the GW studio has left them to rot except for nerfs including stuff like 300% price hike to what wasn't dominating or even really appearing in tournament tops.
FW wrote the initial rules(project which started when they heard of 8th ed along with players. They heard of 8th ed when you and I were told there would be 8th ed and FW rules would be on launch as well ) and after that nothing.
Poor baby rules writers are probably still bitter that FW did an overall better job.
General Kroll wrote: One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)
Eh that's been the case for almost 3 years. In that time the GW studio has left them to rot except for nerfs including stuff like 300% price hike to what wasn't dominating or even really appearing in tournament tops.
FW wrote the initial rules(project which started when they heard of 8th ed along with players. They heard of 8th ed when you and I were told there would be 8th ed and FW rules would be on launch as well ) and after that nothing.
Imagine a working fw army.....
Good thing too, my r&h Started playing dusty 40k .
Galas wrote: So by the bases of the new GW prizes, if we assume the mistery boxes will be the new start collecting, we are talking about a 120 pounds, 160€, 200$ starter for this edition.
From 95 pounds and 125€ for Dark Imperium thats a great increase. When boxes were more close to 100€ , they were palatable, very ease to split in half with somebody. When they are closer to 200€ it is much harder to do. Psychologically is hard to justify.
It's around the price of two start collecting boxes if that makes it feel better.
General Kroll wrote: One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)
GW has already been writing rules for FW units for quite some time.
They have for new stuff and beta rules and pdfs like the custodes stuff.
But 90% of FW stuff is still the old indexes from 3 years ago they haven't written.
That's not what they were talking about and you know it.
Technically if you take them literally that's what it means though. Howver even I'm going to give GW benefit of doubt and assume even they don't blew it like that
Maybe it is just to hit so stuff like armour save and charge modifiers still are same as they have been. But for sure not for AP
Not 100% but I suspect the way it was said implied to hit and to wounds as technically GW dont view AP as a modifier, though I can't say I'll be sad to see the back of -3 to hit eldar and choas bombs
General Kroll wrote: One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)
Eh that's been the case for almost 3 years. In that time the GW studio has left them to rot except for nerfs including stuff like 300% price hike to what wasn't dominating or even really appearing in tournament tops.
FW wrote the initial rules(project which started when they heard of 8th ed along with players. They heard of 8th ed when you and I were told there would be 8th ed and FW rules would be on launch as well ) and after that nothing.
Imagine a working fw army.....
Good thing too, my r&h Started playing dusty 40k .
They mentioned new rules for Death Korp of Krieg, so there's hope for the other fw armies. Hope R&H rules are as good as they were in IA 13.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Poor baby rules writers are probably still bitter that FW did an overall better job.
No kidding. No comparison between gw codexes and the old Imperial Armour books in quality, both rules and fluff.
Sunny Side Up wrote:But 90% of FW stuff is still the old indexes from 3 years ago they haven't written.
Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.
Infantry.
My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:
#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)
#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.
Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?
- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.
- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.
- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.
- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.
So, not going to lie. I'm scared. I'm scared that the main lists of 9th are going to look like this:
6 characters w/abilities that improve firepower in an aura
9 heavy support options that form a castle around that.
1 unit that forms the outer-most circle to absorb a charge
I am so glad I didn’t buy 3 or 4 50$ rule books plus CA to play the 9th edition beta XD for just one army. I feel so bad for those that did though... worse for those that did so for multiple armies. I’m not advocating piracy but why even buy the rules at this point. It costs less to produce a rules set than it does to produce a video game and the video game AND the system is cheaper than trying to get everything for... space marines or CSM for example. And then 3 years later you get all the parts you were going to use from 200$ worth of books in one codex. Then more supplements... and 3 years later your 200$ worth of books are in another 50$ book... not counting periodical updates like CA of course.
Umbros wrote: What we heard was a vocal explanation. It is no surprise it wasn't using exact terminology from the rules. Use common sense lol
On the other hand, these are the same people who just allowed an entire edition to pass without the rules for Assault weapons functioning as intended, so who knows what janky mess they might cough out..?
well... at least shooting into combat.. makes sense ... in the terms that, you as a person, if you wanted to, physically can shoot into the middle of a melee. you may hit everything, but i found it strange that it was like a rule you cant do it. same in fantasy (with the few exceptions of stuff that could). (i know; for gameplay, stuff doesnt need to make sense - but that was one that always bothered me - if i want to risk hitting my own troops damnit, let me risk it).
Yarium wrote: Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.
Infantry.
My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:
#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)
Have you seen win conditions? How do we know this isn't more important? Also this could be of increased importance if opponents are less incentivised to incorporate troops...
#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.
They are good because they help with something other than themselves. This is not good design. They should perform a role of their own...
Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?
- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.
We don't know if detachment will incur costs. It could be that troops heavy detachment cost less.
- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.
true. Not sure mass firepower wasn't a problem before though.
- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.
true,
- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.
Umm the suggestion was that morale would have more of a medium effect. Right now they said it is all or nothing. Also, more cp means more to potentially use to ignore morale on your hordes...
Umbros wrote: What we heard was a vocal explanation. It is no surprise it wasn't using exact terminology from the rules. Use common sense lol
On the other hand, these are the same people who just allowed an entire edition to pass without the rules for Assault weapons functioning as intended, so who knows what janky mess they might cough out..?
Don't be dense. AP obviously isn't capped at -1. Criticism is fine, but being wilfully dense for the sake of negativity is tiresome.
Also the assault rule thing is one of those gotcha points. Yes it is technically not functional but in the real world everyone knows how it works. There are clearer criticisms that merit attention.
One criticism that really needs addressing is the goddamn rerolls.
- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.
-.
Unless detachments cost cp. We know souping cost cp but is that just to unlock other coder or it and/or detachments and is each detachment same cost.
What your 3 spearhead likes if each costs say 3cp? And opponent that fits his army to single bat pays 1cp?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarFyre wrote: well... at least shooting into combat.. makes sense ... in the terms that, you as a person, if you wanted to, physically can shoot into the middle of a melee. you may hit everything, but i found it strange that it was like a rule you cant do it. same in fantasy (with the few exceptions of stuff that could). (i know; for gameplay, stuff doesnt need to make sense - but that was one that always bothered me - if i want to risk hitting my own troops damnit, let me risk it).
SF
Did they say that? From saturday stream it sounded tanks(and now also monsters) can shoot out of melee. Nothing about into.
Out of and into are 2 different thing. You can have one without other
- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.
-.
Unless detachments cost cp. We know souping cost cp but is that just to unlock other coder or it and/or detachments and is each detachment same cost.
What your 3 spearhead likes if each costs say 3cp? And opponent that fits his army to single bat pays 1cp?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarFyre wrote: well... at least shooting into combat.. makes sense ... in the terms that, you as a person, if you wanted to, physically can shoot into the middle of a melee. you may hit everything, but i found it strange that it was like a rule you cant do it. same in fantasy (with the few exceptions of stuff that could). (i know; for gameplay, stuff doesnt need to make sense - but that was one that always bothered me - if i want to risk hitting my own troops damnit, let me risk it).
SF
Did they say that? From saturday stream it sounded tanks(and now also monsters) can shoot out of melee. Nothing about into.
Out of and into are 2 different thing. You can have one without other
They made it sound like tanks will now not fight in CC but instead will be able to shoot instead.
The BRB apparently now contains a load of core strategums.
Troops are still relevant by way of them being your source of obsec. Especially given they are apparently looking forward to getting feedback on their matched play missions.
This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.
Only 1 detachment is free everything else costs CP.
Additional codex access costs CP again.
Ie player 1 can spend CP on making the castellen, guard smashcaptain list.
The other player gets the same CP to start but as mono faction mono detachment will have a bunch of extra CP to do "cool stuff"
Fixed amounts of CPs linked to game size is a great idea. Deals with many of the problems of Matched Play (Loyal 32 etc) and opens up play for fun armies like Deathwing and Ravenwing.
This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.
Andrew
Simply put the 1 commander per detachment rule is going to need to go, but they are also apparently new points for 9th so lets see if the core units that currently suck actually start working before we throw out the wow is an entire codex.
Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.
macluvin wrote: Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.
To be fair they still do, they just get shot at by the tanks they are in combat with now.
Yarium wrote: Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.
Infantry.
My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:
#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)
#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.
Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?
- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.
- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.
- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.
- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.
So, not going to lie. I'm scared. I'm scared that the main lists of 9th are going to look like this:
6 characters w/abilities that improve firepower in an aura
9 heavy support options that form a castle around that.
1 unit that forms the outer-most circle to absorb a charge
Me? I don't like the sound of that.
Sounds like a lot of assumptions without seeing how the game actually works.
They made it sound like tanks will now not fight in CC but instead will be able to shoot instead.
The BRB apparently now contains a load of core strategums.
Troops are still relevant by way of them being your source of obsec. Especially given they are apparently looking forward to getting feedback on their matched play missions.
Saturday conversation went about "tanks wlll kill them in melee" at which point rule guy guipped in between "and shoot other stuff",
macluvin wrote: Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.
To be fair they still do, they just get shot at by the tanks they are in combat with now.
Yeah though outside of Guard how many actual tanks have you seen in play, repulsives which got the leman russ double shot BS buff and ???
macluvin wrote: Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.
You mean the flying tanks that just float out of combat like nothing happened and unload 50 guns at you re-rolling everything at anything followed by re-rolling everything?
They made it sound like tanks will now not fight in CC but instead will be able to shoot instead.
The BRB apparently now contains a load of core strategums.
Troops are still relevant by way of them being your source of obsec. Especially given they are apparently looking forward to getting feedback on their matched play missions.
Saturday conversation went about "tanks wlll kill them in melee" at which point rule guy guipped in between "and shoot other stuff",
Sounds to me shooting from, not into.
I though it was the presenter that said that not the rules guy's as one of them shook his head.
This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.
Andrew
I wouldn'' be surprised if tau 9th ed faq/errata sees that restiction go poof
Yarium wrote: Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.
Infantry.
My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:
#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)
#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.
Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?
- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.
- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.
- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.
- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.
So, not going to lie. I'm scared. I'm scared that the main lists of 9th are going to look like this:
6 characters w/abilities that improve firepower in an aura
9 heavy support options that form a castle around that.
1 unit that forms the outer-most circle to absorb a charge
Me? I don't like the sound of that.
totally agree, and surprised more people haven't picked up on this.
We had an edition where you could bring anything you liked to the table and it sucked, Which was the whole reason they imposed the troop tax in 8th in the first place!
You need a mechanic to force competitive players to take troops or they just won't bother. Obsec is not a big enough reason.
I'm also concerned that negative modifiers won't stack beyond -1. Most of the Aeldari faction were relying on those modifiers to survive, and Aeldari have slipped down the pecking order as it stands already in competitive play.
Not Online!!! wrote: Wait 10and more , so an infantry squad allready counts as a Horde?
Unless they take hwt yes if it's 10 or more. Not official yet. Stream they said "big squads". 10 i have heard coming supposedly from playtester but a) could be in error b) was that really from playtester...internet is full of bogus.
Not Online!!! wrote: Wait 10and more , so an infantry squad allready counts as a Horde?
Unless they take hwt yes if it's 10 or more. Not official yet. Stream they said "big squads". 10 i have heard coming supposedly from playtester but a) could be in error b) was that really from playtester...internet is full of bogus.
Not Online!!! wrote: Wait 10and more , so an infantry squad allready counts as a Horde?
Unless they take hwt yes if it's 10 or more. Not official yet. Stream they said "big squads". 10 i have heard coming supposedly from playtester but a) could be in error b) was that really from playtester...internet is full of bogus.
Not Online!!! wrote: Wait 10and more , so an infantry squad allready counts as a Horde?
Not with a heavy weapon they don;t!
Not sure how else they could have done it? And I assume its currently 10 models or more.
How else? Howabout 20 or more?
Power level? They must anticipate we'll just drop the last guy if it's a set number
Personally, for me a Horde unit is:
More then 10 , aka 11+ aka the squads that go in size from 11-50 .
That is Horde for me, not the 10 dudes in flak armor or subflak armor.
E.g. conscripts, r&h militia squad with Lore then 10 members, mutants , ork boyz above the threshold .
so lemme see if i have this correct. costs command to set up reserves- don't know how many.
costs command to use extra detachments, and "based on total game size" is however many command points.
assumption- expect less CP in certain armies, but no idea how much as of yet.
this has me worried for Pure tempestus and gene stealer cults in specific. also quite funny to make infantry key in 8th, and then go "ehh, limit your detachments, please." now.
Monsters can also do the "tank" thing? do they just mean vehicles or what?
great, crusade rules for the codexes. i wonder if that means codexes will go up in price to account for them, even if again you have no interest in that ruleset- i have skirmish games for that where my people have a larger chance of survival per game.
How will morale affect armies like knights, if any? unknown.
how exactly did they chance overwatch and falling back.
...all of this has made me shelve my tempestus idea (along with the price raising) ill watch from Imperial Knights as perspective, but considering how little engine war appears to offer them.... egh, so much for my interest until i get more hard data.
the modifier thing i hardly ever saw aside from eldar, so i don't know how abusable that was.
The whole capped modifier thing sounds like someone throwing their hands up and going "This is too hard! Max +1/-1... I don't want to think about it anymore!". Congrats GW. You just created a bunch of utterly redundant rules.
So building a list requires CP, but your CP total requires knowing the mission and table size. How can one just build a list for an event or even for casual play if you don't know what mission you're playing and need CP to make the damned list?
I think pretty much everything sounds good on the limited info we have. My one concern is flat CP generation.
The problem of soup has been two fold: 1) You can mix and match strong units from different factions to remove their built in weaknesses; and 2) elite armies can power their strong units with CP generated by cheap troops from another codex, thereby undermining the principal around which stratagems are (theoretically) balanced - elite armies are very limited in what's they can use and hordes have loads of CP and can have at it.
Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.
The whole capped modifier thing sounds like someone throwing their hands up and going "This is too hard! Max +1/-1... I don't want to think about it anymore!". Congrats GW. You just created a bunch of utterly redundant rules.
So building a list requires CP, but your CP total requires knowing the mission and table size. How can one just build a list for an event or even for casual play if you don't know what mission you're playing and need CP to make the damned list?
I thought Game size determined CP, not table size? Table size determining CP sounds weird, I doubt its that.
Mission CP is probably a bonus or something.
So you have the CP from your list. You spend some of that on allies. You get more CP from the mission to compensate.
That's what I'm guessing, anyway. I still don't have enough information.
Yarium wrote: Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.
Infantry.
My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:
#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)
#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.
Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?
- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.
- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.
- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.
- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.
So, not going to lie. I'm scared. I'm scared that the main lists of 9th are going to look like this:
6 characters w/abilities that improve firepower in an aura
9 heavy support options that form a castle around that.
1 unit that forms the outer-most circle to absorb a charge
Me? I don't like the sound of that.
totally agree, and surprised more people haven't picked up on this.
We had an edition where you could bring anything you liked to the table and it sucked, Which was the whole reason they imposed the troop tax in 8th in the first place!
You need a mechanic to force competitive players to take troops or they just won't bother. Obsec is not a big enough reason.
I'm also concerned that negative modifiers won't stack beyond -1. Most of the Aeldari faction were relying on those modifiers to survive, and Aeldari have slipped down the pecking order as it stands already in competitive play.
No one picked up on it because there are too many assumptions based on incomplete information.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sounds like a lot of assumptions without seeing how the game actually works.
You're 100% correct. So I really am holding my breath to see what the actual rules are. Until they're released, everything I've just said is totally possible to be changed. I just love me my infantry, and I've lived through a lot of editions where you could bring whatever you wanted, and I don't want to go back to that.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sounds like a lot of assumptions without seeing how the game actually works.
You're 100% correct. So I really am holding my breath to see what the actual rules are. Until they're released, everything I've just said is totally possible to be changed. I just love me my infantry, and I've lived through a lot of editions where you could bring whatever you wanted, and I don't want to go back to that.
My guess is troops will have advantages for scoring in missions which will make them more important than people assume.
And it's not like you can't take them if you want them in your army.
Q19: What have you done to address the dominance of Eldar flyers in the game?
Stu - Modifiers are now capped. NEVER better than +1 or -1. Have really thought a lot about how Flyers will work in the game; no more crashing if they leave the board. Different interactions than infantry. Removing "gamey" things like using base to block movement, etc. Planes are a lot more fun to use if you're either the owner or the target.
I'm assuming that by modifiers he means hit modifiers, as that's in response to a question about Eldar flyers, which can stack hit modifiers.
So max +1 / -1 modifiers to hit.
Q20: Have there been any changes to how the Morale phase will work?
Stu - The Morale phase has been updated and improved. Introduced combat attrition. More things that interact with morale than in the past. No longer binary. Cool things like Night Lords and Reivers can do more scary things.
Interesting. Will want to see how that plays out. I wonder what he means by Combat Attrition.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So umm... what does a Nurgle Psyker with Miasma of Pestilence do in an Alpha Legion army now?
Alpha Legion's effect only works a certain distance away from the enemy, right? Does Miasma of Pestilence have that same limitation? If not, then you use it when you get too close to the enemy to use the Alpha Legion trait. Also, doesn't that spell only work on Death Guard anyway?
Q19: What have you done to address the dominance of Eldar flyers in the game?
Stu - Modifiers are now capped. NEVER better than +1 or -1. Have really thought a lot about how Flyers will work in the game; no more crashing if they leave the board. Different interactions than infantry. Removing "gamey" things like using base to block movement, etc. Planes are a lot more fun to use if you're either the owner or the target.
I'm assuming that by modifiers he means hit modifiers, as that's in response to a question about Eldar flyers, which can stack hit modifiers.
So max +1 / -1 modifiers to hit.
Q20: Have there been any changes to how the Morale phase will work?
Stu - The Morale phase has been updated and improved. Introduced combat attrition. More things that interact with morale than in the past. No longer binary. Cool things like Night Lords and Reivers can do more scary things.
Interesting. Will want to see how that plays out. I wonder what he means by Combat Attrition.
The toruble is now if I move with a heavy weapon i only get the -1 to hit.. So basicaly i wll be moving with my heavy weapons all day long and I ahppen to come up against somethign with a modifiers i just dont care and still only get my -1 from moving..
I really hope it isint a flat +1/-1 cap like it sounds or they changed the way heavy weapons work in that if you move you cannot shoot them at all or something.. Because otherwise everything will have a heavy weapon because why wouldn't you if you only ever have to worry about a single -1 to the BS.
Im not sure how much i like the a 6 always hits/wounds but a 1 can be re-rolled mechanic.. Especially where some armies have heaps of re-roll everything auras which doesn't really care about anything up to -2!
I guess Eldar will go back to having re-rollable saves if modifiers no longer give anywhere near the benefit. (Ohh the sea of salt.. just imagine)
Im certainly reserving my judgement but im not filled with optimism. I'm very curious about the new rules.
Personally speaking, I'm really in favour of what this new Command Point structure looks to be. I'm guessing it means games will have fewer command points, which means you'll really have to think carefully about the best moment to use them, and the most optimal for your list.
On the new starter box, one thing I appreciate is that it seems to act as an extension of Dark Imperium,for Space Marines instead of strictly a replacement, while still standing on its own. Really excited to see what combinations can come from the two kits, like a Gravis Captain in combat being protected by Bladeguard Veterans, or trapping a unit between Outriders and Inceptors.
I'm curious to see if the Easy to Build stuff and First Strike/Know No Fear will be updated, or phased out and replaced with things more fitting with this box. Maybe an Easy to Build Primaris Landspeeder?
Remember 5th ed where ONLY troops could score. If you didn’t bring enough you auto loses as soon as your opponent killed them. The missions were rubbish though, so we only took minimal numbers and hid them as well as we could. Plus the game was much less lethal, you could ensure survival of a unit quite easily.
I am betting troops will have new purposes, I am pretty confident.
Also I say this as a horde player with very large Tyranids gen cult and ork armies. I really don’t think GW wants Heavy Support domination
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Alpha Legion's effect only works a certain distance away from the enemy, right? Does Miasma of Pestilence have that same limitation? If not, then you use it when you get too close to the enemy to use the Alpha Legion trait.
I doubt that was ever the intended use. I stand by my "this is too hard and we don't want to deal with it!" theory for modifiers in 9th.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Also, doesn't that spell only work on Death Guard anyway?
A power from Chaos Marines Codex only works on units from a different book?
Infantry squads only being useful for sitting around and doing nothing is neither engaging, nor fun. Having them only be useful for taking objectives is not the way to make them be taken. They should have a defensive and offensive place on the battlefield, whether that be holding a trench line, or executing a surprise advance on the flank.
No one is going to take units that merely exist to sit there in a predefined location, and get shot so the bigger models get to look cool.
Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.
The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?
The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.
Kanluwen wrote: Gee, it's almost like the Raven Guard trait of "count as in cover at 12" or further" suddenly makes more sense knowing that modifiers are capped.
And of course you think that that rule was written with 9th in mind?
Kanluwen wrote: Gee, it's almost like the Raven Guard trait of "count as in cover at 12" or further" suddenly makes more sense knowing that modifiers are capped.
And of course you think that that rule was written with 9th in mind?
Clearly. Our GW overlords are so far ahead of the curve that they took it into account for the favoured sons almost a year ago but then didn't bother accounting for 9th in the PA books since.
Q19: What have you done to address the dominance of Eldar flyers in the game?
Stu - Modifiers are now capped. NEVER better than +1 or -1. Have really thought a lot about how Flyers will work in the game; no more crashing if they leave the board. Different interactions than infantry. Removing "gamey" things like using base to block movement, etc. Planes are a lot more fun to use if you're either the owner or the target.
I'm assuming that by modifiers he means hit modifiers, as that's in response to a question about Eldar flyers, which can stack hit modifiers.
So max +1 / -1 modifiers to hit.
Q20: Have there been any changes to how the Morale phase will work?
Stu - The Morale phase has been updated and improved. Introduced combat attrition. More things that interact with morale than in the past. No longer binary. Cool things like Night Lords and Reivers can do more scary things.
Interesting. Will want to see how that plays out. I wonder what he means by Combat Attrition.
There's really no attrition so long as Fall Back exists as a mechanic.
Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.
The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?
The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.
You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.
GW said they wrote 9th in mind of the stuff that is already written (PA, codexes) and day 1 errata and points changes will be out too.
So it's less they're writing books to match the new edition but rather they drew a line in the sand and everything that was in front of that line was accounted for while working on 9th. Everything after that line was written for 9th instead of being 8th and 9th.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sounds like a lot of assumptions without seeing how the game actually works.
You're 100% correct. So I really am holding my breath to see what the actual rules are. Until they're released, everything I've just said is totally possible to be changed. I just love me my infantry, and I've lived through a lot of editions where you could bring whatever you wanted, and I don't want to go back to that.
I don't think that the new edition will disallow you from taking infantry - so you should still get to love your infantry. I get having limitations with points and certain units etc, but why would you not want people to be able to bring what they want?
Kanluwen wrote: Gee, it's almost like the Raven Guard trait of "count as in cover at 12" or further" suddenly makes more sense knowing that modifiers are capped.
Clearly. Our GW overlords are so far ahead of the curve that they took it into account for the favoured sons almost a year ago but then didn't bother accounting for 9th in the PA books since.
Pretty sure that the Aeldari 'custom trait' does the same thing.
Bdrone wrote: Juust enough stuff to keep me very concerned.
Spoiler:
so lemme see if i have this correct. costs command to set up reserves- don't know how many.
costs command to use extra detachments, and "based on total game size" is however many command points.
assumption- expect less CP in certain armies, but no idea how much as of yet.
this has me worried for Pure tempestus and gene stealer cults in specific. also quite funny to make infantry key in 8th, and then go "ehh, limit your detachments, please." now.
Monsters can also do the "tank" thing? do they just mean vehicles or what?
great, crusade rules for the codexes. i wonder if that means codexes will go up in price to account for them, even if again you have no interest in that ruleset- i have skirmish games for that where my people have a larger chance of survival per game.
How will morale affect armies like knights, if any? unknown.
how exactly did they chance overwatch and falling back.
...all of this has made me shelve my tempestus idea (along with the price raising) ill watch from Imperial Knights as perspective, but considering how little engine war appears to offer them.... egh, so much for my interest until i get more hard data.
the modifier thing i hardly ever saw aside from eldar, so i don't know how abusable that was.
Your assumption about variable CP per faction goes against everything they have said.
Given your detachment can be a Brigade I dont understand why people are so opposed to having to pay CP to minmax detachments for bonuses, be that specialist detachments of optimising subfaction bonuses.
Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.
The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?
The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.
You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.
Not it actually allows strategums to finally be vaguely balanced for the first time since they were introduced, which given they have already said that there will be common core strategums in the 9th edition rule books makes it even more important for balance that every Codex starts on the same CP playing field.
Troos as a tax unit has provem to be a BS assumption as many factions just found a particularly efficent troop unit and went all in on that 1 unit. Infantry squads, scouts, rangers. It was a flawed idea and needed to die.
Strategems, and by extension CP can be an overall major factor in how a game plays out. I know a good chunk of my best 'tricks' revolve around Strategems and they've won games for me.
However, I'd be lying if I wasn't honest- at certain point levels, some armies just aren't going to be able to generate CP's. And while it's certainly been a long while since I've played a full-blown game- the best I can remember through the cobwebs in my brain's 40k experiences in the last few years?
I think I managed to pull off one or two games with a Brigade Detachment. At some levels, like at around 1000 points- I can manage a Battalion Detachment, but doing so means I've really, really got to restrict myself in other ways- to the point where it's considerably punitive. I can run other Detachments instead, but considering that my army practically gobbles CP just to do what it needs to do in order to be at least worth someone playing at the table... yeah, I've got to wriggle stuff into a Battalion Formation and hope I've got myself covered.
Giving both players the same amount seems okay enough... however, I do think there should be ways to generate more (within reason).
... like a typical GW reply to a complex problem: Just pretend it isn't a problem and swing that pendulum as hard as possible to the other side without acknowledging that there's more to it than a simple binary solution.
Same applies to the modifier nonsense.
And what's the bet someone can still target something by seeing a spine/claw/antenna/wing-tip/etc.?
Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.
The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?
The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.
You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.
Not it actually allows strategums to finally be vaguely balanced for the first time since they were introduced, which given they have already said that there will be common core stratagems in the 9th edition rule books makes it even more important for balance that every Codex starts on the same CP playing field.
Troos as a tax unit has provem to be a BS assumption as many factions just found a particularly efficent troop unit and went all in on that 1 unit. Infantry squads, scouts, rangers. It was a flawed idea and needed to die.
Again, I am not making a case for obligatory troops. I'm keen to play with some dreadwaagh and nidzilla lists. I'm just still to be convinced of flat cp being solution to soup. I'd have just mandated a primary codex to be nominated and stopped any detachment using another from generating any CP, and maybe played with the detachments so that there were other options that generated plenty CP by filling out many slots but without troops - a spearhead equivalent but with 6 heavy support or whatever.
Anyway, I'm happy to see how it pans out, I'm just sceptical given it was first mentioned in the preview twitch as a solution to soup. I think it will massively reduce soup, but not necessarily one of the key problems that came from soup.
Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.
The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?
The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.
You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.
Cheap troops are massed small arms fire are buckets of dice and damage.
An elite expensive army has a lot of difficulty putting out volume of fire and in many ways needs the buffs more than a more efficient chaff/buffing/saved points into a few key big toys army does.
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?
I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
It's almost as if trying to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to a far more complex and nuanced problem just creates newer, different problems.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?
I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.
Those are from Saturday's stream, additional detachments cost CP and additional Codex's cost CP.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?
I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.
Those are from Saturday's stream, additional detachments cost CP and additional Codex's cost CP.
I watched that stream and don't remember the detachment statement and haven't seen anyone else say that they said that either.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?
I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.
Those are from Saturday's stream, additional detachments cost CP and additional Codex's cost CP.
I watched that stream and don't remember the detachment statement and haven't seen anyone else say that they said that either.
The extra codex thing I do recall though.
I can vouch for the extra detachments costing CP from the first stream. I remember that pretty distinctly when they talked about Soup.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
With loyalists rerolling all failed hits? No.
Choas and other BS improved allies without reroll everything would like a word, also that reroll your reroll of a reroll aura nonsence needs to go it's reduced marine's to deathbubbles of aura hammer.
You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.
But that was never the control. CP were supposed to be an incentive for building a balanced army following the classic FOC while skewed lists like "Oops All Heavy Support" got penalized. They aren't some sort of runner up prize for playing IG or Orks because GW thinks those armies are inherently weaker.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?
The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.
With loyalists rerolling all failed hits? No.
Choas and other BS improved allies without reroll everything would like a word, also that reroll your reroll of a reroll aura nonsence needs to go it's reduced marine's to deathbubbles of aura hammer.
So you agree that the rule benefits loyalists and their reroll everything bubbles more than other factions. And agreed, aura hammer is lame. Marines should be mobile.
The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.
They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.
Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.
So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.
I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.
Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.
which is probably why they're the next boxed set...
Gadzilla666 wrote: So you agree that the rule benefits loyalists and their reroll everything bubbles more than other factions. And agreed, aura hammer is lame. Marines should be mobile.
Bolter Boy Bubbles are dumb, this is why my Loyalists are packed up and I haven't touched them for a long time. Honestly, I wish they'd bring back HQ's being able to join into a unit. Then you can give that specific unit a bonus reroll.
Hellebore wrote: The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.
They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.
Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.
So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.
I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.
Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.
which is probably why they're the next boxed set...
The initiative changes don't benefit marines that much. There's a lot of units that marines went before that will no have a chance to hit back. And the changes to sweeping advance primarily impact marines as they were relatively low offense but high durability. They relied on taking few wounds, and then sweeping advancing to actually kill things.
Low armor save units got a GIANT boost in defense vs marines due to the removal of old style AP 5. Marines used to ignore the armor of pretty much all guard, nid, ork, and eldar infantry, except for the occasional 4+ heavy infantry. Many units gained 33% durability vs marines that didn't exist before. Marines are less effective at shooting down stuff like boyz and gaunts now than they used to be, even with all the auras and stuff.
The REAL problem is that in earlier editions, these units could get 4+ cover saves that benefited them, but barely helped marines.
So one thing I noticed is chainswords on marines are gonna be a loot better. specificly.
"Q33: Are Astartes Intercessor chainswords better than other chainswords?
Stu - All Astartes chainswords are better than regular chainswords. They're bigger. Has more AP than a Guardsman being flung around. Different stat line."
so astartes chainswords I bet are gaining a point of AP
Hellebore wrote: The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.
They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.
Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.
So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.
I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.
Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.
which is probably why they're the next boxed set...
The initiative changes don't benefit marines that much. There's a lot of units that marines went before that will no have a chance to hit back. And the changes to sweeping advance primarily impact marines as they were relatively low offense but high durability. They relied on taking few wounds, and then sweeping advancing to actually kill things.
Low armor save units got a GIANT boost in defense vs marines due to the removal of old style AP 5. Marines used to ignore the armor of pretty much all guard, nid, ork, and eldar infantry, except for the occasional 4+ heavy infantry. Many units gained 33% durability vs marines that didn't exist before. Marines are less effective at shooting down stuff like boyz and gaunts now than they used to be, even with all the auras and stuff.
The REAL problem is that in earlier editions, these units could get 4+ cover saves that benefited them, but barely helped marines.
I'm not sure what point you're making, because I was specifically talking about T and Sv which you have confirmed are important.
I'm saying that there's now even less room to design units, if they don't have good T or Sv, then there are no other mechanisms to make the unit good.
There was an opportunity with modifiers to have 2 types of unit - defence through toughness and armour, or defence through being hard to hit. That last one is lost. This means that low T/sv elite units have no way of actually being any good, because the one opportunity they had has been lost.
So you end up in a position where the only way to make a unit survivable at all is relying entirely on saves and toughness, which some armies are fundamentally designed not to use, which means unless they're getting invulnerable saves, they will die in droves.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.
9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.
We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?
BrianDavion wrote:So one thing I noticed is chainswords on marines are gonna be a loot better. specificly.
"Q33: Are Astartes Intercessor chainswords better than other chainswords?
Stu - All Astartes chainswords are better than regular chainswords. They're bigger. Has more AP than a Guardsman being flung around. Different stat line."
so astartes chainswords I bet are gaining a point of AP
If they remain free that could be a boost to many units. Combi-bolter chosen keep looking better and better.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.
9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.
We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?
BrianDavion wrote:So one thing I noticed is chainswords on marines are gonna be a loot better. specificly.
"Q33: Are Astartes Intercessor chainswords better than other chainswords?
Stu - All Astartes chainswords are better than regular chainswords. They're bigger. Has more AP than a Guardsman being flung around. Different stat line."
so astartes chainswords I bet are gaining a point of AP
If they remain free that could be a boost to many units. Combi-bolter chosen keep looking better and better.
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Hellebore wrote: The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.
They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.
Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.
So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.
I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.
Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.
which is probably why they're the next boxed set...
The initiative changes don't benefit marines that much. There's a lot of units that marines went before that will no have a chance to hit back. And the changes to sweeping advance primarily impact marines as they were relatively low offense but high durability. They relied on taking few wounds, and then sweeping advancing to actually kill things.
Low armor save units got a GIANT boost in defense vs marines due to the removal of old style AP 5. Marines used to ignore the armor of pretty much all guard, nid, ork, and eldar infantry, except for the occasional 4+ heavy infantry. Many units gained 33% durability vs marines that didn't exist before. Marines are less effective at shooting down stuff like boyz and gaunts now than they used to be, even with all the auras and stuff.
The REAL problem is that in earlier editions, these units could get 4+ cover saves that benefited them, but barely helped marines.
I'm not sure what point you're making, because I was specifically talking about T and Sv which you have confirmed are important.
I'm saying that there's now even less room to design units, if they don't have good T or Sv, then there are no other mechanisms to make the unit good.
There was an opportunity with modifiers to have 2 types of unit - defence through toughness and armour, or defence through being hard to hit. That last one is lost. This means that low T/sv elite units have no way of actually being any good, because the one opportunity they had has been lost.
So you end up in a position where the only way to make a unit survivable at all is relying entirely on saves and toughness, which some armies are fundamentally designed not to use, which means unless they're getting invulnerable saves, they will die in droves.
My point is that those units didn't start dying in droves, even when they don't have penalties to be hit. Most of these units have been more resilient in 8th than ever before even without modifiers. They die in droves far less than in previous editions, where marines were considerably more efficient at killing them than they are now.
We had better balance between infantry types in earlier editions when the design space was, as you say, smaller.
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Gadzilla666 wrote: If they remain free that could be a boost to many units. Combi-bolter chosen keep looking better and better.
Careful now. There's every chance in the world they'll forget about Chaos Marines, or make this a Primaris only thing.
Eldarain wrote:I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Good points. I guess I better get my salt ready just in case.
Darkseid wrote:Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
It's almost as if trying to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to a far more complex and nuanced problem just creates newer, different problems.
That's why they should've let modifiers still stack and just keep natural 6s always hitting.
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
I got a simple solution for people who worry that troops will not be taken in 9th ed.
Just make a rule that each character must be attached to One unit of troop. You want three characters, you need three units of troops. And each detachment must have at least one commander (ie character).
So, if we assume three detachments is the standard taken for a 2000 point game, then that means at least 3 characters and 3 troops.
So, unless you want to play with minimum heroes ... this will force you to take troops if you want to bring more heroes.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.
9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.
We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?
For people who should know that there is a surprising about of whinging about this and that and how they'll cpearly break the game. Complaints that are clearly made from a purely 8th ed standpoint instead of considering there is a boatload of changes we don't even know yet, much less the specifics of the changes we do know.
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?
Having S+1 and that's it!
IMHO chain axes should be S+1 and an extra attack, while chainswords are -1 AP and an extra attack, it's a choice between greater power or greater armor pen
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?
Having S+1 and that's it!
+1S vs 1 free attack is an interesting balance.
Not really with the current wounding chart but better than nothing.
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?
Having S+1 and that's it!
IMHO chain axes should be S+1 and an extra attack, while chainswords are -1 AP and an extra attack, it's a choice between greater power or greater armor pen
If they do this, I hope all power weapons give an extra attack as well. In fact, I think all special melee weapons that cost points should come with at least a +1 attack standard. Melee weapons should be good when you actually get to use them. Finally getting into combat just to fluff your powerfist attacks is lame.
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?
Having S+1 and that's it!
+1S vs 1 free attack is an interesting balance.
Not really with the current wounding chart but better than nothing.
True, but we don't know that is staying exactly the same or not. That is, if they don't just make the Chainaxe a Chainsword with +1S.
Just had a thought to boot: what does this mean for things like Ragnar's Chainsword or the Teeth of Terra? Will they be seeing a slight rules bump too?
I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.
Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?
Having S+1 and that's it!
+1S vs 1 free attack is an interesting balance.
With a couple exceptions, I'm pretty sure the extra attack is largely superior.
The extra attack would have been superior in most instances before we got 8th's shoddy To Wound chart. With 8th Ed's chart, it is absolutely the superior option.
Power level? They must anticipate we'll just drop the last guy if it's a set number
So 5 orks just as easy to hit as 30 and easier than 5 terminators. Good job!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: So building a list requires CP, but your CP total requires knowing the mission and table size. How can one just build a list for an event or even for casual play if you don't know what mission you're playing and need CP to make the damned list?
You know cp you will have by knowing points you have to use. How many casual play list you make without knowing are you making 1000, 1500 or 2000 pts game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: Infantry squads only being useful for sitting around and doing nothing is neither engaging, nor fun. Having them only be useful for taking objectives is not the way to make them be taken. They should have a defensive and offensive place on the battlefield, whether that be holding a trench line, or executing a surprise advance on the flank.
No one is going to take units that merely exist to sit there in a predefined location, and get shot so the bigger models get to look cool.
Atm nobody gets them to do anything but bubblewrap and cp. First one seems to be growing in importance and 2nd is neither engaging nor fun as you said
H.B.M.C. wrote: The extra attack would have been superior in most instances before we got 8th's shoddy To Wound chart. With 8th Ed's chart, it is absolutely the superior option.
You sure about that?
It doesn't matter at all for T3, 6, 7, or 10, so the extra attack will always be superior against guard or eldar (and assorted little guys)
For T4 (the most common of the remaining T scores)
3 S5 attacks average 1.31 wounds
4 S4 attacks average 1.32 wounds
[before armor in both cases, but the we're assuming the save is the same]
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
Uuh and why mono knights shouldn't be helped? Seeing they are atm underpowered(look at their winrate).
And if they soup they lose cp's getting to where they now were with cp batteries.
tneva82 wrote: You know cp you will have by knowing points you have to use. How many casual play list you make without knowing are you making 1000, 1500 or 2000 pts game?
Didn't they also say they can come from missions as well?
tneva82 wrote: You know cp you will have by knowing points you have to use. How many casual play list you make without knowing are you making 1000, 1500 or 2000 pts game?
Didn't they also say they can come from missions as well?
One issue over the course of 8th is that some armies had easy access to CP and others don't, so we're leveling the playing field. Command Points are now linked to the game size. Start with the same number of Command Points.
4 Army Sizes: Combat Patrol, Onslaught, Strike Force, Incursion
Game size
Btw regarding missions those vary between game sizes. No playing scenarios suited to 2k with 500 armies
Sledgehammer wrote: Infantry squads only being useful for sitting around and doing nothing is neither engaging, nor fun. Having them only be useful for taking objectives is not the way to make them be taken. They should have a defensive and offensive place on the battlefield, whether that be holding a trench line, or executing a surprise advance on the flank.
No one is going to take units that merely exist to sit there in a predefined location, and get shot so the bigger models get to look cool.
Atm nobody gets them to do anything but bubblewrap and cp. First one seems to be growing in importance and 2nd is neither engaging nor fun as you said
Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.
Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.
Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.
Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.
In terms of role if anything 9th increases it. cp battery isn't fun and engaging role. Board control meanwhile is role. You can't expect cheap troop to be murder machine but with reserve changes unless you enjoy more stuff(no need for bespoken rule to go to reserve) appearing out of reserves and charge you then you need board control.
Sure it's nice to have unit of dark reapers of doom. What they enjoy finding 10 assault interceptors in their face charging before they get to shoot? Sure you donjt want some cheap troops?
OK, I understand speculation at this point, but outright crying that the game (which you haven't seen) is broken is a tad early, don't you think?
We clearly don't know how the to hit modifiers work overall. Perhaps only the target player caps out at -1 max. So if you move with a hvy weapon, and are targeting a flier...it's still -2, we just don't know. We do know that you can't be a Eldar flier, using Alaitoc and Lightning Fast Reactions trying to a -3 to hit. I think surely GW would understand that a moving hvy weapon should not hit a flier the same as a stationary one, so there has to be some other mechanic, who knows?
As for Troop tax.....good riddance. All troops are not created equal and it was dumb that the lower mentality horde would always have these strategems to use over elite armies. Hopefully the new mechanic doesn't skew things too far the other way. I do know my Ravenwing can gladly leave those friggin' scouts at home now...yay.
I'm optimistic for the new edition, but I also expect there to be some flaws, that's just being realistic. And since I fully expect it to hit sometime in July, we won;t have too long to wait.
Sledgehammer wrote: Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.
Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.
That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.
This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).
ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.
9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.
We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?
Yes they said that. And that has come out every time codexes have been redone.
You really think ork codex was written 9th ed in mind? Knights? Tyranids? Death guard?
Either they release errata or they would be even more restricted what they can change.
It's errata, no meaningful changes or all codexes invalidated ala the 8th. Take your pick.
You're either or choice is invalid for a couple of reasons: first 9th was written with the 8th ed rules in mind, which is something people keep screwing up since it means they didn't write the edition then release codexes written as a sort of foot in both edition mess. Secondly the game is a transitional bump like 6th to 7th, not 7th to 8th. That means consolidating the changes, improving on things the community provided feedback for over the last three years, and that means this idea that the Chicken-Little-ing over the edition change is unnecessary, as it always is.
We are seeing core mechanic changes, which will drastically shake up the meta, and we're seeing points cost changes that'll rebalance the game to better match that meta. We also know we're going to see some wargear changes as the Astartes Chainsword is bringing a statline change to the chainswords we all know and love.
So there are drastic changes coming, but they don't invalidate the codexes we have. They build on them and rebalance them so they remain relevant (if not make them more relevant) until their turn for a new codex comes around.
Sledgehammer wrote: Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.
Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.
That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.
This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).
Infantry provide multiple roles other than waiting around for everyone else to do everything
They can protect heavier elements from receiving fire from unsuspecting angles, provide reconnaissance and spotting for other assets. Can defend emplacements and operate in dense environments that are not suited to tanks and larger assets. They are smaller targets and thus can be utilized to infiltrate behind enemy lines, destroying vital supply lines and causing disarray along the front.
I can easily point to the Long rang reconnaissance patrols of Vietnam, Merrill's marauders, the Chindits, and the paratroopers of ww2 (which on the battlefield itself were nothing more than infantry. They didn't deep strike into combat).
bullyboy wrote: OK, I understand speculation at this point, but outright crying that the game (which you haven't seen) is broken is a tad early, don't you think?
We clearly don't know how the to hit modifiers work overall. Perhaps only the target player caps out at -1 max. So if you move with a hvy weapon, and are targeting a flier...it's still -2, we just don't know. We do know that you can't be a Eldar flier, using Alaitoc and Lightning Fast Reactions trying to a -3 to hit. I think surely GW would understand that a moving hvy weapon should not hit a flier the same as a stationary one, so there has to be some other mechanic, who knows?
As for Troop tax.....good riddance. All troops are not created equal and it was dumb that the lower mentality horde would always have these strategems to use over elite armies. Hopefully the new mechanic doesn't skew things too far the other way. I do know my Ravenwing can gladly leave those friggin' scouts at home now...yay.
I'm optimistic for the new edition, but I also expect there to be some flaws, that's just being realistic. And since I fully expect it to hit sometime in July, we won;t have too long to wait.
I expect us to start seeing deeper dives into the new edition, if not the free rules, starting June 1st.
That said, the need for the internet to declare the sky is falling everytime GW even breathes is a bit tiresome.
Sledgehammer wrote: Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.
Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.
That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.
This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).
Infantry provide multiple roles other than waiting around for everyone else to do everything
They can protect heavier elements from receiving fire from unsuspecting angles, provide reconnaissance and spotting for other assets. Can defend emplacements and operate in dense environments that are not suited to tanks and larger assets. They are smaller targets and thus can be utilized to infiltrate behind enemy lines, destroying vital supply lines and causing disarray along the front.
I can easily point to the Long rang reconnaissance patrols of Vietnam, Merrill's marauders, the Chindits, and the paratroopers of ww2 (which on the battlefield itself were nothing more than infantry. They didn't deep strike into combat).
Troops in 40k had priority for controlling objectives (something I see coming back) and in some cases were the only thing that could score objectives. In modern editions they also serve as ways to defend your harder hitting elements and chip damage heavier targets as the game goes on.
GW has always had trouble making troops "feel" as relevant as they said they were, but as someone who is looking at Templars again, why wouldn't I want Crusader Squads? They can be built for melee, ranged and even heavy support elements.
bullyboy wrote: OK, I understand speculation at this point, but outright crying that the game (which you haven't seen) is broken is a tad early, don't you think?
We clearly don't know how the to hit modifiers work overall. Perhaps only the target player caps out at -1 max. So if you move with a hvy weapon, and are targeting a flier...it's still -2, we just don't know. We do know that you can't be a Eldar flier, using Alaitoc and Lightning Fast Reactions trying to a -3 to hit. I think surely GW would understand that a moving hvy weapon should not hit a flier the same as a stationary one, so there has to be some other mechanic, who knows?
As for Troop tax.....good riddance. All troops are not created equal and it was dumb that the lower mentality horde would always have these strategems to use over elite armies. Hopefully the new mechanic doesn't skew things too far the other way. I do know my Ravenwing can gladly leave those friggin' scouts at home now...yay.
I'm optimistic for the new edition, but I also expect there to be some flaws, that's just being realistic. And since I fully expect it to hit sometime in July, we won;t have too long to wait.
Dude, this is Dakka. Crying about the game is pretty much the foundation that this community is built on. Everyone's army got screwed, but also everyone's army is just as fine if not OP- if a large portion of this site is to be believed.
Also, my actual response- Last time 8th was announced about this time of year, rules were available early June, maybe mid-June. I just remember reading the rulebook on the plan going home for 4th of July.
This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.
Andrew
At the least, the 1/Detatchment restriction will stay in place but I wouldn't be shocked to see a 1/army installed. A similar restriction will likely hit the Space Marine Captain and several other "Grand command" types.
Likely, not assured.
GW has a certain look and feel to their forces that they want respected, and things like "There's only one Chapter Master" or "There's only one Commander" are in that mix.
But we won't know for certain for a while yet.
For now, assume the rules in place remain in place.
Honestly, I've long been an advocate for certain types of HQ 'tier's required to take certain types of units for an army, similar to what the Horus Heresy does.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Honestly, I've long been an advocate for certain types of HQ 'tier's required to take certain types of units for an army, similar to what the Horus Heresy does.
I'd like to see more of that system as a sort of buy in on supplement books. Want to play Imperial Fists? You need X, Y and Z mininum. Ect, ect.
From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:
There will be a set number of Command Points for the point level of a game. For now, let's just say 1 CP per 100 pts of the game... so, 10 CP at 1000 points, 15 at 1500, 20 at 2000, and so on. This set level keeps things fair and allows for easy of figuring out certain costs.
NOTE: We don't know the formula yet, but it will be something along those lines.
Detachments don't seem to have changed in design (IE, a Patrol still has 1-2 HQ, 1-3 Troops, and 0-2 of Elite, Fast, and Heavy support) but instead of GENERATING CP, they instead COST CP, with possibly one being free.
So what you'll have is some kind of a shopping list, like:
Patrol - 1 CP Battalion - 3 CP Brigade - 5 CP Vanguard - 4 CP Spearhead - 4 CP Outrider - 4 CP Supreme Command - 5 CP Super Heavy - 5 CP Air Wing - 3 CP Super Heavy Auxillary - 2 CP Fortification Network - 1 CP Auxillary Support - 1 CP
"One for free" will be worked in somehow, possibly based on points. 0-999: Free Patrol. 1000-1999: Free Batallion 2000+ Free Brigade Any you want beyond that will have a cost.
So, in a 2000 point game, if you just wanted three Spearheads, you could, but that would set you back 12 of your 20 CP, giving your opponent more strategic options.
So, you'd still be encouraged to take troops, since the three Troop-heavy detachments would be cheaper than the specialized ones, but would carry a 'troop tax' of a sort as a balance.
Obvviously, I don't have the exact numbers but that really rough layout up above will let you see how it should work, based on what we know, and let you play around a bit unill we get the actual rules, to see how your own forces can be laid out.
Maybe you know your force sneeds a TON of CP, like Orks, so you just plan on a pair of REALLY FAT Batalions, leaving you 17 CP.
Maybe you want the raw POWAH of a bunch of heavy choices, but all those Spearheads leave you short on CP for upgrades, rerolls, and so on, so you have to rely on the big guns getting it done.
It's just spending some pre-game, just like you do to get more Relics or upgrade a Psycher, only it gives you more slots to stick units into.
Obviously, this is just based on what we know at this stage and it could change (For instance, they cold ditch detachments and just do a straight CP to buy 1 slot (2 if troops)) and, most important, the exact numbers are unknown to us, but, it'll work as a guidepost.
You're either or choice is invalid for a couple of reasons: first 9th was written with the 8th ed rules in mind, which is something people keep screwing up since it means they didn't write the edition then release codexes written as a sort of foot in both edition mess. Secondly the game is a transitional bump like 6th to 7th, not 7th to 8th. That means consolidating the changes, improving on things the community provided feedback for over the last three years, and that means this idea that the Chicken-Little-ing over the edition change is unnecessary, as it always is.
So we are back at no meaningful changes if they can't release errata. And 6th to 7th had errata too. So did 3rt tow4th, 4th to 5th. If you want same codex to stay either you can't make real changes or there's errjta.
All your claims were same in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. Guess what? Erratas.
So it's back to invalidate codexes, no meaningful changes or erratas. Your pick. You can't keep codexes, have meaningful changes and no errata's
Sledgehammer wrote: Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.
Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.
That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.
This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).
Infantry provide multiple roles other than waiting around for everyone else to do everything
They can protect heavier elements from receiving fire from unsuspecting angles, provide reconnaissance and spotting for other assets. Can defend emplacements and operate in dense environments that are not suited to tanks and larger assets. They are smaller targets and thus can be utilized to infiltrate behind enemy lines, destroying vital supply lines and causing disarray along the front.
I can easily point to the Long rang reconnaissance patrols of Vietnam, Merrill's marauders, the Chindits, and the paratroopers of ww2 (which on the battlefield itself were nothing more than infantry. They didn't deep strike into combat).
Funny that. Protect from unsuspecting angles. Sounds a lot like what is going to be even more essential than before in 9th.
You're either or choice is invalid for a couple of reasons: first 9th was written with the 8th ed rules in mind, which is something people keep screwing up since it means they didn't write the edition then release codexes written as a sort of foot in both edition mess. Secondly the game is a transitional bump like 6th to 7th, not 7th to 8th. That means consolidating the changes, improving on things the community provided feedback for over the last three years, and that means this idea that the Chicken-Little-ing over the edition change is unnecessary, as it always is.
So we are back at no meaningful changes if they can't release errata. And 6th to 7th had errata too. So did 3rt tow4th, 4th to 5th. If you want same codex to stay either you can't make real changes or there's errjta.
All your claims were same in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. Guess what? Erratas.
So it's back to invalidate codexes, no meaningful changes or erratas. Your pick. You can't keep codexes, have meaningful changes and no errata's
You're misunderstanding something pretty fundamental here. We know for a fact that there are errata. We also know there are meaningful changes. We also know the books aren't going anywhere and the meaningful changes are based on the core mechanics, not in the books (save for some wargear changes). So basically you're trying to force an either or situation that doesn't exist to suit a narrative not based on reality. Guess you win the internet then.
Reality exists in shades of grey, not black and white. We can have sweeping changes that will upend the meta without changing the books themselves, but they're taking steps to try and keep the shifted meta from getting out of control with some of the sillier nonsense we're known to pull when given a chance by changing points. No one is saying they're won't be errata, what is being said is the books aren't being invalidated on the level the change from 7th to 8th did, and at worse are the bump we saw from 6th to 7th which didn't really change much in how the books worked, even if the core rules shifted a bit.
Basically people need to chill out because no one knows enough to make informed decisions about the game and all this crying about the game being broken is based on nothing that we have any actual evidence of.
Honestly it's discussions like this that always bring me back to one frequent little thought.
..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Honestly it's discussions like this that always bring me back to one frequent little thought.
..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.
8th was a new system. Yes, it had elements from past systems, but those aren't the same as being the same system. We don't need yet -another- new system. Nor do we really need to change dice (I won't deny a new die system wouldn't be interesting, but stick to a die that is round at least if you go down that road, like a D8, D12 or D20 to allow for greater randomness). I see a lot of people who cry for a game more like a simulation and I don't think that a tabletop wargame is the best place for that level of granularity and micromanagement. Leave that to computers for it already takes people 3 hours to play and average game now. Making it into a proper simulation with all the complexity the internet regularly demands of it and you'd need to book a weekend just to get a game in.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: ..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.
Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: ..Maybe at some point, Warhammer 40k's game system/rules need to be completely redone from the ground up. Not a variation of what it was before, but perhaps just entirely re-done with a completely new system.
Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?
Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?
Sledgehammer wrote: The secret to success in 40k has been through game knowledge rather than through board control and maneuvering.
The more you can get people thinking of combos and different army builds, the more likely you're to sell more armies.
Success being determined on the battlefield is antithetical to selling more miniatures.
And here I was thinking it was getting people hooked on the setting and resulting in people creating massive collections of the factions they like, even if they don't use all of it most of the time.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?
I've got this weird theory that the major problem with 40k is that somewhere a long time ago, instead of saying "okay we can make a better system to represent this", someone said "nah what we did the first time worked, let's just stick with that"- and while there's some sound logic in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'- well, maybe it's time to experiment and see what is less broken than his (if it's actually broken) and see what they come up with.
ClockworkZion wrote: Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?
Speak for yourself. 40k has never had good rules. It's had some rules that were better than others are certain points, but it's never been fantastic. Thankfully it's never been about that, as no one plays 40K for the rules (that'd be daft). I think 8th is garbage and I know for a fact that I could write a better set of rules blindfolded, but who cares, 8th is an absolute blast to play and I haven't had this much fun with 40k in years.
The problem is when they change too much that it starts to cut into what was fun about the previous (broken) edition. And given the way GW always tries to apply wide sweeping simple solutions to detailed and complex problems, new editions tend to make people skittish.
ClockworkZion wrote: Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?
Speak for yourself. 40k has never had good rules. It's had some rules that were better than others are certain points, but it's never been fantastic. Thankfully it's never been about that, as no one plays 40K for the rules (that'd be daft). I think 8th is garbage, but boy is it fun to play. The problem is when they change too much that it starts to cut into what was fun about the previous (broken) edition. And given the way GW always tries to apply wide sweeping simple solutions to detailed and complex problems, new editions tend to make people skittish.
We seem to have different definitions of "good". Perfect 40k is not, but it's good. It's going to be better in the near future as well, but I can't agree with a claim that the game is "bad".
But that's really not here or there. The joke was more that the internet complains about everything. Hell, anyone remember the inane complaining about Spider-man for the PS4 having less puddles than where in the dev footage? No? Guess I'm the only one who remembers the internet community runs on salt with the fuel efficiency of a forty year old truck.
You're misunderstanding something pretty fundamental here. We know for a fact that there are errata. We also know there are meaningful changes. We also know the books aren't going anywhere and the meaningful changes are based on the core mechanics, not in the books (save for some wargear changes). So basically you're trying to force an either or situation that doesn't exist to suit a narrative not based on reality. Guess you win the internet then.
Uuh I'm responding to complain about day 1 errata's...Did you even read what I was replying to before replying?
"We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?"
You're misunderstanding something pretty fundamental here. We know for a fact that there are errata. We also know there are meaningful changes. We also know the books aren't going anywhere and the meaningful changes are based on the core mechanics, not in the books (save for some wargear changes). So basically you're trying to force an either or situation that doesn't exist to suit a narrative not based on reality. Guess you win the internet then.
Uuh I'm responding to complain about day 1 errata's...Did you even read what I was replying to before replying?
"We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?"
And my point was the complaints being raised were false because there are erratas that are coming. Making claims about how good or bad a codex will be in the new edition is meaningless right now and yet people keep trying to do it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Given GWs track record, would that result in anything really different?
I've got this weird theory that the major problem with 40k is that somewhere a long time ago, instead of saying "okay we can make a better system to represent this", someone said "nah what we did the first time worked, let's just stick with that"- and while there's some sound logic in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'- well, maybe it's time to experiment and see what is less broken than his (if it's actually broken) and see what they come up with.
Ding ding ding we have a winner. GW always ends up having the same consistent problems every edition basically, and they never bother to fix those core issues themselves. Then we get a new edition where those problems are still there (but not exacerbated), and the cycle begins anew with every release.
ClockworkZion wrote: Given the internet's track record would we ever be happy with it instead of griping about how much better the old system was?
Speak for yourself. 40k has never had good rules. It's had some rules that were better than others are certain points, but it's never been fantastic. Thankfully it's never been about that, as no one plays 40K for the rules (that'd be daft). I think 8th is garbage and I know for a fact that I could write a better set of rules blindfolded, but who cares, 8th is an absolute blast to play and I haven't had this much fun with 40k in years.
The problem is when they change too much that it starts to cut into what was fun about the previous (broken) edition. And given the way GW always tries to apply wide sweeping simple solutions to detailed and complex problems, new editions tend to make people skittish.
Speak for yourself.
Having tried a lot of games out there like Infinity, WarmaHordes, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., I certainly came to 40K for having the best rules of anything currently on the market.
Maybe not perfect, but certainly a Churchill-ian "the worst except for all the others".
Wow, this post is a recipy for disaster 40k has the best rules - a good morning laugh . Certainly it appeals to some people better than other rules, but it is rare to find a person that elevates it so high
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL imagine playing those games and actually saying with a straight face 40k is better. Pray tell what it actually does better. This will be good.
Lol. Imagine playing a game and pursuing its evolution on the internet, when you're actually convinced it isn't the best and you could simply go get a (for you) better game off the shelve at any second. Now that sounds like some really twisted form of masochism.
I suspect that you can't stack multiple modifiers on a single unit but modifiers on different units will still stack. So a flier is minus one to hit but if you take a minus on the firing unit, moving with a heavy weapon for example, the minus one from that would stack with the minus one from the flier resulting in a total of minus two but it's obviously just speculation at this point.
having played games with alternating activation it's not a magical cureall for every ill in the game and does have it's own issues. don't get me wrong I prefer it but if they just shoehorns AA into the game that'd be worse then not having it.
You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.
But that was never the control. CP were supposed to be an incentive for building a balanced army following the classic FOC while skewed lists like "Oops All Heavy Support" got penalized. They aren't some sort of runner up prize for playing IG or Orks because GW thinks those armies are inherently weaker.
Given you are (generally, there are obviously idiosyncratic examples) directly rewarded for fielding more, cheaper, and less specialised units, I just don't agree.
I don't think it should have been the control - I think stratagem costing should have just been more nuanced - and I don't think it should be now, but I'm nervous that there won't be sufficient thought given to balancing the stratagems already printed with new CP availability in mind.
tneva82 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.
And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.
Uuh and why mono knights shouldn't be helped? Seeing they are atm underpowered(look at their winrate).
And if they soup they lose cp's getting to where they now were with cp batteries.
Underpowered faction getting buff. Oh the horror!
But why are knights in soup, most often? To get them a bunch of extra CP to spend powering their big lads.
Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.
However, if it has some kind of 'multi-activation' system, then let's just say it'd be helpful against some of those armies that can just drench the field with gunfire and delete multiple units before they're even used.
Also, I kinda like the way Apocalypse does the 'everything dies at the end of the turn after both players have activated their units.
Because if you think that an overwhelming Alpha Strike in 40k isn't an absolute factor in determining how the game plays out- well, you're mistaken. If you think that the problem can be circumvented by some kind of 'deploy better' solution- then you're the exact person that makes me wonder if you actually play the game, or at least play it on more than one table with the same set of terrain.
Number of CPs can be easily adjusted by the cost of Stratagems.
Example for examples sake - allowing a single unit of Orks to re-roll shooting compared to allowing a single Knight of any class to re-roll shooting,
The Orks are almost certainly rolling more dice to start with. But with BS 5+, and predominantly infantry weapons, those re-rolls are having less effect than re-rolling for a Knight Battlecannon. Sure the Orks will likely mince most infantry through sheer volume, but the Knight can obliterate a greater range of targets.
Important thing to remember here is we’re currently working off informed speculation. We don’t have a great deal confirmed.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I find alternating activation a pretty bad mechanic that makes for far poorer gameplay.
I get it, opinions differ. But if you like alternating activation, it's not like there's a scarcity of that on the market.
I just don’t know how it creates worse gameplay. I know opinions differ, so I’m curious about your opinion on it, I really want to enjoy 40k more and not just wish it had a different turn system.
nfe wrote: But why are knights in soup, most often? To get them a bunch of extra CP to spend powering their big lads.
Yeah. And if you soup them up now you will burn CP.
If not give them more CP what other help you would be giving to mono knights? Cheaper knights?
You would need to be fanatical knight hater that just wants to kill knights completely to be against helping mono knights.
With this mono knights gets buff they deserve. They are underpowered as is.
Souping in future leads to same or worse. If they soup they will have less CP than without souping. I doubt souped up in 9th ed knights will have 14+ CP that much like they had in 8th ed.
This helps mono knights. Which is the way knights that are used that needs helps. Soup knights need less help but guess what? This doesnt' help soup knights because souping they pay CP rather than gain it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.
Like getting support character in place. Sisters want to charge their repentia but they need the imagifier as well. Activate repentia? No imagifier. Activate imagifier? Gee now you have helpless imagifier in the open ready to be blown to bits...
Same for defensive aura.
Imagifier and it's kind would suffer major drop in value OR they would need to be reworked from ground up making invalidating codexes more essential and thus not suitable for scope of 9th ed
nfe wrote: But why are knights in soup, most often? To get them a bunch of extra CP to spend powering their big lads.
Yeah. And if you soup them up now you will burn CP.
If not give them more CP what other help you would be giving to mono knights? Cheaper knights?
You would need to be fanatical knight hater that just wants to kill knights completely to be against helping mono knights.
With this mono knights gets buff they deserve. They are underpowered as is.
Souping in future leads to same or worse. If they soup they will have less CP than without souping. I doubt souped up in 9th ed knights will have 14+ CP that much like they had in 8th ed.
This helps mono knights. Which is the way knights that are used that needs helps. Soup knights need less help but guess what? This doesnt' help soup knights because souping they pay CP rather than gain it.
What are the core problems with soup?
I would argue that a key one is cheap CP banks souped into elite armies. This is a fairly widespread perspective. I suppose it can derive from two different angles, though, either you think it's bad because it allows elite armies to get lots of CP, or you think it's bad because elite armies are obliged to do it to get lots of CP.
If our inferences are correct about how this will work in practice, this doesn't help the problem if you believe it derived from the former issue, it just builds that CP generation into the core rules. If you think the problem comes from the second, then sure, it's fine.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.
However, if it has some kind of 'multi-activation' system, then let's just say it'd be helpful against some of those armies that can just drench the field with gunfire and delete multiple units before they're even used.
Also, I kinda like the way Apocalypse does the 'everything dies at the end of the turn after both players have activated their units.
Because if you think that an overwhelming Alpha Strike in 40k isn't an absolute factor in determining how the game plays out- well, you're mistaken. If you think that the problem can be circumvented by some kind of 'deploy better' solution- then you're the exact person that makes me wonder if you actually play the game, or at least play it on more than one table with the same set of terrain.
Actually, if anything, it forces you to think ahead a lot more and get more creative with deployment for said synergies instead of the current "yeah you can just get everything to the proper place and kill half the opponent's army".
Sunny Side Up wrote: I find alternating activation a pretty bad mechanic that makes for far poorer gameplay.
I get it, opinions differ. But if you like alternating activation, it's not like there's a scarcity of that on the market.
I just don’t know how it creates worse gameplay. I know opinions differ, so I’m curious about your opinion on it, I really want to enjoy 40k more and not just wish it had a different turn system.
He's overall a GW white Knight so it isn't any wonder he says that 40k is the best game system and says IGOUGO is amazing.
I would argue that a key one is cheap CP banks souped into elite armies. This is a fairly widespread perspective. I suppose it can derive from two different angles, though, either you think it's bad because it allows elite armies to get lots of CP, or you think it's bad because elite armies are obliged to do it to get lots of CP.
If our inferences are correct about how this will work in practice, this doesn't help the problem if you believe it derived from the former issue, it just builds that CP generation into the core rules. If you think the problem comes from the second, then sure, it's fine.
Problem is adding best of multiple factions at no drawback.
Now there's drawback to be had.
If somebody doesn't like that mono knights get much needed boost tough. Knight hating is boring.
Rules that encourage knights to play mono rather than souping up is good for the game evening up win rates. This doesn't help soup knights either. If anything has potential to hurt it. So boost where needed, doesn't help where doesn't need help or even gives bit of a nerfbat that's needed.
macluvin wrote: Imagine if there is already another game designed to be an alternate version of this game... without the bloat or constant supplements... and the rules are free... and not constantly in need of faqs or errata...https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/grimdark-future/
I've got a few Miniatures-Agnostic war/skirmish games laying around. They aren't really mind-blowing as they are, and this is just one more. It doesn't look too bad, though. I'll save it for a rainy day.
I've been using the N17 rules to create custom scenarios for a few players using a single 'hero' model. You'd be shocked at how versatile that system is.
I would argue that a key one is cheap CP banks souped into elite armies. This is a fairly widespread perspective. I suppose it can derive from two different angles, though, either you think it's bad because it allows elite armies to get lots of CP, or you think it's bad because elite armies are obliged to do it to get lots of CP.
If our inferences are correct about how this will work in practice, this doesn't help the problem if you believe it derived from the former issue, it just builds that CP generation into the core rules. If you think the problem comes from the second, then sure, it's fine.
Problem is adding best of multiple factions at no drawback.
Now there's drawback to be had.
If somebody doesn't like that mono knights get much needed boost tough. Knight hating is boring.
Rules that encourage knights to play mono rather than souping up is good for the game evening up win rates. This doesn't help soup knights either. If anything has potential to hurt it. So boost where needed, doesn't help where doesn't need help or even gives bit of a nerfbat that's needed.
I get that you obviously run knights (so do I) but I'm not sure why you think this is only about them?
That said, largely killing soup is a big boost to knights in and of itself. They're only poor relative to soup. If soup wasn't such a big part of the game, they'd be in a much better place without any other buffs.
Keep in mind that Knights use their own version of the super heavy detachment. This means they may have different rules/cost from others factions to control their CP allotment.
I feel like Dakka's news and rumors game would be stepped up if we had two separate threads, one that's locked from discussion and only gets updated for news updates, and a second thread for the actual discussion of the news.
I do feel that 40k new rulesets start with the best intentions and end up bloated and split in god knows now many books, dex, errata, special rules on WD etc.
That is my main issue, I just dont have the patience to track down rulesets and even if tournament players are going to kill me for saying this... its a beer and pretzels game and should be like that fast and fun to pick up. 3 hours games are not a thing I can do either.
On the codex comments Im I right to say it's no different from previous editions? Use your old Dex until your Dex is updated with the new stuff? How many Dexes in total these days? Like wow just combine them in a few big fat books please. 40k Rulebook, Spacemarines, Chaos, Xenos1, Xenos2...
The new app sounds promising and should be unlocked free, even if I despise mobile phones with a passion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL imagine playing those games and actually saying with a straight face 40k is better. Pray tell what it actually does better. This will be good.
Lol. Imagine playing a game and pursuing its evolution on the internet, when you're actually convinced it isn't the best and you could simply go get a (for you) better game off the shelve at any second. Now that sounds like some really twisted form of masochism.
That's not a whole lot of argument in there.
Neither is there in your statement. What actually do those other games do objectively better in your opinion?
BlaxicanX wrote: I feel like Dakka's news and rumors game would be stepped up if we had two separate threads, one that's locked from discussion and only gets updated for news updates, and a second thread for the actual discussion of the news.
BlaxicanX wrote: I feel like Dakka's news and rumors game would be stepped up if we had two separate threads, one that's locked from discussion and only gets updated for news updates, and a second thread for the actual discussion of the news.
Agree.
Or, as was highly discussed in a nuts and bolts thread, get rid of the people who cannot stay on topic and just want to have an argument (most are on this page). Shame that thread was locked, it would be fairly useful again right about now.
Wakshaani wrote: From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:
There will be a set number of Command Points for the point level of a game. For now, let's just say 1 CP per 100 pts of the game... so, 10 CP at 1000 points, 15 at 1500, 20 at 2000, and so on. This set level keeps things fair and allows for easy of figuring out certain costs.
NOTE: We don't know the formula yet, but it will be something along those lines.
Detachments don't seem to have changed in design (IE, a Patrol still has 1-2 HQ, 1-3 Troops, and 0-2 of Elite, Fast, and Heavy support) but instead of GENERATING CP, they instead COST CP, with possibly one being free.
So what you'll have is some kind of a shopping list, like:
Patrol - 1 CP Battalion - 3 CP Brigade - 5 CP Vanguard - 4 CP Spearhead - 4 CP Outrider - 4 CP Supreme Command - 5 CP Super Heavy - 5 CP Air Wing - 3 CP Super Heavy Auxillary - 2 CP Fortification Network - 1 CP Auxillary Support - 1 CP
"One for free" will be worked in somehow, possibly based on points. 0-999: Free Patrol. 1000-1999: Free Batallion 2000+ Free Brigade Any you want beyond that will have a cost.
So, in a 2000 point game, if you just wanted three Spearheads, you could, but that would set you back 12 of your 20 CP, giving your opponent more strategic options.
So, you'd still be encouraged to take troops, since the three Troop-heavy detachments would be cheaper than the specialized ones, but would carry a 'troop tax' of a sort as a balance.
Obvviously, I don't have the exact numbers but that really rough layout up above will let you see how it should work, based on what we know, and let you play around a bit unill we get the actual rules, to see how your own forces can be laid out.
Maybe you know your force sneeds a TON of CP, like Orks, so you just plan on a pair of REALLY FAT Batalions, leaving you 17 CP.
Maybe you want the raw POWAH of a bunch of heavy choices, but all those Spearheads leave you short on CP for upgrades, rerolls, and so on, so you have to rely on the big guns getting it done.
It's just spending some pre-game, just like you do to get more Relics or upgrade a Psycher, only it gives you more slots to stick units into.
Obviously, this is just based on what we know at this stage and it could change (For instance, they cold ditch detachments and just do a straight CP to buy 1 slot (2 if troops)) and, most important, the exact numbers are unknown to us, but, it'll work as a guidepost.
Never would I have tought that something most people hated, the stacking of negative modifiers would be defended by people when they talk about removing them.
I can agree with some interactions that should remain, like, if you are moving with a heavy weapon and fire a enemy with a -1 you would be shooting at -2. But stacking negative modifiers was just a bad mechanic that was palatable because it was the only way to make things work in a competitive setting with such high lethality, but nobody that faced a eldar flyer spam list can say with a straight face it was a good mechanic, or Lord Discordants with -4 to hit.
And answering a question other poster said: A Miasma of Pestilence in a Alpha Legion army can be casted in anything that has not the -1 to hit , like demon engines, vehicles, etc...
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Alternating Activation can sometimes almost make the game seem... disconnected. Unless you can multi-activate certain units, it can completely remove any plans for synergy between two or more units.
However, if it has some kind of 'multi-activation' system, then let's just say it'd be helpful against some of those armies that can just drench the field with gunfire and delete multiple units before they're even used.
Also, I kinda like the way Apocalypse does the 'everything dies at the end of the turn after both players have activated their units.
Because if you think that an overwhelming Alpha Strike in 40k isn't an absolute factor in determining how the game plays out- well, you're mistaken. If you think that the problem can be circumvented by some kind of 'deploy better' solution- then you're the exact person that makes me wonder if you actually play the game, or at least play it on more than one table with the same set of terrain.
depends on the game, in other games Alternating activation is intreasting as you can manuver to react to your opponents moves he can react to yours etc.
Galas wrote: Never would I have tought that something most people hated, the stacking of negative modifiers would be defended by people when they talk about removing them.
I can agree with some interactions that should remain, like, if you are moving with a heavy weapon and fire a enemy with a -1 you would be shooting at -2. But stacking negative modifiers was just a bad mechanic that was palatable because it was the only way to make things work in a competitive setting with such high lethality, but nobody that faced a eldar flyer spam list can say with a straight face it was a good mechanic, or Lord Discordants with -4 to hit.
I'd agree. It's kinda a sideways buff to heavy/assault weapons against certain armies if it's a universal mechanic. I'd have been on board for someone's suggestion above of -2 limit but 6s always hit.
And answering a question other poster said: A Miasma of Pestilence in a Alpha Legion army can be casted in anything that has not the -1 to hit , like demon engines, vehicles, etc...
Aren't the two versions of miasma keyword locked to DG/Daemons?
I would argue that a key one is cheap CP banks souped into elite armies. This is a fairly widespread perspective. I suppose it can derive from two different angles, though, either you think it's bad because it allows elite armies to get lots of CP, or you think it's bad because elite armies are obliged to do it to get lots of CP.
If our inferences are correct about how this will work in practice, this doesn't help the problem if you believe it derived from the former issue, it just builds that CP generation into the core rules. If you think the problem comes from the second, then sure, it's fine.
Problem is adding best of multiple factions at no drawback.
Now there's drawback to be had.
If somebody doesn't like that mono knights get much needed boost tough. Knight hating is boring.
Rules that encourage knights to play mono rather than souping up is good for the game evening up win rates. This doesn't help soup knights either. If anything has potential to hurt it. So boost where needed, doesn't help where doesn't need help or even gives bit of a nerfbat that's needed.
I get that you obviously run knights (so do I) but I'm not sure why you think this is only about them?
That said, largely killing soup is a big boost to knights in and of itself. They're only poor relative to soup. If soup wasn't such a big part of the game, they'd be in a much better place without any other buffs.
Lets see mono custodes, mono Imperial Knights, mono Choas Knights, Necrons maybe, Tau (but also nerfed by other issues in their codex), Mono GSC, Mono Nids, Mono Guard Anyone playing an army that can soup but doesn't.
Pass on if this is good or bad for Orks
Marines are top of the meta right now and aren't going anywhere, you really thing knights not having to dab on some gaurd 32 is going to dethrone Marines or SoB who are apparently the next post lockdown meta codex?
Wakshaani wrote: From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:
Fortification Network - 1 CP
About what I imagined as well. Maybe not quite as expensive det's. However fortification network could be free most likely. a) fortification souping has never been issue b) they never gave you CP c) not many use CP to begin with. They aren't generally that good. Really atm only sisters have terrain that is even good and even then not auto include. Making fortifications cost CP is not exactly going to encourage using them. Unless fortifications gets major buff no need to punish them even more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: I get that you obviously run knights (so do I) but I'm not sure why you think this is only about them?
That said, largely killing soup is a big boost to knights in and of itself. They're only poor relative to soup. If soup wasn't such a big part of the game, they'd be in a much better place without any other buffs.
Eh not really. I ran knight army last time like 2 years ago. 1 knight for 1 tournament 2 months ago.
What I want is balance. Mono knights are hardly overpowered(they are very much underpowered) so when complaining about change is "but wouldn't knights benefit from it?" it just shows it's case of either person having no up to date idea of state of game balance or is "knights should be removed from case complely" kind of type.
Galas wrote: Never would I have tought that something most people hated, the stacking of negative modifiers would be defended by people when they talk about removing them.
I can agree with some interactions that should remain, like, if you are moving with a heavy weapon and fire a enemy with a -1 you would be shooting at -2. But stacking negative modifiers was just a bad mechanic that was palatable because it was the only way to make things work in a competitive setting with such high lethality, but nobody that faced a eldar flyer spam list can say with a straight face it was a good mechanic, or Lord Discordants with -4 to hit.
And answering a question other poster said: A Miasma of Pestilence in a Alpha Legion army can be casted in anything that has not the -1 to hit , like demon engines, vehicles, etc...
Massively in favour of the rule - and frankly would even go further than you, so say heavy weapons moving and shooting fliers still cap out at -1. Just think it would make things easier to balance. (Really was hoping the heavy rule would be removed for vehicles and monsters, but that doesn't seem like the case.)
I'm more concerned about other things. The leaving combat rule is going to be essential - otherwise assault could be very stuffed. Not keen on this idea tanks and monsters can just blaze away into units tying them up. Coupled with the blast rules and potential tweaks to morale - it all seems to be very anti horde infantry, who were already not very good.
Perhaps my biggest concern though is this idea that terrain can save us.
I know a lot of people really, really love terrain and dislike the dumbed down 8th edition rules for it.
But the realities of playing at tournaments, FLGS, even the average player's kitchen, make me very suspect. I can understand fully that the game isn't meant to be played on planet bowling ball - but covering a board with loads of terrain is a considerable expense. GW can happily declare you should just spend a fortune buying their terrain (or get some polystyrene bricks) - but... meh.
Admittedly just making most terrain act like ITC first floor ruins (i.e. block line of site despite the fact you can clearly see through loads of holes, infantry can however still jog through) could be an interesting development. Also a potential source of disagreements.
nfe wrote: I get that you obviously run knights (so do I) but I'm not sure why you think this is only about them?
That said, largely killing soup is a big boost to knights in and of itself. They're only poor relative to soup. If soup wasn't such a big part of the game, they'd be in a much better place without any other buffs.
Eh not really. I ran knight army last time like 2 years ago. 1 knight for 1 tournament 2 months ago.
What I want is balance. Mono knights are hardly overpowered(they are very much underpowered) so when complaining about change is "but wouldn't knights benefit from it?" it just shows it's case of either person having no up to date idea of state of game balance or is "knights should be removed from case complely" kind of type.
I'm finding this a bit difficult to parse, but you seem to be reacting to my not wanting Knights specifically to get a big boost? I don't think I brought up knights, it was you who read my scepticism about a default starting CP benefiting elite armies as being a complaint that it would help knights?
Anyway, I've said why I think it's problematic on the info we have at the moment. No point going back and forward on it and whether knights need a hand or not isn't really at the heart of the efficacy of a particular game-wide rule.
Tyel wrote: Perhaps my biggest concern though is this idea that terrain can save us.
I know a lot of people really, really love terrain and dislike the dumbed down 8th edition rules for it.
But the realities of playing at tournaments, FLGS, even the average player's kitchen, make me very suspect. I can understand fully that the game isn't meant to be played on planet bowling ball - but covering a board with loads of terrain is a considerable expense. GW can happily declare you should just spend a fortune buying their terrain (or get some polystyrene bricks) - but... meh.
Admittedly just making most terrain act like ITC first floor ruins (i.e. block line of site despite the fact you can clearly see through loads of holes, infantry can however still jog through) could be an interesting development. Also a potential source of disagreements.
For me issue isn't that. For me it's terrain here already blocks LOS pretty darn well. 1st floor blocking and forests block is common enough. So does anything really change...
Bases sort out disagreements. Does line go between terrain completely between target and shooter? Yes. LOS blocked even if model is visible.
Wakshaani wrote: From what we've seen so far, the new CP and detachment system will work, ROUGHLY, like so:
There will be a set number of Command Points for the point level of a game. For now, let's just say 1 CP per 100 pts of the game... so, 10 CP at 1000 points, 15 at 1500, 20 at 2000, and so on. This set level keeps things fair and allows for easy of figuring out certain costs.
NOTE: We don't know the formula yet, but it will be something along those lines.
Detachments don't seem to have changed in design (IE, a Patrol still has 1-2 HQ, 1-3 Troops, and 0-2 of Elite, Fast, and Heavy support) but instead of GENERATING CP, they instead COST CP, with possibly one being free.
So what you'll have is some kind of a shopping list, like:
Patrol - 1 CP Battalion - 3 CP Brigade - 5 CP Vanguard - 4 CP Spearhead - 4 CP Outrider - 4 CP Supreme Command - 5 CP Super Heavy - 5 CP Air Wing - 3 CP Super Heavy Auxillary - 2 CP Fortification Network - 1 CP Auxillary Support - 1 CP
"One for free" will be worked in somehow, possibly based on points. 0-999: Free Patrol. 1000-1999: Free Batallion 2000+ Free Brigade Any you want beyond that will have a cost.
So, in a 2000 point game, if you just wanted three Spearheads, you could, but that would set you back 12 of your 20 CP, giving your opponent more strategic options.
So, you'd still be encouraged to take troops, since the three Troop-heavy detachments would be cheaper than the specialized ones, but would carry a 'troop tax' of a sort as a balance.
Obvviously, I don't have the exact numbers but that really rough layout up above will let you see how it should work, based on what we know, and let you play around a bit unill we get the actual rules, to see how your own forces can be laid out.
Maybe you know your force sneeds a TON of CP, like Orks, so you just plan on a pair of REALLY FAT Batalions, leaving you 17 CP.
Maybe you want the raw POWAH of a bunch of heavy choices, but all those Spearheads leave you short on CP for upgrades, rerolls, and so on, so you have to rely on the big guns getting it done.
It's just spending some pre-game, just like you do to get more Relics or upgrade a Psycher, only it gives you more slots to stick units into.
Obviously, this is just based on what we know at this stage and it could change (For instance, they cold ditch detachments and just do a straight CP to buy 1 slot (2 if troops)) and, most important, the exact numbers are unknown to us, but, it'll work as a guidepost.
So there ya go.
Hopefully it doesn't go too far the other way where elite armies can fit a 2000 PT list in a single detachment whereas hordes now end up with less CP because their stuff is so cheap.
Which army can't actually fit enough units in a brigade to pass 2k points? MSU spam is going to be somewhat less of a thing now, but GW has never supported MSU spam, they just accidentally wrote rules that did.
. No more making my fellblade -2 to hit though. Oh well, hate marking my Night Lords anyway.
