If anything their book is likely built with 9th edition in mind
Lol no it wasn't. Too much rules that gets totally neutered or even completely removed for it to be 9th ed compliant. Plus whole sacred rites makes zero sense in edition where core rules encourage mono building. That is mark of 8th ed codex. 9th ed codexes shouldn't have that.
Examples? And what about sacred rites no longer makes sense?
Sacred rose had 2/3 of bonuses lose most of sting. Mortifiers flat out lost one special rule(it doesn't do anymore and indeed errata removed lt).
Sacred rite rewards staying mono. In 8th made sense because without it there wasn't any reason not to soup. Souping is basically free powerup. In 9th you pay for souping up. There's reason to not soup. So sacred rites reward you for taking rewards. It's like giving point decrease to gun while doublig damape output same time
It would make the game work better if there was not the weird hull mechanic, it does cause problems. I don't think I would love updating my Armoured Company though...
I would honestly love to see GW start reboxing vehicles with bases. They should also release a recommended base size chart like they did with WHFB models for AoS. It would make the game a lot cleaner.
If anything their book is likely built with 9th edition in mind
Lol no it wasn't. Too much rules that gets totally neutered or even completely removed for it to be 9th ed compliant. Plus whole sacred rites makes zero sense in edition where core rules encourage mono building. That is mark of 8th ed codex. 9th ed codexes shouldn't have that.
Examples? And what about sacred rites no longer makes sense?
Sacred rose had 2/3 of bonuses lose most of sting. Mortifiers flat out lost one special rule(it doesn't do anymore and indeed errata removed lt).
Sacred rite rewards staying mono. In 8th made sense because without it there wasn't any reason not to soup. Souping is basically free powerup. In 9th you pay for souping up. There's reason to not soup. So sacred rites reward you for taking rewards. It's like giving point decrease to gun while doublig damape output same time
I still think the design paradigm going forward is still to encourage mono-faction play. With rules like Rites and Combat Doctrines for the coming factions. Just because 9th doesn't actively reward multiple detachments and soup doesn't mean they won't exist and that some armies may find their most optimal builds that way. It's still a big advantage over armies that don't even have that option.
We'll know going forward, but my prediction is that Necrons will also have a set of mono-faction rules and it's likely the "Protocols" that were alluded to on stream by Stu Black.
Trickstick wrote: So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...
Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.
Trickstick wrote: So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...
Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.
Wellp , that sucks for a lot of Strategies and even more for warlord trait access , which hurts Double for csm...
I think its more a 'if you want to' situation. The 9th edition rules allow for it, and it simplifies things a lot- lots of 'modeling for advantage' and stray antenna/fins/protrusions issues just vanish.
Personally I think a lot of models look better on bases.
That said, pay attention various datasheets- some models, like the primaris tanks, explicitly say always measure to and from the hull (and 9th defines 'hull' as any and every part of the model)
Trickstick wrote: So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...
Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.
Can't say I'll miss most of then seeing as they were all over the ppace interms of powerups to factions that certainly didn't need them.
Though it does seem more and more like 9th will be GT packet or Crusade at clubs and store's.
Guess GW decided they were bad idea and don't want to expand on other factions and now just try to forget it. Not unusual for GW to turn around before completing design style for everybody.
Jesus I love my Vigilus Detachments. They're the only thing making melee Kastelan Robots viable and one of the few things making them fun and they're getting rid of this. Seeing as every fart that comes from Competitive spreads to Matched Play no doubt everyone at the LGS is going to want this applied.
This also kills the Plasma Destroyer 666® list and so reduces the amount of variety of lists one can produce. This goes for every codex that has Vigilus detachments, some are bonkers but can be just balanced a bit better, while most are ways to allow fun themed lists that we wouldn't see otherwise.
Trickstick wrote: So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...
Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.
Can't say I'll miss most of then seeing as they were all over the ppace interms of powerups to factions that certainly didn't need them.
I tend to agree. Not because such and such faction is losing things, as just the basic principle. I really dislike campaign books that linger on like bad relatives, with no idea when it will be over or how increasingly few people have the actual rules (rather than what they think they say, or what the internet says they say).
The further the rules (and codex releases) get from their origin point, the more problems they create, and its never clear when it will finally stop.
So an arbitrary, 'Nope, done.' is fine by me.
If they could hurry up and do ti to the PA books, I'd be just as pleased.
Trickstick wrote: So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...
Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.
Can't say I'll miss most of then seeing as they were all over the ppace interms of powerups to factions that certainly didn't need them.
I tend to agree. Not because such and such faction is losing things, as just the basic principle. I really dislike campaign books that linger on like bad relatives, with no idea when it will be over or how increasingly few people have the actual rules (rather than what they think they say, or what the internet says they say).
The further the rules (and codex releases) get from their origin point, the more problems they create, and its never clear when it will finally stop.
So an arbitrary, 'Nope, done.' is fine by me.
If they could hurry up and do ti to the PA books, I'd be just as pleased.
The PA books will linger untill atleast the last codex of 9th drops so they are probably going to be around for a 18 months to two years. Likely to be CA 2022 or CA2023.
I think it's pretty obvious that they are trying to create a new baseline. I expect PA stuff to be phased out as each army's codex comes out, which may hint at the order that happens. I don't think that those getting the last PA are going to get an early Codex.
If anything their book is likely built with 9th edition in mind
Lol no it wasn't. Too much rules that gets totally neutered or even completely removed for it to be 9th ed compliant. Plus whole sacred rites makes zero sense in edition where core rules encourage mono building. That is mark of 8th ed codex. 9th ed codexes shouldn't have that.
Examples? And what about sacred rites no longer makes sense?
Sacred rose had 2/3 of bonuses lose most of sting. Mortifiers flat out lost one special rule(it doesn't do anymore and indeed errata removed lt).
Sacred rite rewards staying mono. In 8th made sense because without it there wasn't any reason not to soup. Souping is basically free powerup. In 9th you pay for souping up. There's reason to not soup. So sacred rites reward you for taking rewards. It's like giving point decrease to gun while doublig damape output same time
Sacred rose rule does exactly what it always did; prevent more than one model from fleeing, not that anyone took it for that, and Mortifiers lost half of one rule. In exchange Miracle Dice gained the power to auto-pass morale tests without spending CP or burning a 1/battle stratagem. As for the Rites… you do know there is no actual penalty for souping still? Just a lack of an outright benefit for taking a MSB with some spare points – which was the problem – taking two patrols leaves you with the same CP no matter if you fill them both with Sisters or one of Sisters and one of Guard so if there a tactical advantage to having numerous cheap heavy weapons in that second detachment, mono-faction better have something to offset it.
Tournament missions are the same basic structure and most of the same secondaries as the matched play ones (though some of them have different scoring).
Well, I guess we're going to find out pretty soon whether first-turn advantage is really as bad as I think it is, and as bad as a lot of other people playing games have been saying.
Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...
gungo wrote: Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.
Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...
Orks got hit the least and still have tons of tools. The SSAG was a crutch of layered CP shenanigans. It's probably better than its gone to let people use something else for a change.
gungo wrote: Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.
Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...
Orks got hit the least and still have tons of tools. The SSAG was a crutch of layered CP shenanigans. It's probably better than its gone to let people use something else for a change.
Hit the least? Grots cost the same as a guardsmen! Ork boys went up...the most used relic was deleted... one of the most used strats was deleted
All of the above was used in every tournament list. Literally core units gone...
The relic never prevented you from using anything else...
gungo wrote: Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.
Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...
Orks got hit the least and still have tons of tools. The SSAG was a crutch of layered CP shenanigans. It's probably better than its gone to let people use something else for a change.
So the only reason people would use something else if they weren't using it before was if the previous option was superior. There's no magic barrier of the Shock attack gun that stopped you from bringing other things, it was just the best option available.
If your best option available goes away, that means everything that remains is weaker.
Yeah it definitely doesn't matter that dying as a grot shield got 67% more expensive. I mean it's not like you have a fixed amount of points to build an army wi....oh wait.
While I understand the displeasure with Grots and Infantry Squads both being 5 ppm, the bellyaching is getting to be a bit much.
Just how many points did people spend on Grots, mostly for CP purposes along with Grot Shields? If you brought 6 units of 10 grots for two battalions, that was 180 points. Now you don't need to fill out multiple battalions for CP, so how many Grots do you need for Grots Shields? You can still get 36 Grots for the same points, so that give you 3 units with a few spares, or 3x10 for 150 points, a savings.
Oi vey. Always with the grots. They were just killin' it prior. From dying as a grot shield to...dying as a grot shield. Huge nerf that.
Okay, what about coherency? That hurts Orks who like Boys blobs.
Melee engagement range? Hurts Orks.
Blast? Hurts Orks.
The loss of SSAG and other Vigilus goodies? Hurts Orks.
So the only reason people would use something else if they weren't using it before was if the previous option was superior. There's no magic barrier of the Shock attack gun that stopped you from bringing other things, it was just the best option available.
If your best option available goes away, that means everything that remains is weaker.
If you assume the SAG is a necessary tool, sure. The game doesn't play the same. ITC at least let him stand on top of something and see through the second floor. Now obscuring blocks sight more than a very static model can handle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: While I understand the displeasure with Grots and Infantry Squads both being 5 ppm, the bellyaching is getting to be a bit much.
Just how many points did people spend on Grots, mostly for CP purposes along with Grot Shields? If you brought 6 units of 10 grots for two battalions, that was 180 points. Now you don't need to fill out multiple battalions for CP, so how many Grots do you need for Grots Shields? You can still get 36 Grots for the same points, so that give you 3 units with a few spares, or 3x10 for 150 points, a savings.
No. We're not allowed to disagree. In the 41st millennium there is only bitching.
So the only reason people would use something else if they weren't using it before was if the previous option was superior. There's no magic barrier of the Shock attack gun that stopped you from bringing other things, it was just the best option available.
If your best option available goes away, that means everything that remains is weaker.
If you assume the SAG is a necessary tool, sure. The game doesn't play the same. ITC at least let him stand on top of something and see through the second floor. Now obscuring blocks sight more than a very static model can handle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: While I understand the displeasure with Grots and Infantry Squads both being 5 ppm, the bellyaching is getting to be a bit much.
Just how many points did people spend on Grots, mostly for CP purposes along with Grot Shields? If you brought 6 units of 10 grots for two battalions, that was 180 points. Now you don't need to fill out multiple battalions for CP, so how many Grots do you need for Grots Shields? You can still get 36 Grots for the same points, so that give you 3 units with a few spares, or 3x10 for 150 points, a savings.
No. We're not allowed to think. In the 41st millennium there is only bitching.
So, what you're saying is that one of the Ork's strongest options got nerfed, even if it was still allowed in tournaments?
JNAProductions wrote: So, what you're saying is that one of the Ork's strongest options got nerfed, even if it was still allowed in tournaments?
How does that make ANYTHING better?
The game doesn't have the same dynamic. SSAG worked great when kill / kill more was important.
If you want to ignore everything else that works for them and just make the gripes list then I don't know what else to tell you.
Exactly. I agree that it is unreasonable for IS to be only 5 points when compared to the other 5 point units, but that doesn't make 5 points the wrong value. Stop trying to play your 8th Edition lists and work on new ones.
yukishiro1 wrote: If SSAG is less good in 9th than in 8th, why did it take such a points nerf?
Trying to rationalize these points is a fool's errand. It can't be done. They're just bad. Even the playtesters agree.
Doesn't mean it's the end of the world, but it does mean they're bad.
The TTT guys agree in the sense that "we don't have everything yet". I can't conceive of what that even for every army in the near future, because I can't see books coming fast enough so we'll probably have a stupid arms race again.
I can envision them setting some points, looking at the SSAG, and kicking it up. And then someone writes the tournament rules. The SSAG is still somewhat valuable outside tournament, but the resulting points otherwise makes him no go. It's a weird divide and I don't know how they'll address it.
Some items of note:
I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that Gitz can ride a wagon and shoot without penalty now given the trukk can move and shoot heavy and imparts no restriction:
‘When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers.’
- Deffrolla is WS2 instead of +3 to hit
- Shokkjump went to BS3 instead of +2
- Keepin' Order works on Attrition
The guys at Tabletop Tactics know what the "everything we don't have yet" is (they've been playtesting the new codexes) and they still think the new points are ridiculous.
And we're not going to "have another arms race". We're just continuing the same arms race we've always had.
It doesn't matter what's coming out in the future, the points are assessed based on how the units perform now. If they change that performance in a codex, they should raise unit costs then. I don't think even GW is dumb enough to raise points now in anticipation of buffs later, but it's certainly a curious line of defense, and shows how hard it is to defend the points they released if people are desperately trying to say "maybe they'll make sense after codexes come out!"
Gadzilla666 wrote: The guys at Tabletop Tactics know what the "everything we don't have yet" is (they've been playtesting the new codexes) and they still think the new points are ridiculous.
And we're not going to "have another arms race". We're just continuing the same arms race we've always had.
Arms Race Season 9, The Revengeance! Coming soon to tables near you!
yukishiro1 wrote: It doesn't matter what's coming out in the future, the points are assessed based on how the units perform now. If they change that performance in a codex, they should raise unit costs then. I don't think even GW is dumb enough to raise points now in anticipation of buffs later, but it's certainly a curious line of defense, and shows how hard it is to defend the points they released if people are desperately trying to say "maybe they'll make sense after codexes come out!"
TTT has the overview of "where it is going", which implies a plan.
CSM is rumored to be an early book so we may find out why Cultists are 6 points.
Stuff like the SAG could just be the "slap this with a nerf so we don't have to really deal with it right now".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: The guys at Tabletop Tactics know what the "everything we don't have yet" is (they've been playtesting the new codexes) and they still think the new points are ridiculous.
And we're not going to "have another arms race". We're just continuing the same arms race we've always had.
They think some of the new points are ridiculous.
The arms race has been a thing forever. I'm just a bit thankful that it happens in a far faster timeline than it has ever before. And given the reform to a lot of the important rules I'm happy to wait and let it pan out.
Daedalus81 wrote: I can envision them setting some points, looking at the SSAG, and kicking it up. And then someone writes the tournament rules. The SSAG is still somewhat valuable outside tournament, but the resulting points otherwise makes him no go. It's a weird divide and I don't know how they'll address it.
Please remind me what other weapons are priced according to the potential when being replaced with a relic and shot multiple times with a stratagem? Oh right, none. The regular SAG was killed by the points raise, with the SSAG just barely remaining viable between obscuring terrain, look out sir and vastly more expensive grot shields. And no the SSAG is banned, leaving all possible uses for SAG meks worthless. You can't white knight that.
I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that Gitz can ride a wagon and shoot without penalty now given the trukk can move and shoot heavy and imparts no restriction:
‘When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers.’
Are you acting as if you know gak about orks again? Have a look at the "embark" section of the new rules, passengers count as moved if the transport moved, open topped doesn't matter at all.
- Deffrolla is WS2 instead of +3 to hit - Shokkjump went to BS3 instead of +2
Well, good thing they didn't miss the other 15 weapons with grot gunners and other static bonuses to their hit rolls so that freebootas aren't screwed out of their army trait.
- Keepin' Order works on Attrition
... and no one would have cared at all if it didn't. The only reason to bother rolling for this rule was when your unit was going to be wiped out by moral and a single six meant that you could hold an objective or green tide the unit. You know it's looking grim for orks if you have to list this as a benefit.
yukishiro1 wrote: If SSAG is less good in 9th than in 8th, why did it take such a points nerf?
Because that's one of GW's fav methods of "balancing" things.
Unit X is performing to well! They can either reduce its effectiveness, or they can increase it points. GW often does both.
They just wiped out almost all competitive units for orks, just like they do every time a codex or new edition drops. Except mek guns, of course, because you can't nerf a unit where points are the same as $€£. Gotta give those dirty orks an incentive to buy new units despite needing 3-4 boxes per unit you field instead of using what they already have.
I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that Gitz can ride a wagon and shoot without penalty now given the trukk can move and shoot heavy and imparts no restriction:
They still count as having Moved, and in Addition cannot use any "abilities",which include dakkadakka, ammo runt rerolls and their shoot twice on a 6 ging... Tankbustas in trukks lose reroll against vehicles... definitely nerfed...
Trickstick wrote: I'm still laughing over 5 point Guardsmen. The entire of 8th there were people wishing for them to go to 5 points. Then when it happens...
Which one of you made the monkey's paw wish?
Well it was 5 pts in 8th. When everything goes us 5 pts guardsmen isn't same in 9 as it would have been in 8th
- Deployment: both players declare their Reserves, then alternate deployment one unit at a time, then roll off to know who gets 1st turn
- Reserves: same as 8th, no Reserves on 1st round, and not after 3rd round
- Rule of Two at 1000 pts and Rule of Three at 2000 pts
gungo wrote: Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.
Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...
Gen cult relied more, I play both armies, so I know
I agree orks got hit extremely hard, but I think the star of the nerfbat this start of 9th is gen cult. I was expecting it. GW had shown they hate that army with last CA
- Deployment: both players declare their Reserves, then alternate deployment one unit at a time, then roll off to know who gets 1st turn
- Reserves: same as 8th, no Reserves on 1st round, and not after 3rd round
- Rule of Two at 1000 pts and Rule of Three at 2000 pts
For what it's worth, those are all the same as with the Eternal War missions in the main rulebook, except for the "Rule of Two at 1000pts" part. Eternal War is Rule of 3 at every level.
tneva82 wrote: Not fan of deployment. Takes longer time and makes first turn roll more important
Alternating deployment may take longer, but it's way more tactical than just dumping your entire army at once, because it allows you to react to whatever your opponent is doing, and lessens the chance of you getting your favorite unit(s) alpha:ed of the table in turn one.
Add in the new terrain rules and first turn is less important (which is a good thing) than in 8th in my opinion.
- Deployment: both players declare their Reserves, then alternate deployment one unit at a time, then roll off to know who gets 1st turn
- Reserves: same as 8th, no Reserves on 1st round, and not after 3rd round
- Rule of Two at 1000 pts and Rule of Three at 2000 pts
Doesn’t sound terrible. No more steal the initiative. Deploy with the assumption that you’re going second.
- Deployment: both players declare their Reserves, then alternate deployment one unit at a time, then roll off to know who gets 1st turn
- Reserves: same as 8th, no Reserves on 1st round, and not after 3rd round
- Rule of Two at 1000 pts and Rule of Three at 2000 pts
For what it's worth, those are all the same as with the Eternal War missions in the main rulebook, except for the "Rule of Two at 1000pts" part. Eternal War is Rule of 3 at every level.
Uh, I was convinced having read that the Reserves rules were gone for 9th, and that they only added them back for Competitive.
Deploying whole army LESSENS risks of alpha strike. If you go first you go first and thus aren't alpha striked. If you go 2nd you KNOW you go second and furthermore knows where opponents threats are and thus can put your favourite unit(s) into safety.
Power of alpha strike got reduced when GW went to one army deploys first and goes first. That change reversed is unlikely thus to further that trend...rather reverses.
- Deployment: both players declare their Reserves, then alternate deployment one unit at a time, then roll off to know who gets 1st turn
- Reserves: same as 8th, no Reserves on 1st round, and not after 3rd round
- Rule of Two at 1000 pts and Rule of Three at 2000 pts
For what it's worth, those are all the same as with the Eternal War missions in the main rulebook, except for the "Rule of Two at 1000pts" part. Eternal War is Rule of 3 at every level.
Uh, I was convinced having read that the Reserves rules were gone for 9th, and that they only added them back for Competitive.
Nah the sections are the exact same pretty much word for word between the Eternal War and GT 2020 Missions for the "Declare Reserves and Transports" step.
New Missions, swapping a couple of Secondaries (and changing Titan Hunter), the Rule of Two and banning Specialist Detachments. There's also apparently "much, much more" according to the webstore... but who knows what that refers to (notice how the leak jumps from page 11 to page 38? EDIT: On second thought, those pages are probably just the Incursion missions). It's apparently 96 pages so we're missing just under half of the contents.
That and all the points changes you get in the accompanying Field Manual.
Aaranis wrote: But what's the point of this book then ? Charging money for a few missions ?
Good question. I think this book is only worth it if you want to organize tournaments. I know for my means the crusade book will be much more interesting.
Aaranis wrote: But what's the point of this book then ? Charging money for a few missions ?
It has all the 40K rules from the core book. The real question would be "what's the point of the core book then?", which is useless unless you care for the fluff, the artwork or the crusade system.
Aaranis wrote: But what's the point of this book then ? Charging money for a few missions ?
Good question. I think this book is only worth it if you want to organize tournaments. I know for my means the crusade book will be much more interesting.
What crusade book? They only announced that journal so far and that is only blank roosters for you to fill out
Aaranis wrote: But what's the point of this book then ? Charging money for a few missions ?
Good question. I think this book is only worth it if you want to organize tournaments. I know for my means the crusade book will be much more interesting.
What crusade book? They only announced that journal so far and that is only blank roosters for you to fill out
casvalremdeikun wrote: So am I understanding this correctly, that the Rule of 2/3 is not a general matched play rule, but a rule unique to tournament play?
Correct in a way. The Eternal War missions still use their own Rule of 3 (which doesn't scale at different points levels).
Future matched play mission packs might also have a different take.
casvalremdeikun wrote: So am I understanding this correctly, that the Rule of 2/3 is not a general matched play rule, but a rule unique to tournament play?
The only difference is that the matched play missions from the BRB allow 3 datasheets independent of how large your army is, while the tournament rules limit you to 2 datasheets when playing 1000 points
After the Indomitus ‘launch set’ I hope we can expect smaller starter sets comparable to Dark
Imperium, Know No Fear and First Strike. Presumably these would be Primaris- and Necron-themed, but the prominence of the Sisters in the animated trailer and ‘faction focus’ on the Warhammer40000.com site gives a glimmer of hope there might be some ETB sisters (maybe with eviscerators?). A man can dream.
The purpose of this CA is to provide a small compendium to bring with you during games, and to finally separate tournament rules from matched play rules, which was one of the most requested features during 8th, especially on this board.
Now you know that for tournaments there is either 1000 points or 2000 points, there aren't other point levels.
The secondaries were tweaked to take into account that the lists used will be highly optimized, so obtaining kill more is more achieavable and should be worth less. Killing 2 Titanic units is definitely doable, so shouldn't be rewarded with the full 15 points. Killing 3 is more of a challenge.
No. We're not allowed to disagree. In the 41st millennium there is only bitching.
And in the 3rd millenium there is only trolling.
as the other pointed out orks are getting srewed left and right.
we had four staples of competitive play SSAG gretchin orkboyz Flashgitz
all of em got nerfed into oblivion. be it by the general rules, point increases or in case of the SSAG all that was mentioned plus it got canned on top xD Not to mention, orks had at least 18 CP's per game to spend, more than most armies could manage... now thats gone too.
the only things that remain really good are buggies, mekgunz and the burnabomber
Spoletta wrote: The purpose of this CA is to provide a small compendium to bring with you during games, and to finally separate tournament rules from matched play rules, which was one of the most requested features during 8th, especially on this board.
Now you know that for tournaments there is either 1000 points or 2000 points, there aren't other point levels.
The secondaries were tweaked to take into account that the lists used will be highly optimized, so obtaining kill more is more achieavable and should be worth less. Killing 2 Titanic units is definitely doable, so shouldn't be rewarded with the full 15 points. Killing 3 is more of a challenge.
They weren't tweaked that much. Mechanized lists still vomit points thanks to bring them down, GK and Tsons lists still start the game giving their opponent 15VP if they're Tau, Necrons, Sisters, dark eldar, etc.
They're better but some are probably eirher going to be reworked by TOs or banned.
Spoletta wrote: The purpose of this CA is to provide a small compendium to bring with you during games, and to finally separate tournament rules from matched play rules, which was one of the most requested features during 8th, especially on this board.
Now you know that for tournaments there is either 1000 points or 2000 points, there aren't other point levels.
The secondaries were tweaked to take into account that the lists used will be highly optimized, so obtaining kill more is more achieavable and should be worth less. Killing 2 Titanic units is definitely doable, so shouldn't be rewarded with the full 15 points. Killing 3 is more of a challenge.
They weren't tweaked that much. Mechanized lists still vomit points thanks to bring them down, GK and Tsons lists still start the game giving their opponent 15VP if they're Tau, Necrons, Sisters, dark eldar, etc.
They're better but some are probably eirher going to be reworked by TOs or banned.
Actually I think the TO's will probably follow FLG's stance and leave them alone atleast for the first while.
I think the reason mech lists and a smite spam list vomit VP is because they can counter score 15VP's very easily on certain secondary missions too.
But every army is going to give secondary VPs, they're varied enough that there's an objective fit to use against your opponent every time. I don't see why Abhor the Witch is any easier to do than Assassinate, Thin their ranks or Bring it down. We still have to kill those Psykers, often being Characters and so harder to target in the first place. I mean I play AdMech, I expect my opponents to take Thin their ranks and Bring it down every game because I play lots of Skitarii and Vehicles. And I'll do the same if my opponent has the same kind of list. Of course I'll take Titan Hunter against Knights etc. Every army has to bring units to the table as far as I'm aware and these units can be destroyed during the game.
Each objective is limited to 15 pts too so yeah if you managed to destroy 5 of my 11+W vehicles you deserve points that's normal.
Are you acting as if you know gak about orks again? Have a look at the "embark" section of the new rules, passengers count as moved if the transport moved, open topped doesn't matter at all.
I play against Orks 80% of my games, but excuse me for missing a rule that is totally unrelated to Orks. And I even said I wasn't sure! I guess people don't read these days.
Well, good thing they didn't miss the other 15 weapons with grot gunners and other static bonuses to their hit rolls so that freebootas aren't screwed out of their army trait.
Seriously? Those gunners are all +1 and not subject to being cut out as a result of too many bonuses bar Freebooters, but its not like they also change traits on the regular or that it becomes entirely redundant. CSM says hi.
... and no one would have cared at all if it didn't. The only reason to bother rolling for this rule was when your unit was going to be wiped out by moral and a single six meant that you could hold an objective or green tide the unit.
You know it's looking grim for orks if you have to list this as a benefit.
It's a literal god damn benefit. Oh but sure that time I roll a 6 to keep a MANZ or KK on the table from both morale and attrition losses, yea, totally not worth it. But let's just turn everything into a complaint.
Aaranis wrote: But every army is going to give secondary VPs, they're varied enough that there's an objective fit to use against your opponent every time. I don't see why Abhor the Witch is any easier to do than Assassinate, Thin their ranks or Bring it down. We still have to kill those Psykers, often being Characters and so harder to target in the first place. I mean I play AdMech, I expect my opponents to take Thin their ranks and Bring it down every game because I play lots of Skitarii and Vehicles. And I'll do the same if my opponent has the same kind of list. Of course I'll take Titan Hunter against Knights etc. Every army has to bring units to the table as far as I'm aware and these units can be destroyed during the game.
Each objective is limited to 15 pts too so yeah if you managed to destroy 5 of my 11+W vehicles you deserve points that's normal.
Tsons/gk every unit is psyker. Killing any unit gives vp.
Everybody has units but not all are as easy. 9th army lists will be more about denying secondaries than scoring yourself
Aaranis wrote: But every army is going to give secondary VPs, they're varied enough that there's an objective fit to use against your opponent every time. I don't see why Abhor the Witch is any easier to do than Assassinate, Thin their ranks or Bring it down. We still have to kill those Psykers, often being Characters and so harder to target in the first place. I mean I play AdMech, I expect my opponents to take Thin their ranks and Bring it down every game because I play lots of Skitarii and Vehicles. And I'll do the same if my opponent has the same kind of list. Of course I'll take Titan Hunter against Knights etc. Every army has to bring units to the table as far as I'm aware and these units can be destroyed during the game.
Each objective is limited to 15 pts too so yeah if you managed to destroy 5 of my 11+W vehicles you deserve points that's normal.
Will be interesting to see if that makes people spam certain things less - if you only have 4 vehicles and 4 character etc then you cap any potential VP to the enemy at 12 and not 15 etc. A force that is more mixed maybe harder to choose secondaries against (or the ones that try to take advantage of the enemy force specifically).
gungo wrote: Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.
Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...
Gen cult relied more, I play both armies, so I know
I agree orks got hit extremely hard, but I think the star of the nerfbat this start of 9th is gen cult. I was expecting it. GW had shown they hate that army with last CA
Genecult was hosed overall by 9th. I was speaking more vigilus stuff but ya GC is basically not competitive at all with the 9th changes. You guys pretty much got the reward for worst army.
Also I think GW convulted game rules to much. How many versions of 40k do we need? Over half of which is likely never to see much play since most people will just stick to 1-2 standard rule sets.
Open play
Narrative play
Crusade play
Matched play
Tournament play
The SSAG is effectively dead.. it’s basically legends at this point as vigilus is all but retired....
I’m not even saying that’s a bad idea... I think it’s good for GW to retire older books. This doesn’t change the fact 9th completely hosed armies orks genecult, ynnari with complete dismantling of rules, units, etc.... and points changes that is roundly claimed to be half arsed and lazy. They took very little effort individualizing points and appears to have mostly used a formula to just add points to everything and placing min point values on certain units... mostly invalidating any attempt at balancing points in 8th.
I guess Gw feels if you throw enough gak at the wall something will stick.
Aaranis wrote: But every army is going to give secondary VPs, they're varied enough that there's an objective fit to use against your opponent every time. I don't see why Abhor the Witch is any easier to do than Assassinate, Thin their ranks or Bring it down. We still have to kill those Psykers, often being Characters and so harder to target in the first place. I mean I play AdMech, I expect my opponents to take Thin their ranks and Bring it down every game because I play lots of Skitarii and Vehicles. And I'll do the same if my opponent has the same kind of list. Of course I'll take Titan Hunter against Knights etc. Every army has to bring units to the table as far as I'm aware and these units can be destroyed during the game.
Each objective is limited to 15 pts too so yeah if you managed to destroy 5 of my 11+W vehicles you deserve points that's normal.
Will be interesting to see if that makes people spam certain things less - if you only have 4 vehicles and 4 character etc then you cap any potential VP to the enemy at 12 and not 15 etc. A force that is more mixed maybe harder to choose secondaries against (or the ones that try to take advantage of the enemy force specifically).
Oh yes. Either you deny or you go full out spam. Which is why my 1 squadron of mortificators is looking lonely
as the other pointed out orks are getting srewed left and right.
we had four staples of competitive play
SSAG
gretchin
orkboyz
Flashgitz
all of em got nerfed into oblivion. be it by the general rules, point increases or in case of the SSAG all that was mentioned plus it got canned on top xD
Not to mention, orks had at least 18 CP's per game to spend, more than most armies could manage... now thats gone too.
the only things that remain really good are buggies, mekgunz and the burnabomber
MANZ are fantastic. You also think Bonebreaks aren't going to thrive in a game where getting to the mid-board with something durable is key? Koptas only went up 6 - still perfect for running onto objectives. A lot of Ork units went up very little. TBs didn't change at all, but you can shoot Rokkit Pistols from a transport into combat.
You have 17 CP now (12+5). If you want to burn 3 and take no troops and do heavy buggies or MANZ? Go for it. You don't have to spend 2 to 6 CP (CP reroll strength, grot shields, more dakka, wreckers) each round for the SSAG anymore.
Aaranis wrote: But every army is going to give secondary VPs, they're varied enough that there's an objective fit to use against your opponent every time. I don't see why Abhor the Witch is any easier to do than Assassinate, Thin their ranks or Bring it down. We still have to kill those Psykers, often being Characters and so harder to target in the first place. I mean I play AdMech, I expect my opponents to take Thin their ranks and Bring it down every game because I play lots of Skitarii and Vehicles. And I'll do the same if my opponent has the same kind of list. Of course I'll take Titan Hunter against Knights etc. Every army has to bring units to the table as far as I'm aware and these units can be destroyed during the game.
Each objective is limited to 15 pts too so yeah if you managed to destroy 5 of my 11+W vehicles you deserve points that's normal.
Tsons/gk every unit is psyker. Killing any unit gives vp.
This is only correct if you use only specific units.
The only psykers are characters, rubrics, scarabs, and shaman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Hmm, no? They look like quite different from each other.
I think he means left/right deployments.
The No Man's Land distance is what matters. All of them are 24" except 3 -- 28 on #23, 9 on #32, and 30 on #33.
The old Hammer and Anvil No Man's Land was 24". Hammer and Anvil was great for shooty armies getting a deep deployment, but it isn't so much of an advantage now.
The game is so different from the way it was played, that we can't really say much at this point.
Even "Playtesters said this" "Playtesters said that" that gets flung around, is crap. Playtesters won't know much about the game except what the general flow of it is going to be.
To assess a faction, you need to have quite a few games with it against many different lists. I would be seriously surprised if most of those playtesters had more than a couple dozen games of 9th, which isn't really telling you ANYTHING about the state of the factions. There were probably one or two in house play testing groups which had hundreds of games and which dictated most of the changes. They are the only ones that can share their wisdom about the single factions, everyone else was just kept in the loop. They weren't given a full time job to test it, they were just asked for feedback on a few matters, especially during a time where gaming was forbidden by law in most of GW's world.
Whatever playtesters tell you now, will be insignificant compared to what the community will learn in the first month of 9th after we are finally allowed to play.
casvalremdeikun wrote: So am I understanding this correctly, that the Rule of 2/3 is not a general matched play rule, but a rule unique to tournament play?
That’s always been this way.
Indeed, it moved from a “recommendation” for events in 8th to now being an actual rule for events in 9th, making it a bit more compulsory.
It never was a matched play rule (or even a rule) in 8th.
casvalremdeikun wrote: So am I understanding this correctly, that the Rule of 2/3 is not a general matched play rule, but a rule unique to tournament play?
That’s always been this way.
Indeed, it moved from a “recommendation” for events in 8th to now being an actual rule for events in 9th, making it a bit more compulsory.
It never was a matched play rule (or even a rule) in 8th.
True, but in 9th edition it's a function of the mission packs. The default Matched Play mission pack, Eternal War, has rule of 3 as a bona fide rule.
Alternating deployment before rolling to see who goes first increases first-turn advantage. Progressive scoring increases first turn advantage. Neither of these things are opinions; they're just fact based on the statistics we've collected over years and years of competitive play.
When you add in the stacking secondaries, these missions and rules basically represent throwing out everything ITC learned in the last 3-4 years about mission design.
It's a crying shame, because the 2020 ITC pack had finally, at long last, dealt with first-turn advantage. It seems like such a waste of all that time and energy for GW to put its fingers in its ears and insist on making all the same mistakes again.
Not everything about ITC was perfect and GW didn't need to keep everything, but to not keep the lessons it had learned about addressing first-turn advantage is a real disappointment.
Spoletta wrote: The game is so different from the way it was played, that we can't really say much at this point.
Even "Playtesters said this" "Playtesters said that" that gets flung around, is crap. Playtesters won't know much about the game except what the general flow of it is going to be.
To assess a faction, you need to have quite a few games with it against many different lists. I would be seriously surprised if most of those playtesters had more than a couple dozen games of 9th, which isn't really telling you ANYTHING about the state of the factions. There were probably one or two in house play testing groups which had hundreds of games and which dictated most of the changes. They are the only ones that can share their wisdom about the single factions, everyone else was just kept in the loop. They weren't given a full time job to test it, they were just asked for feedback on a few matters, especially during a time where gaming was forbidden by law in most of GW's world.
Whatever playtesters tell you now, will be insignificant compared to what the community will learn in the first month of 9th after we are finally allowed to play.
Funnily enough a lot of the playtesters are actually Grand tournament organizers and players who had high rankings last edition... but sure they don’t know much about the game except the flow....
Also covid had nothing to do with playtesters no idea what makes you think global lockdown in Feb/March Had any impact on an edition that already went to print.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Alternating deployment before rolling to see who goes first increases first-turn advantage. Progressive scoring increases first turn advantage. Neither of these things are opinions; they're just fact based on the statistics we've collected over years and years of competitive play.
When you add in the stacking secondaries, these missions and rules basically represent throwing out everything ITC learned in the last 3-4 years about mission design.
It's a crying shame, because the 2020 ITC pack had finally, at long last, dealt with first-turn advantage. It seems like such a waste of all that time and energy for GW to put its fingers in its ears and insist on making all the same mistakes again.
Not everything about ITC was perfect and GW didn't need to keep everything, but to not keep the lessons it had learned about addressing first-turn advantage is a real disappointment.
Just from the video battlereps I’ve seen I don’t see first turn advantage as big as it was before... at least the whole alpha strike issue has largely been irrelevant.. subjective as I haven’t calculated it up but most battlerep videos I’ve seen the player going second has won more often then not.
The vast majority of 9th bat-reps are not competitive games. In fact, I'm not aware of a single batrep of a real competitive game, certainly not with the new points. The closest I can think of is the one aow40k ran yesterday, but that was dominated by Siegler's choice to run the Taunar, the points for which are pretty clearly screwed up in some way.
I mean I'd love to be wrong. But every single change they have made vis a vis the ITC 2020 pack makes first-turn advantage greater in theory so it's hard to see how a package full of changes that make first-turn advantage greater could actually add up to making first-turn advantage smaller. And it's also hard to see how you could make first-turn advantage smaller than in 2020 ITC because there was no first turn advantage.
If you're used to playing GW's base 8th edition rules, sure, anything is better than those. But nobody played GW's base rules competitively because they didn't work, so it's an odd comparison point.
yukishiro1 wrote: Alternating deployment before rolling to see who goes first increases first-turn advantage. Progressive scoring increases first turn advantage. Neither of these things are opinions; they're just fact based on the statistics we've collected over years and years of competitive play.
When you add in the stacking secondaries, these missions and rules basically represent throwing out everything ITC learned in the last 3-4 years about mission design.
It's a crying shame, because the 2020 ITC pack had finally, at long last, dealt with first-turn advantage. It seems like such a waste of all that time and energy for GW to put its fingers in its ears and insist on making all the same mistakes again.
Not everything about ITC was perfect and GW didn't need to keep everything, but to not keep the lessons it had learned about addressing first-turn advantage is a real disappointment.
Lol, wut?
The missions are essentially a 100% carbon copy of all the ITC nonsense (not surprising, given the ITC/NOVA guys wrote them).
They represent basically throwing out everything the ETC learning in the last 15 years about mission design and stuffing it with dumbed down none-sense like the "everybody get's participation trophy" idiocy like choosing secondaries to fit your army, instead of forcing people to play an army that can deal with a variety to tactical challenges, dumping the in-game tests of tactical acumen and skill under stress with semi-random, unpredictable scoring through Maelstrom with the bland, pre-calculable and skill-deprived primary system, dropping the seize to just basically neuter any skill in deployment.
The missions are an atrocity because they are basically copy & paste ITC.
yukishiro1 wrote: Alternating deployment before rolling to see who goes first increases first-turn advantage. Progressive scoring increases first turn advantage. Neither of these things are opinions; they're just fact based on the statistics we've collected over years and years of competitive play.
When you add in the stacking secondaries, these missions and rules basically represent throwing out everything ITC learned in the last 3-4 years about mission design.
It's a crying shame, because the 2020 ITC pack had finally, at long last, dealt with first-turn advantage. It seems like such a waste of all that time and energy for GW to put its fingers in its ears and insist on making all the same mistakes again.
Not everything about ITC was perfect and GW didn't need to keep everything, but to not keep the lessons it had learned about addressing first-turn advantage is a real disappointment.
Well, the ITC stuff was based around CA19. It was seemingly good save for how parts of scoring worked, but I only got 3 games in before the pandemic.
While your points are correct I don't think they quite add up. In ITC you had to be scoring every single turn. This is not necessarily the case here.
Your goal should be to deny them Hold More. They score at most 10. Your task will be to Hold Two (sometimes Hold Three), which also scores 10 points. This shouldn't be a heavy lift for lots of people. Even if they manage to slip in a 15 it will spread them out.
Going first against a hyper-mobile army gives them all the information and protection from terrain.
The missions are essentially a 100% carbon copy of all the ITC nonsense (not surprising, given the ITC/NOVA guys wrote them).
They represent basically throwing out everything the ETC learning in the last 15 years about mission design and stuffing it with dumbed down none-sense like the "everybody get's participation trophy" idiocy like choosing secondaries to fit your army, instead of forcing people to play an army that can deal with a variety to tactical challenges, dumping the in-game tests of tactical acumen and skill under stress with semi-random, unpredictable scoring through Maelstrom with the bland, pre-calculable and skill-deprived primary system, dropping the seize to just basically neuter any skill in deployment.
The missions are an atrocity because they are basically copy & paste ITC.
His drive was more about the full deploy for each side and the person who deployed first went first, but these are a long distance from ITC.
Maelstrom is just like choosing secondaries. You just do it turn by turn and you guys imposed your own set of rules to limit the randomness. CA19 modified that pretty well to match though.
yukishiro1 wrote: The vast majority of 9th bat-reps are not competitive games. In fact, I'm not aware of a single batrep of a real competitive game, certainly not with the new points. The closest I can think of is the one aow40k ran yesterday, but that was dominated by Siegler's choice to run the Taunar, the points for which are pretty clearly screwed up in some way.
I mean I'd love to be wrong. But every single change they have made vis a vis the ITC 2020 pack makes first-turn advantage greater in theory so it's hard to see how a package full of changes that make first-turn advantage greater could actually add up to making first-turn advantage smaller. And it's also hard to see how you could make first-turn advantage smaller than in 2020 ITC because there was no first turn advantage.
If you're used to playing GW's base 8th edition rules, sure, anything is better than those. But nobody played GW's base rules competitively because they didn't work, so it's an odd comparison point.
You seem to completely ignore why going second is so strong this edition. As I said pay attention to the video batreps.
Nearly every game goes the same way.
Everyone deploys at lease semi defensively hiding behind the new improved terrain obscured or light cover is everywhere.
Player 1 moves and usually advances to secure objectives and score some points. And turn does very little damage as alpha strikes are largely nuetered in 9th.
Player 2 moves and shoots at player 1 units that are now in the open or advances and charges at units now in range.
Making sure to have more bodies on objectives to score his mission points.
Turn 2 player 1 now tries to beta strike with his reduced board presence probably wishing he out more units in reserve pregame.
Now I’m not saying going second is always preferred it’s largely army dependent, but there is a strong incentive to respond as player 2 instead of being a target as player 1
Spoletta wrote: The game is so different from the way it was played, that we can't really say much at this point.
Even "Playtesters said this" "Playtesters said that" that gets flung around, is crap. Playtesters won't know much about the game except what the general flow of it is going to be.
To assess a faction, you need to have quite a few games with it against many different lists. I would be seriously surprised if most of those playtesters had more than a couple dozen games of 9th, which isn't really telling you ANYTHING about the state of the factions. There were probably one or two in house play testing groups which had hundreds of games and which dictated most of the changes. They are the only ones that can share their wisdom about the single factions, everyone else was just kept in the loop. They weren't given a full time job to test it, they were just asked for feedback on a few matters, especially during a time where gaming was forbidden by law in most of GW's world.
Whatever playtesters tell you now, will be insignificant compared to what the community will learn in the first month of 9th after we are finally allowed to play.
Funnily enough a lot of the playtesters are actually Grand tournament organizers and players who had high rankings last edition... but sure they don’t know much about the game except the flow....
Also covid had nothing to do with playtesters no idea what makes you think global lockdown in Feb/March Had any impact on an edition that already went to print.
.
You clearly didn't understood what I said.
I didn't say that those guys don't know the game.
I said that those guys were not full time playtesters of 9th, so they are only going to have a general idea of how it will develop.
Not to mention that most of them were ITC players, and these missions are only 50% ITC. They play REALLY different.
If one of them says, "I think that faction x is screwed", then I don't give much weight to it.
Also, they said that they had been playtesting it in the last 6 months (the external ones), so yes, covid matters a lot.
Going first is cool, but responding by going second is way more useful.
You can't score primary points on turn one. Your points for primary are also only counted in your command phase. So in order to score turn two you have to be on the objectives after turn one.
Being able to counter punch that initial push will make going second just as strong as going first. Especially with the game ending turn 5 guaranteed. You know by going second that you will have a single turn where your opponent will have no chance to retaliate. Jump way out and grab those secondaries, there will be no reprisals for doing so, and it may just give you enough points to win the thing.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: . You know by going second that you will have a single turn where your opponent will have no chance to retaliate. Jump way out and grab those secondaries, there will be no reprisals for doing so, and it may just give you enough points to win the thing.
How so?
If you push out turn 4, your opponent gets turn 5 to retaliate.
If you push out turn 5, there's no command phase in turn 6 to score.
yukishiro1 wrote: Alternating deployment before rolling to see who goes first increases first-turn advantage. Progressive scoring increases first turn advantage. Neither of these things are opinions; they're just fact based on the statistics we've collected over years and years of competitive play.
When you add in the stacking secondaries, these missions and rules basically represent throwing out everything ITC learned in the last 3-4 years about mission design.
It's a crying shame, because the 2020 ITC pack had finally, at long last, dealt with first-turn advantage. It seems like such a waste of all that time and energy for GW to put its fingers in its ears and insist on making all the same mistakes again.
Not everything about ITC was perfect and GW didn't need to keep everything, but to not keep the lessons it had learned about addressing first-turn advantage is a real disappointment.
Lol, wut?
The missions are essentially a 100% carbon copy of all the ITC nonsense (not surprising, given the ITC/NOVA guys wrote them).
They represent basically throwing out everything the ETC learning in the last 15 years about mission design and stuffing it with dumbed down none-sense like the "everybody get's participation trophy" idiocy like choosing secondaries to fit your army, instead of forcing people to play an army that can deal with a variety to tactical challenges, dumping the in-game tests of tactical acumen and skill under stress with semi-random, unpredictable scoring through Maelstrom with the bland, pre-calculable and skill-deprived primary system, dropping the seize to just basically neuter any skill in deployment.
The missions are an atrocity because they are basically copy & paste ITC.
The only thing the ETC learned in 15 years was that playing too close to the book ended up with gak tournaments.
ETC events were garbage nonsense decided more often by random die rolls than actual player skill.
Also, lol at 'dumbed down'. Yeah, cause 'go get the objective in the back of your opponent's deployment zone 3 times' was SOOOOOO complex.
The only thing the ETC learned in 15 years was that playing too close to the book ended up with gak tournaments.
ETC events were garbage nonsense decided more often by random die rolls than actual player skill.
Also, lol at 'dumbed down'. Yeah, cause 'go get the objective in the back of your opponent's deployment zone 3 times' was SOOOOOO complex.
Lol. Quite the opposite.
If anything, ETC formats required you to think on the fly, make tactical decisions and react to a changing board state, while ITC is just running the same rote moves over and over and over again with your list, depending on what your list does.
Sure, inexperienced players often blame RNG like dice or cards for losing, but that's not an ETC thing. It also (incorrectly) happens in ITC. Most people just perceive variance with a skew towards bad results and don't anticipate it properly when executing game play (which is what ultimately separates good players from bad ones).
The only thing the ETC learned in 15 years was that playing too close to the book ended up with gak tournaments.
ETC events were garbage nonsense decided more often by random die rolls than actual player skill.
Also, lol at 'dumbed down'. Yeah, cause 'go get the objective in the back of your opponent's deployment zone 3 times' was SOOOOOO complex.
Lol. Quite the opposite.
If anything, ETC formats required you to think on the fly, make tactical decisions and react to a changing board state, while ITC is just running the same rote moves over and over and over again with your list, depending on what your list does.
Sure, inexperienced players often blame RNG like dice or cards for losing, but that's not an ETC thing. It also (incorrectly) happens in ITC. Most people just perceive variance with a skew towards bad results and don't anticipate it properly when executing game play (which is what ultimately separates good players from bad ones).
When you actually get good at the game and are playing other good players, RNG is the deciding factor as often as not because neither player is really making exploitable mistakes. If both sides are playing within a certain % of the other's competence level, RNG can more than make up the difference in the (slightly) inferior player's favor. The more RNG there is the less likely it is that it'll be player skill that actually decides high level games. The ETC exacerbates this far more than ITC does by allowing huge swings that can take a barely top 32 player into the top 4 with a couple of lucky die rolls.
To illustrate with CCGS, ITC events are Magic the Gathering, ETC events are Hearthstone; yeah the average player doesn't really have a chance against the pros in either game, but in Hearthstone One cast of Yogg-Saron in the late game could put 3 pyroblasts in the opponet's face and win you the game on a coinflip.
yukishiro1 wrote: Alternating deployment before rolling to see who goes first increases first-turn advantage. Progressive scoring increases first turn advantage. Neither of these things are opinions; they're just fact based on the statistics we've collected over years and years of competitive play.
When you add in the stacking secondaries, these missions and rules basically represent throwing out everything ITC learned in the last 3-4 years about mission design.
It's a crying shame, because the 2020 ITC pack had finally, at long last, dealt with first-turn advantage. It seems like such a waste of all that time and energy for GW to put its fingers in its ears and insist on making all the same mistakes again.
Not everything about ITC was perfect and GW didn't need to keep everything, but to not keep the lessons it had learned about addressing first-turn advantage is a real disappointment.
Lol, wut?
The missions are essentially a 100% carbon copy of all the ITC nonsense (not surprising, given the ITC/NOVA guys wrote them).
If you think these missions with alternate deployment and progressive scoring are anything like ITC's 2020 pack, we're not going to be able to have a useful discussion. It's like trying to discuss physics with someone who insists the earth is flat.
If you think these missions with alternate deployment and progressive scoring are anything like ITC's 2020 pack, we're not going to be able to have a useful discussion. It's like trying to discuss physics with someone who insists the earth is flat.
Well, if you think these missions without seize, first strike, Maelstrom/Schemes of War are anything like GW missions from recent CAs, you're delusional. And it's not a secret that Mike Brandt in particular is overseen the tournament pack, GW organised competitive events and Reece/Frankie themselves also said on their recent Podcast that the tournament pack was the main focus of their playtesting involvement.
yukishiro1 wrote: The vast majority of 9th bat-reps are not competitive games. In fact, I'm not aware of a single batrep of a real competitive game, certainly not with the new points. The closest I can think of is the one aow40k ran yesterday, but that was dominated by Siegler's choice to run the Taunar, the points for which are pretty clearly screwed up in some way.
I mean I'd love to be wrong. But every single change they have made vis a vis the ITC 2020 pack makes first-turn advantage greater in theory so it's hard to see how a package full of changes that make first-turn advantage greater could actually add up to making first-turn advantage smaller. And it's also hard to see how you could make first-turn advantage smaller than in 2020 ITC because there was no first turn advantage.
If you're used to playing GW's base 8th edition rules, sure, anything is better than those. But nobody played GW's base rules competitively because they didn't work, so it's an odd comparison point.
You seem to completely ignore why going second is so strong this edition. As I said pay attention to the video batreps.
Nearly every game goes the same way.
Everyone deploys at lease semi defensively hiding behind the new improved terrain obscured or light cover is everywhere.
Player 1 moves and usually advances to secure objectives and score some points. And turn does very little damage as alpha strikes are largely nuetered in 9th.
Player 2 moves and shoots at player 1 units that are now in the open or advances and charges at units now in range.
Making sure to have more bodies on objectives to score his mission points.
Turn 2 player 1 now tries to beta strike with his reduced board presence probably wishing he out more units in reserve pregame.
Now I’m not saying going second is always preferred it’s largely army dependent, but there is a strong incentive to respond as player 2 instead of being a target as player 1
Read the last sentence of what I wrote again. You seem to have been playing with GW's own atrocious rules. If you were, of course first-turn advantage is reduced, because you were playing on planet bowling ball.
But nobody played with GW's rules competitively because they weren't usable. 9th edition terrain rules allow EASIER line of sight drawing than the competitive rules everyone used in 8th. Terrain isn't improved, it doesn't obscure more. The board size is smaller, which also makes alpha strikes easier. The game board setup in 9th is more favorable to alpha strikes than the competitive 8th scene was, not less. Just like progressive scoring is more favorable to going first. Just like alternate deployments is more favorable to going first.
If you don't know how ITC (or ETC, or any other serious competitive format for 8th) worked I don't think you can really have an informed opinion about the 9th edition ruleset vs the prior competitive formats people played.
If you think these missions with alternate deployment and progressive scoring are anything like ITC's 2020 pack, we're not going to be able to have a useful discussion. It's like trying to discuss physics with someone who insists the earth is flat.
Well, if you think these missions without seize, first strike, Maelstrom/Schemes of War are anything like GW missions from recent CAs, you're delusional. And it's not a secret that Mike Brandt in particular is overseen the tournament pack, GW organised competitive events and Reece/Frankie themselves also said on their recent Podcast that the tournament pack was the main focus of their playtesting involvement.
I didn't say they were. You're the one who made the delusional statement that these missions were like ITC. I didn't say anything about them being classic GW missions. Please don't build straw men to knock down; it's tiresome. Address what people actually write, not what you wish they wrote because it'd be easier to refute.
Read the last sentence of what I wrote again. You seem to have been playing with GW's own atrocious rules. If you were, of course first-turn advantage is reduced, because you were playing on planet bowling ball.
But nobody played with GW's rules competitively because they weren't usable. 9th edition terrain rules allow EASIER line of sight drawing than the competitive rules everyone used in 8th. Terrain isn't improved, it doesn't obscure more. The board size is smaller, which also makes alpha strikes easier. The game board setup in 9th is more favorable to alpha strikes than the competitive 8th scene was, not less. Just like progressive scoring is more favorable to going first. Just like alternate deployments is more favorable to going first.
If you don't know how ITC worked I don't think you can really have an informed opinion about the 9th edition ruleset vs the prior competitive formats people played.
Nonsense. ETC formats worked perfectly fine for all of 8th. Infact, most of the problems ITC had through 8th (e.g. Ynnari Dark Reapers fire&fading into magic boxes, etc..) were nowhere near as problematic in the more balanced book missions.
Just because ITC has been selling the Trumpian propaganda about ETC / book missions being allegedly somehow bad to hype up their own product doesn't make that true.
If you haven't played ETC tournaments regularly and are just go of the snakeoil from FLG, you have absolutely no clue about actually competitive 40K.
And sure, the new missions are not identical to the 2020 ITC (or presumably the unpublished 2020 NOVA) pack. They are the next step the people responsible for those think what tournament missions should be.
In ETC you didn't play with GW's terrain rules either. You seem pretty confused about the topic you claim to be an expert in.
That said, I have no interest in getting into a fight over ETC vs. ITC. The problems with these missions have nothing to do with that. If you want to fight someone on ETC vs ITC go ahead, but you'll have to find someone else to do it with.
In one of the batreps done by Tabletop Titans Brian said he had played "hundreds" of 9th playtest games and off camera, not for an audience and being a tournament player I am pretty sure he was taking competitive lists.
I just don't see Alpha strike being a big thing. A super resilient army is going to shrug off your alpha strike, leaving those alpha units, who typically don't have staying power, out in the open with their figurative "junk" swaying in the wind.
Some armies will benefit from going first, some will benefit from going second. With a 50/50 chance to go first it's a gamble to deploy in such a way that allows an alpha strike. If your opponent goes first your strike is dead before it starts. If your opponent deploys defensively on the notion of going second your alpha is extremely limited in power.
AS is nerfed in 9th. Some people will have to change their lists, take new units and try new tactics. This revelation is nothing new. EVERY edition required a change in army composition, tactics, and specific loadouts.
The advantage of going first isn't alpha strike in the sense of killing your opponent's models. It's the ability to get out onto the objectives first with units that can block your opponent from being able to get onto the objectives.
That said, alpha strike is not nerfed in 9th. Alpha strike is stronger in 9th than it was in competitive 8th, not weaker, because 9th's terrain rules favor shooting more than the competitive terrain rules used in ITC or ETC did.
What testing people have done so far does show a pretty strong first-turn bias in the new missions. Which matches what you would expect, because pretty much every single aspect of them is friendlier to going first than ITC2020 was (or than ETC was, for the guy who wants to jump on that hobby horse). It would be truly bizarre if you combined a bunch of changes that favor going first and somehow ended up with not favoring going first.
Yes FLG's magic boxes were the hight of stupidity but that was I gor the destinct impression more a Recce thing than a everyone agreed with it thing.
Also playong ETC sounds fine on paper but having card draws for objectives ended up with so many work arounds to stop it being able to end the game with a single bad draw and still having the ability to swing the game hard the cards were a problem.
The truth is both farmats had their issues in 8th edition.
ITC got the missions right and the terrain wrong (magic boxes)
ETC or atleast what I was told the rules were got the terrain better but the random FU card draws were still a problem.
ITC secondarys you had to plan around at list building and yes they did favour certain armies over others but they were being rebalanced as people learned the edition the issue was secondarys and points attscking the same units effectively at the same time did leed to some feels bad as stuff went from OP to game loosong liability.
I also seen ETC games were the card drae was an utter joke it also led to the prevalence of fast movement based lists in ETC events.
9th edition terrain rules allow EASIER line of sight drawing than the competitive rules everyone used in 8th. Terrain isn't improved, it doesn't obscure more.
This isn't true. People are taking the idea that touching obscured makes terrain magically disappear for your whole army. All it does is turn on normalLOS for that unit or units. Everything else in the army not touching that obscuring terrain has no vision through it. ITC allowed vision through the second floor barring the silly magic boxes, so, yes there is more sight blocking.
yukishiro1 wrote: In ETC you didn't play with GW's terrain rules either. You seem pretty confused about the topic you claim to be an expert in.
That said, I have no interest in getting into a fight over ETC vs. ITC. The problems with these missions have nothing to do with that. If you want to fight someone on ETC vs ITC go ahead, but you'll have to find someone else to do it with.
I don't want a fight. But you said GW didn't learn the ITC "lessons". #
The missions were literally written by ITC (and NOVA) people incorporating all their NOVA and ITC "lessons" into the next iteration of what they think is good mission design (and thus moving very forcefully away from GW mission design, which, yes, ETC was also a step removed from, though (IMO) stuck to somewhat closer than ITC).
I don't care who wrote the missions. Whoever did didn't learn the lessons ITC had learned, because the new missions go in a completely different direction than ITC2020 went.
If it's the same people - which is not true BTW, the main designer is Brandt and he's always been a fan of progressive scoring, which is the fundamental difference between ITC and NOVA, and it's very clear Brandt won out with these missions - they clearly decided to disregard their own experience over the last couple years.
9th edition terrain rules allow EASIER line of sight drawing than the competitive rules everyone used in 8th. Terrain isn't improved, it doesn't obscure more.
This isn't true. People are taking the idea that touching obscured makes terrain magically disappear for your whole army. All it does is turn on normalLOS for that unit or units. Everything else in the army not touching that obscuring terrain has no vision through it. ITC allowed vision through the second floor barring the silly magic boxes, so, yes there is more sight blocking.
That really all depends on the armies in play and the terrain your playing with a lot of events were running large solid terrian that hide even knights at the end if 8th.
Also a lot of people are going back to trying to use GW terrain which tends to have poor TLOS blocking properties.
However 9th is better for limiting the advanatge of NLOS shooting spam lists like guard and later marines with TFC and WW spam.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't care who wrote the missions. Whoever did didn't learn the lessons ITC had learned, because the new missions go in a completely different direction than ITC2020 went.
If it's the same people - which is not true BTW, the main designer is Brandt and he's always been a fan of progressive scoring, which is the fundamental difference between ITC and NOVA, and it's very clear Brandt won out with these missions - they clearly decided to disregard their own experience over the last couple years.
ITC (2020) is all progressive scoring, aside from 4 measly points (out 42) for ground control, if you chose to (below 10% of the max result at best). NOVA (at least 2019, we've not seen 2020 mission) at least had the option to forgo progressive hold, hold-more stuff for end-game scoring that was a much higher % of your total points.
If anything, ITC had a much larger progressive fetish than NOVA.
9th edition terrain rules allow EASIER line of sight drawing than the competitive rules everyone used in 8th. Terrain isn't improved, it doesn't obscure more.
This isn't true. People are taking the idea that touching obscured makes terrain magically disappear for your whole army. All it does is turn on normalLOS for that unit or units. Everything else in the army not touching that obscuring terrain has no vision through it. ITC allowed vision through the second floor barring the silly magic boxes, so, yes there is more sight blocking.
It is absolutely true with the terrain most people have and use. It is much easier to draw LOS using 9th's terrain rules than 8th's for anything that isn't a solid wall, against anything but very large models. The impact on typical ruins in particular - by far the most common terrain you see on boards - is absolutely massive.
True, if everyone largely ignores 9th's terrain rules and instead just gets big solid walls to use instead, 9th will end up with very slightly better LOS blocking. But that just shows why the 9th edition rule fail at doing what they were intended to do, because literally the entire reason they gave was "it's not cool when people have to board up their ruin windows." And yet "board up your ruin windows" is the only way to get 9th edition terrain rules back to the same level of blocking as the competitive 8th formats used.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't care who wrote the missions. Whoever did didn't learn the lessons ITC had learned, because the new missions go in a completely different direction than ITC2020 went.
If it's the same people - which is not true BTW, the main designer is Brandt and he's always been a fan of progressive scoring, which is the fundamental difference between ITC and NOVA, and it's very clear Brandt won out with these missions - they clearly decided to disregard their own experience over the last couple years.
ITC (2020) is all progressive scoring, aside from 4 measly points (out 42) for ground control, if you chose to (below 10% of the max result at best). NOVA (at least 2019, we've not seen 2020 mission) at least had the option to forgo progressive hold, hold-more stuff for end-game scoring that was a much higher % of your total points.
If anything, ITC had a much larger progressive fetish than NOVA.
Maybe we're having a terminology problem here. When I say progressive scoring, I'm referring to scoring at the beginning of the turn. ITC is end-of-turn or end-of-round scoring. Technically they are both progressive scoring, but for whatever reason we seem to call start-of-player-turn scoring progressive in contrast to scoring that happens at the end of the turn or battle round. This is the fundamental difference between ITC and NOVA, and NOVA won out in the 9th missions. Scoring on the start of your turn creates a built-in first turn advantage compared to scoring at the end of the turn, and especially to scoring at the end of the battle round.
The two big differences between 9th edition missions and ITC are (1) scoring at the start of the turn rather than the end of the turn or battle round, and (2) alternate deployments before you know who goes first. Both these things favor going first compared to the ITC alternative.
9th edition terrain rules allow EASIER line of sight drawing than the competitive rules everyone used in 8th. Terrain isn't improved, it doesn't obscure more.
This isn't true. People are taking the idea that touching obscured makes terrain magically disappear for your whole army. All it does is turn on normalLOS for that unit or units. Everything else in the army not touching that obscuring terrain has no vision through it. ITC allowed vision through the second floor barring the silly magic boxes, so, yes there is more sight blocking.
It is absolutely true with the terrain most people have and use. It is much easier to draw LOS using 9th's terrain rules than 8th's for anything that isn't a solid wall, against anything but very large models. The impact on typical ruins in particular - by far the most common terrain you see on boards - is absolutely massive.
True, if everyone largely ignores 9th's terrain rules and instead just gets big solid walls to use instead, 9th will end up with very slightly better LOS blocking. But that just shows why the 9th edition rule fail at doing what they were intended to do, because literally the entire reason they gave was "it's not cool when people have to board up their ruin windows." And yet "board up your ruin windows" is the only way to get 9th edition terrain rules back to the same level of blocking as the competitive 8th formats used.
True but the ITC terrain really wasn't right either with its rediculous magic boxes of invulnerability.
Also the fact the NLOS spam atleast standa a decent chance of having a -1 to hit is a step in the right direction finally.
Also on the scoring thing I've played so many editions I have dealt with most scoring systems they all tend to favour someone.
Continual scoring - tended to favour faster armies.
End of your turn scoring- First/Neutral
End of Battle Round scoring - Second/Neutral
Start of Battle Round scoring - First
Start of your turn scoring - durability
ITC wasn't perfect by any stretch. But what ITC had finally got right was getting rid of first turn advantage. And it did that by scoring at the end of the turn/battle round and by rolling for going first before deployment, with the person going second deploying second.
The 9th edition missions throw both of these things out the window (along with also allowing stacking secondaries, another odd change that doesn't make any sense to me), which is nearly guaranteed to bring back first turn advantage.
I'd love to be wrong. But it's hard to see how you can make a bunch of changes that increase first turn advantage without, well, increasing first turn advantage.
If it turns out there isn't significant first turn advantage with these missions, I will happily eat a slice of humble pie. I would be very happy to be wrong here.
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC wasn't perfect by any stretch. But what ITC had finally got right was getting rid of first turn advantage. And it did that by scoring at the end of the turn/battle round and by rolling for going first before deployment, with the person going second deploying second.
The 9th edition missions throw both of these things out the window (along with also allowing stacking secondaries, another odd change that doesn't make any sense to me), which is nearly guaranteed to bring back first turn advantage.
I'd love to be wrong. But it's hard to see how you can make a bunch of changes that increase first turn advantage without, well, increasing first turn advantage.
If it turns out there isn't significant first turn advantage with these missions, I will happily eat a slice of humble pie. I would be very happy to be wrong here.
Oh I agree 9th edition lists get a lot out of go first = score first
I get why GW went for you score in your command phase as it's way easier to remeber and is the same for both players.
However I think end of battle round scoring would have been better for balancing out the advantage of going first with maybe even actually favouring going second.
And again, if you deploy to go first, which is a 50/50 chance and you don't get first turn you are in a lot of trouble.
Brian from TT, a competitive player and a playtester of 9th edition for 8 months, said that deploying your army expecting to go second is better than deploying your army expecting to go first.
Seizing, pluses to your roll to choose attack or defend made deploying to go first make more sense.
The big thing with 9th is that moving fast to take objectives early only works if your units can hold. That is why I don't think MSU, at least for obsec units, is very smart. Even 5 Intercessors are going to die fairly easily to a decently kitted out shooting or melee unit.
"Magic box" was stupid. Not sure why TLOS is such an issue. It existed from 2nd edition up to, technically 8th but was houseruled for tournaments.
9th edition terrain rules allow EASIER line of sight drawing than the competitive rules everyone used in 8th. Terrain isn't improved, it doesn't obscure more.
This isn't true. People are taking the idea that touching obscured makes terrain magically disappear for your whole army. All it does is turn on normalLOS for that unit or units. Everything else in the army not touching that obscuring terrain has no vision through it. ITC allowed vision through the second floor barring the silly magic boxes, so, yes there is more sight blocking.
That really all depends on the armies in play and the terrain your playing with a lot of events were running large solid terrian that hide even knights at the end if 8th.
Also a lot of people are going back to trying to use GW terrain which tends to have poor TLOS blocking properties.
However 9th is better for limiting the advanatge of NLOS shooting spam lists like guard and later marines with TFC and WW spam.
I don’t know where you get this “A lot of people” no Major tournament organizer is using Mainly GW terrain.. it’s economically unviable. ITC NOVA nor ETC is not tossing out their terrain sorry.
It is absolutely true with the terrain most people have and use. It is much easier to draw LOS using 9th's terrain rules than 8th's for anything that isn't a solid wall, against anything but very large models. The impact on typical ruins in particular - by far the most common terrain you see on boards - is absolutely massive.
True, if everyone largely ignores 9th's terrain rules and instead just gets big solid walls to use instead, 9th will end up with very slightly better LOS blocking. But that just shows why the 9th edition rule fail at doing what they were intended to do, because literally the entire reason they gave was "it's not cool when people have to board up their ruin windows." And yet "board up your ruin windows" is the only way to get 9th edition terrain rules back to the same level of blocking as the competitive 8th formats used.
There's varying degrees.
Something that blocks an infinite column blocks more than ITC did. The only thing ITC gave was first floor block for units inside and there was pretty much no other kind of terrain aside from straight LOS block. So as a technicality, because ITC was bland as gak there was more LOS block. But now we get forests,craters,etc that have a real effect on the game.
A tank that rolls up to the center and touches an obstructed terrain can see and be seen through whatever holes exist. This still leaves the rest of the army behind and exposes whatever you decide to place there. Sure, if you have 3 PBCs that don't mind taking hits then you'll be happy to be there I'm sure, but it isn't always going to be wise.
And when you're playing the long way and there's a second obstructing piece of terrain you'll open yourself to strikes from behind that terrain.
I don't know why points are scored at the start of the turn. Means that the person going second cannot do anything to affect the game's score.
"It applies equally to the person going first though in the first turn!" I've heard people say here.
You can start with objectives in your deployment zone and score them turn 1. The same cannot be said for any objective that the player going second hasn't got in their final turn.
Objectives should be scored at the end of the turn.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't know why points are scored at the start of the turn. Means that the person going second cannot do anything to affect the game's score.
"It applies equally to the person going first though in the first turn!" I've heard people say here.
You can start with objectives in your deployment zone and score them turn 1. The same cannot be said for any objective that the player going second hasn't got in their final turn.
Objectives should be scored at the end of the turn.
This is the score sheet from TTTitans latest game. Tyranids went first. Tyranids still won overall, but the SW we able to force them off a lot of objectives to pick up a 15. Then there were so few units that holding two became difficult for both players.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't know why points are scored at the start of the turn. Means that the person going second cannot do anything to affect the game's score.
"It applies equally to the person going first though in the first turn!" I've heard people say here.
You can start with objectives in your deployment zone and score them turn 1. The same cannot be said for any objective that the player going second hasn't got in their final turn.
Objectives should be scored at the end of the turn.
This is the score sheet from TTTitans latest game. Tyranids went first. Tyranids still won overall, but the SW we able to force them off a lot of objectives to pick up a 15. Then there were so few units that holding two became difficult for both players.
Looks like the wolves won, 51-49
But I'm not clear what this sample size of 1 has to do with what he said.
But I'm not clear what this sample size of 1 has to do with what he said.
This was a screen before Nids scored While We Stand, which was 15.
It shows that this comment isn't true. At least not always. The SWwas able to affect the game score. He just got pretty gimped by an exploding land raider turn 1 and lost as a result of not being able to achieve his secondaries.
Means that the person going second cannot do anything to affect the game's score.
The sample one, 'Only War,' in the Core rules doesn't seem to have any sort of stipulation to that effect. And the accompanying text, Mission Instructions, (and in the leaked photographs) flatly state the mission determines the victor, so it isn't hiding anywhere else.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: . You know by going second that you will have a single turn where your opponent will have no chance to retaliate. Jump way out and grab those secondaries, there will be no reprisals for doing so, and it may just give you enough points to win the thing.
How so?
If you push out turn 4, your opponent gets turn 5 to retaliate.
If you push out turn 5, there's no command phase in turn 6 to score.
Secondary objectives include options to score due to psychic tests, unit kills, and board control. You can also push to ensure they can't score primary objectives on their last turn by rushing out to either kill them off of objectives or take control from them by simply being close by with objective secured or more models if they aren't obsec themselves.
I play harlequins personally, in every mission I have watched the objectives include several that are center of the table line, but spread apart. So most armies push out to the middle to score and that is exactly what I want them to do. Especially when I always have some line if sight blocking terrain in the center of the table to create asymmetrical firing lines.
The sample one, 'Only War,' in the Core rules doesn't seem to have any sort of stipulation to that effect. And the accompanying text, Mission Instructions, (and in the leaked photographs) flatly state the mission determines the victor, so it isn't hiding anywhere else.
Every battle report I've watched has had the "can't score primary turn one" caveat. Since those are the matched play missions that everyone says are basically standard I just figured that was what was being discussed.
I played almost entirely narrative missions last edition, I won't look to them or the campaign system to say whether or not the game is balanced. Balance is the hallmark of marched play, not the core rules open play mission that comes with the core rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC wasn't perfect by any stretch. But what ITC had finally got right was getting rid of first turn advantage. And it did that by scoring at the end of the turn/battle round and by rolling for going first before deployment, with the person going second deploying second.
The 9th edition missions throw both of these things out the window (along with also allowing stacking secondaries, another odd change that doesn't make any sense to me), which is nearly guaranteed to bring back first turn advantage.
I'd love to be wrong. But it's hard to see how you can make a bunch of changes that increase first turn advantage without, well, increasing first turn advantage.
If it turns out there isn't significant first turn advantage with these missions, I will happily eat a slice of humble pie. I would be very happy to be wrong here.
Remember to apply the context.
You CANNOT use end of round scoring in 9th. In 9th ALL points are scored on objectives and ZERO points are scored on killing.
ITC balanced the first turn advantage on the concept that the first player had the advantage on kills, and the second one had the advantage on objectives. In ITC 50% of points come from killing, 50 % from objectives. This means that you can apply end of round scoring and have good results.
In 9th, 100% of the points come from objectives. If you scored primary at the end of the battle round, going second would be HUGELY advantaged. The player going first would never score his primary points, because the second one just has to decide which units to remove from the enemy points and then just walk a troop on the other ones. BAM! 15-0 on primary! Balance!
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC wasn't perfect by any stretch. But what ITC had finally got right was getting rid of first turn advantage. And it did that by scoring at the end of the turn/battle round and by rolling for going first before deployment, with the person going second deploying second.
The 9th edition missions throw both of these things out the window (along with also allowing stacking secondaries, another odd change that doesn't make any sense to me), which is nearly guaranteed to bring back first turn advantage.
I'd love to be wrong. But it's hard to see how you can make a bunch of changes that increase first turn advantage without, well, increasing first turn advantage.
If it turns out there isn't significant first turn advantage with these missions, I will happily eat a slice of humble pie. I would be very happy to be wrong here.
Remember to apply the context.
You CANNOT use end of round scoring in 9th. In 9th ALL points are scored on objectives and ZERO points are scored on killing.
ITC balanced the first turn advantage on the concept that the first player had the advantage on kills, and the second one had the advantage on objectives. In ITC 50% of points come from killing, 50 % from objectives. This means that you can apply end of round scoring and have good results.
In 9th, 100% of the points come from objectives. If you scored primary at the end of the battle round, going second would be HUGELY advantaged. The player going first would never score his primary points, because the second one just has to decide which units to remove from the enemy points and then just walk a troop on the other ones. BAM! 15-0 on primary! Balance!
Have you actually played 9th edition yet as the probability of actually 15-0 scoring at the end of round 1 is so minimal it's rediculous.
Also people keep sayibg alpha strike isn't a thing because of terrain rules? Seriously how much terrain are you guys using? Yes terrain as reduced the lethality of shooting but your massively missing the scoring alpha strike.
If you can swamp the objectives turn 1, especially with hard to kill obsec bodies the game is often as good as over unless the player going first fluffed their choice of secondary missions.
So far the nastiest list I have seen thrown around is either impulsor obsec spam or infiltrated/deepstike obsec.
They might not last but the design of those lists is to score essentially maximum primary and secondary missions in 3 turns while making maximise score against them a PITA, and they might not be maximum damage dealing lists but they arn't exactlly toothless either.
jivardi wrote: And again, if you deploy to go first, which is a 50/50 chance and you don't get first turn you are in a lot of trouble.
Brian from TT, a competitive player and a playtester of 9th edition for 8 months, said that deploying your army expecting to go second is better than deploying your army expecting to go first.
Seizing, pluses to your roll to choose attack or defend made deploying to go first make more sense.
The big thing with 9th is that moving fast to take objectives early only works if your units can hold. That is why I don't think MSU, at least for obsec units, is very smart. Even 5 Intercessors are going to die fairly easily to a decently kitted out shooting or melee unit.
"Magic box" was stupid. Not sure why TLOS is such an issue. It existed from 2nd edition up to, technically 8th but was houseruled for tournaments.
Question isn't does 5 intercessor die easy. Its does 2x5 die easier than 1x10. Just because you have 2x5 doesn"t mean they must be far. They just are more flexible and tougher as 2x5 than 1x10
Question isn't does 5 intercessor die easy. Its does 2x5 die easier than 1x10. Just because you have 2x5 doesn"t mean they must be far. They just are more flexible and tougher as 2x5 than 1x10
Whilst I'm not exactly following all the stuff for 9th, there are a couple of secondaries (at least) which seem to be based on comparing units killled, so running MSU could have a noticeable impact on what points you give up or are able to gain.
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC wasn't perfect by any stretch. But what ITC had finally got right was getting rid of first turn advantage. And it did that by scoring at the end of the turn/battle round and by rolling for going first before deployment, with the person going second deploying second.
The 9th edition missions throw both of these things out the window (along with also allowing stacking secondaries, another odd change that doesn't make any sense to me), which is nearly guaranteed to bring back first turn advantage.
I'd love to be wrong. But it's hard to see how you can make a bunch of changes that increase first turn advantage without, well, increasing first turn advantage.
If it turns out there isn't significant first turn advantage with these missions, I will happily eat a slice of humble pie. I would be very happy to be wrong here.
Remember to apply the context.
You CANNOT use end of round scoring in 9th. In 9th ALL points are scored on objectives and ZERO points are scored on killing.
ITC balanced the first turn advantage on the concept that the first player had the advantage on kills, and the second one had the advantage on objectives. In ITC 50% of points come from killing, 50 % from objectives. This means that you can apply end of round scoring and have good results.
In 9th, 100% of the points come from objectives. If you scored primary at the end of the battle round, going second would be HUGELY advantaged. The player going first would never score his primary points, because the second one just has to decide which units to remove from the enemy points and then just walk a troop on the other ones. BAM! 15-0 on primary! Balance!
Have you actually played 9th edition yet as the probability of actually 15-0 scoring at the end of round 1 is so minimal it's rediculous.
Also people keep sayibg alpha strike isn't a thing because of terrain rules? Seriously how much terrain are you guys using? Yes terrain as reduced the lethality of shooting but your massively missing the scoring alpha strike.
If you can swamp the objectives turn 1, especially with hard to kill obsec bodies the game is often as good as over unless the player going first fluffed their choice of secondary missions.
So far the nastiest list I have seen thrown around is either impulsor obsec spam or infiltrated/deepstike obsec.
They might not last but the design of those lists is to score essentially maximum primary and secondary missions in 3 turns while making maximise score against them a PITA, and they might not be maximum damage dealing lists but they arn't exactlly toothless either.
That's exactly the point that I'm making, so I guess that you agree with me?
Right now in 9th going 15-0 is really really hard.
But, if the scoring were to be End of Round for it, the second player could snatch all points easily.
No it wouldn't as to you would have to clear your opponent off every objective to hit a 15 to 0 score.
The scoring as it is favours going first as you can dump obsec and a transport to claim the required locations for maximum score.
If your going second you have an almost impossible task in trying to move onto occupied objectives, even if you shoot them off the objectives they have the upper hand turn 2 as they can claim the objectives (uncontested) again while you keep loosing offensive punch turn after turn.
And killing you opponents army always favours going first.
I don't normally worry about the ultra compatitive angle, but I'm not seeing the advantage of going 1st as being as clear cut as some are saying (at least from an objective point of view).
The only scenarios I've seen so far say you can't score primary on 1st turn. I suspect that will be common on all match play scenarios. So charging out and sitting on objectives that you can't score for and giving your opponent easy targets for a turn feels highly risk
Having most objectives may not be that easy, having 2 gives 10 and that may be easy for both players, so rushing may only be giving you a 5 point lead, at a high risk; which if you can't maintain objective parity until the last turn of the game you are not likely gaining much by an early rush which simply puts you into the killing zone for turns 1 and 2 and then the other guy gains back the 5 he lost earlier.
Not all missions may have objectives in no mans land that are easy to rush to, I've only seen 2 missions so far, but I wouldn't be surprised to see 1 or 2 with objectives only inside someones deployment zones ( 1 in each quadrant type of thing). That makes the quick rush turn 1 army a bit moot.
Even if you rush out to the objectives on turn 1 waiting to score in turn 2, the 2nd player can see what he needs to put on them to prevent you scoring, some armies will probably not have too much problem putting more bodies (maybe after shooting or assualting you off) on 1 of the objectives ready for turn 2, neutering the benefit you were looking for.
The issue is you can't move after you shoot going second so you can only claim objectives by assualting.
Not the best idea against some factions.
Also if your opponent is smart with positioning etc they can very much zone you off of objectives 3 throw away scout squads to screen objectives, then 3 12 inch no deepstrike squads in cover within range of the objectives basically screws you from taking those objectives without fly and you have to jump the scouts in your movement phase.
Ice_can wrote: The issue is you can't move after you shoot going second so you can only claim objectives by assualting.
Not the best idea against some factions.
Also if your opponent is smart with positioning etc they can very much zone you off of objectives 3 throw away scout squads to screen objectives, then 3 12 inch no deepstrike squads in cover within range of the objectives basically screws you from taking those objectives without fly and you have to jump the scouts in your movement phase.
Lots of people are making the mistake of assuming that just because going 1st is advantaged, that doesn’t mean it’s auto-win. This is a 51/100 thing, not an 80/100.
This totally matters, and I think the discussion (in a Tactics or Tournament thread, mind) is super warranted—but let’s not exaggerate the effect this has.
The only advantage of going first is body blocking the 2nd player’s movement phase.
The advantage of going second is being able to selectively target units squatting on objectives.
The second doesn’t totally overcome the former, based on tournament results (which was surprising to me).
Is there any point continuing this discussion in the Rumors thread, though?
I have no doubt you can do those things in specific circumstances, but at that point you are really building to a single strategy, 3 throwaway scout squads, probably with other small units to spread out over many objectives that may only give you a 5 pt lead for 1 turn, whilst giving the enemy an easy attrition based secondary who may still easily gain his 45 pts max anyway. From the 2 missions I've have seen so far you only need 1 turn with 'hold most' which can be turn 4 or 5, so long as you hold 2 on your other turns.
Rushing looks useful if you can stop the other person holding 2 objectives for a while, and not collapse midgame so giving up hold most on turn 4/5, but that feels like a tall order in the generic sense.
That feels a very high risk strategy to me, it may work in some scenarios against some opponents, but different scenarios with objectives that are harder to get to, or against a different opponent it feels like very bad match up.
If we are talking tourney type games then my gut feel at the moment is that no one would go with that with an expectation of being at the top end, where you need something that has a chance in all games. Given you only have a 50% chance of even going first (barring some ability tweaks to that roll) which that strategy depends on ...
I'm sure there will be some list somewhere that can do everything - , gurantee 1st turn, rush out, whilst having the toughness to 'hold most' for a few turns and not give up too many secondaries to make up for the risk of maybe only gaining 5 pts a turn. But it feels far from a generic issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth bearing in mind turn 1 is when both players have a lot of CPs to burn for all sorts of funky stuff. The boosted moves to bypass screens or extra hitting power to clear stuff etc, which again in this context feels like the person going 2nd (just before player 1 scores) will have the edge in being selective.
The only advantage of going first is body blocking the 2nd player’s movement phase.
The advantage of going second is being able to selectively target units squatting on objectives.
The second doesn’t totally overcome the former, based on tournament results (which was surprising to me).
Given the choice between having a few extra points on the first scoring turn or a target rich alpha strike I know which I'd take in the general sense, there's another 4 turns to come after this one to make up the points, assuming I'm even behind at all after that.
Ice_can wrote: The issue is you can't move after you shoot going second so you can only claim objectives by assualting.
Not the best idea against some factions.
Also if your opponent is smart with positioning etc they can very much zone you off of objectives 3 throw away scout squads to screen objectives, then 3 12 inch no deepstrike squads in cover within range of the objectives basically screws you from taking those objectives without fly and you have to jump the scouts in your movement phase.
Lots of people are making the mistake of assuming that just because going 1st is advantaged, that doesn’t mean it’s auto-win. This is a 51/100 thing, not an 80/100.
This totally matters, and I think the discussion (in a Tactics or Tournament thread, mind) is super warranted—but let’s not exaggerate the effect this has.
The only advantage of going first is body blocking the 2nd player’s movement phase.
The advantage of going second is being able to selectively target units squatting on objectives.
The second doesn’t totally overcome the former, based on tournament results (which was surprising to me).
Is there any point continuing this discussion in the Rumors thread, though?
Also you get to kill their stuff before it does anything.
My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: So what are we expecting to come next? Do we have any timeline of releases?
We've seen points changes from the one CA book, but do we know anything about what's in the other CA book? (Is that where the missions leaked from?)
Yes, that's where the strikeforce missions were leaked from.
I hope they finally get around to the new fw books.
Not to stoke unrealistic hopes, but something occurred to me. What's to stop GW from putting the Battle Sisters from the limited box in a starter set along with the Necron half of Indomitus? Maybe without the Overlord or something. Would be odd not to do anything with Sisters, what with them featuring so heavily next to Necrons and Marines.
That'd give us a regular starter set, account for the Sisters' presence in the marketing, reuse old assets so there's no additional cost, and it'd give me the starter set I always wanted. Pure win.
As for actual expectations, since any regular starter set could impact the latter half of the Indomitus pre-order period I expect we'll see new codices and the previewed models for Marines and Necrons to go on pre-order next so as to supplement the launch box release before we see anything that might distract from those two factions.
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Ice_can wrote: The issue is you can't move after you shoot going second so you can only claim objectives by assualting.
Not the best idea against some factions.
Also if your opponent is smart with positioning etc they can very much zone you off of objectives 3 throw away scout squads to screen objectives, then 3 12 inch no deepstrike squads in cover within range of the objectives basically screws you from taking those objectives without fly and you have to jump the scouts in your movement phase.
Lots of people are making the mistake of assuming that just because going 1st is advantaged, that doesn’t mean it’s auto-win. This is a 51/100 thing, not an 80/100.
This totally matters, and I think the discussion (in a Tactics or Tournament thread, mind) is super warranted—but let’s not exaggerate the effect this has.
The only advantage of going first is body blocking the 2nd player’s movement phase.
The advantage of going second is being able to selectively target units squatting on objectives.
The second doesn’t totally overcome the former, based on tournament results (which was surprising to me).
Is there any point continuing this discussion in the Rumors thread, though?
51/100? Advantage of going first has never been that small. Closer to 80/100 than 51/100
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
1000% that first sentence. I was really getting frustrated with the schisms in the competitive community. Discussing various units, armies, and tactics for Necrons felt like a waste of time sometimes as folks were addressing totally different metas layered over fundamentally different mission parameters.
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.
I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.
I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.
Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.
All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: So what are we expecting to come next? Do we have any timeline of releases?
We've seen points changes from the one CA book, but do we know anything about what's in the other CA book? (Is that where the missions leaked from?)
Yes, that's where the strikeforce missions were leaked from.
I hope they finally get around to the new fw books.
Not to stoke unrealistic hopes, but something occurred to me. What's to stop GW from putting the Battle Sisters from the limited box in a starter set along with the Necron half of Indomitus? Maybe without the Overlord or something. Would be odd not to do anything with Sisters, what with them featuring so heavily next to Necrons and Marines.
That'd give us a regular starter set, account for the Sisters' presence in the marketing, reuse old assets so there's no additional cost, and it'd give me the starter set I always wanted. Pure win.
As for actual expectations, since any regular starter set could impact the latter half of the Indomitus pre-order period I expect we'll see new codices and the previewed models for Marines and Necrons to go on pre-order next so as to supplement the launch box release before we see anything that might distract from those two factions.
Would be really cool if they did this. I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if they didn’t have it as one of the smaller options like Know no fear etc
Leth wrote: I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.
I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.
I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.
Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.
All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.
This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.
Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.
Leth wrote: I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.
I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.
I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.
Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.
All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.
This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.
Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.
That 'I think it will play out this way in actual games' is pretty much the perfect essence of theory-crafting.
Blast effectiveness is going to depend entirely on what people bring. If they bring frag missiles, then, no, whatever. If wyverns become common place, it matters a whole lot.
jivardi wrote: This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.
Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.
No, you choose which side to deploy on before choosing secondaries.. Actually deploying the armies is several steps after choosing the secondary objectives.
Leth wrote: I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.
I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.
I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.
Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.
All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.
This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.
Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.
Well duh nobody's claiming 1st turn is automatic win. That "it's allright because going first doesn't always win" is just missing the point. If going first has 60% or even more winrate then that's the issue. It should not be 60%. It should not be 55%. It should be 50%
Also might want to check on actual rules before claiming about effects...Secondaries aren't chosen when you claim they are.. You don't even know your deployment zone let alone where people are deployed when you pick your secondaries.
Platuan4th wrote: Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?
GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.
The SM Chapter organization fluff has always been daft anyway. With the exception of specialists like Librarians and Techmarines any battle brother should be able and expected to fill any role. And don't even get me started on the only ten Company's of one hundred Marines nonsense
Platuan4th wrote: Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?
GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.
The SM Chapter organization fluff has always been daft anyway. With the exception of specialists like Librarians and Techmarines any battle brother should be able and expected to fill any role. And don't even get me started on the only ten Company's of one hundred Marines nonsense
Technically, it's up to 110 per Company (10 squads of 10, Commander, 2 LTs, Chaplain, Apothecary, Ancient, Company Champion, 1-3 Dreadnoughts).
HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.
Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.
HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.
Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.
I will say, technically 9th isn't even here yet. Just another week...
Platuan4th wrote: Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?
GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.
I’ll be giving mine 7th and/or 8th squad markings. My Dark Angels absolutely follow the Codex Astartes and are definitely not traitors or reforming to legion strength...
Platuan4th wrote: Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?
GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.
I’ll be giving mine 7th and/or 8th squad markings. My Dark Angels absolutely follow the Codex Astartes and are definitely not traitors or reforming to legion strength...
Mine are going to 8th Company. The 4th already has Squads 7 and 8 done for the Lion.
Platuan4th wrote: Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?
GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.
They cared more before 20 years ago? Because I have gone back and read that old stuff, and man it does not look nearly as good without the rose goggles.
HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.
Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.
I will say, technically 9th isn't even here yet. Just another week...
Which is equally frustraiting as they said we would have new FW books during 8th, I really hope we don't get screwed with books for the wrong edition. Then again maybe wouldn't be the worst if the points were inline with 8th as it might make some of the bugger models approach playable points.
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
The 9th ed General necron thread reminded me that there will be more primaris kits to come off the back of this. The now year old photo of the bikes also showed both a land speeder equivalent and possibly a mid sized tank.
People with space marine allergies take note and brace yourselves.
Honestly I am more excited for the fact it seems that GW want to push bases for all models, including vehicles. I really hope they do that properly and finally make a definitive list of what models should use what bases.
HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.
Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.
I will say, technically 9th isn't even here yet. Just another week...
Which is equally frustraiting as they said we would have new FW books during 8th, I really hope we don't get screwed with books for the wrong edition. Then again maybe wouldn't be the worst if the points were inline with 8th as it might make some of the bugger models approach playable points.
When did they say when they would be released or even which edition of the game they were for? From Warhammer Community:
Since the release of the Forge World indexes a couple of years ago, Warhammer 40,000 has changed a lot. While the indexes were a great reference resource, we want to give you something even better – which is why the Warhammer 40,000 studio embarked on a project to bring you a series of all-new books with updated rules for these units and armies.
To make room for these new, mysterious books, the Forge World indexes will be disappearing, though the rules will remain in use until the new books arrive. We’re letting you know now so you’ve got a chance to pick them up if you’re missing any. We’ll have more news soon, so keep an eye out.
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
The balance in AoS has always been off.
Not anywhere as near as bad as 40k. Even with realm of battle not helping things.
BaconCatBug wrote: Honestly I am more excited for the fact it seems that GW want to push bases for all models, including vehicles. I really hope they do that properly and finally make a definitive list of what models should use what bases.
The bases on leman russes look excessive. And bases for battlewagons, baneblades, or the stompa would have to be huge.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
The balance in AoS has always been off.
You mean GW games At least main studio ones. Specialist games have better balance likely because they aren't designed to stay around so no need to create intentional unbalance to keep changing what sells
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: The 9th ed General necron thread reminded me that there will be more primaris kits to come off the back of this. The now year old photo of the bikes also showed both a land speeder equivalent and possibly a mid sized tank.
People with space marine allergies take note and brace yourselves.
Even without those pics we would know there's still more marines coming. There's always lots of marines on it's way. That's like saying "sun rises from east".
HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.
Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.
Soon? often within 3 months, some times within 3-6 months, just based on general observation anyway. When they talk about soon, it can be months before particular items appear. GW work on long timescales, they can have long-term stuff ready for years before release, other stuff is 'quick' and turns around within 6 months, so soon to them is a long time to us. Remember, people complain to GW when we dont get told whats coming in the future, and then complain again when that stuff doesnt come out instantly
HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.
Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.
Soon? often within 3 months, some times within 3-6 months, just based on general observation anyway. When they talk about soon, it can be months before particular items appear. GW work on long timescales, they can have long-term stuff ready for years before release, other stuff is 'quick' and turns around within 6 months, so soon to them is a long time to us. Remember, people complain to GW when we dont get told whats coming in the future, and then complain again when that stuff doesnt come out instantly
they said they were going to do the full non index rules for FW units in 8th edition we have already had an edition change and nothing more reassuring then early 9th.
Either step up and support the dang products or stop trying to pretend and admit you have No intention of giving them playable rules.
Not sure if it's a typo, nor if it's been mentioned already, but I notice that Heavy Bolt Pistol has a 18" range in those datasheets. (12" in the current codex.)
As someone who actually field (and will field even more when Assault Intercessors are launched) plenty of Heavy Bolt Pistols I'm not even sure if I like it.
18" range on Heavy Bolt-pistols just seems ...weird, and yet another kick in the teeth for regular non-Primaris Marines.
BaconCatBug wrote: Honestly I am more excited for the fact it seems that GW want to push bases for all models, including vehicles. I really hope they do that properly and finally make a definitive list of what models should use what bases.
HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.
Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.
Soon? often within 3 months, some times within 3-6 months, just based on general observation anyway. When they talk about soon, it can be months before particular items appear. GW work on long timescales, they can have long-term stuff ready for years before release, other stuff is 'quick' and turns around within 6 months, so soon to them is a long time to us. Remember, people complain to GW when we dont get told whats coming in the future, and then complain again when that stuff doesnt come out instantly
they said they were going to do the full non index rules for FW units in 8th edition we have already had an edition change and nothing more reassuring then early 9th.
Either step up and support the dang products or stop trying to pretend and admit you have No intention of giving them playable rules.
And the Indexes have been unavailable for several months, even the ebooks. So if someone wants to get a fw model and doesn't already have the Indexes they can't use it. Right now gw is selling models without rules being available for them. I can't imagine they'd let that continue for very long.
BaconCatBug wrote: Honestly I am more excited for the fact it seems that GW want to push bases for all models, including vehicles. I really hope they do that properly and finally make a definitive list of what models should use what bases.
Naturally, this means folks are going to extrapolate meaning.
The core rules are fine with based vehicles
It does stop some 'modelling for advantage' issues, as a base being present means you always measure to the base. (though some datasheets, like the Primaris Hovertanks, explicitly tell you to use hull measurements regardless).
The latest Warcom article confirms that the 40k App will be available this coming friday.
"My Warhammer is also your key to signing into the new Warhammer 40,000 app and accessing all of its invaluable features when it’s released – which we can confirm will be with this Friday! Let the squealing and waving of arms commence."
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: The latest Warcom article confirms that the 40k App will be available this coming friday.
"My Warhammer is also your key to signing into the new Warhammer 40,000 app and accessing all of its invaluable features when it’s released – which we can confirm will be with this Friday! Let the squealing and waving of arms commence."
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: The latest Warcom article confirms that the 40k App will be available this coming friday.
"My Warhammer is also your key to signing into the new Warhammer 40,000 app and accessing all of its invaluable features when it’s released – which we can confirm will be with this Friday! Let the squealing and waving of arms commence."
And the Mywarhammer website has promptly crashed. Good start.
Companies who have been launching hype releases every other year struggle to keep their servers running during the initial onslaughts, did you really think GW would fare any better?
Being able to mitigate such huge spikes is quite expensive, for most companies the damage done by a day one crash doesn't even come close to the cost it takes to prevent something like that.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: The latest Warcom article confirms that the 40k App will be available this coming friday.
"My Warhammer is also your key to signing into the new Warhammer 40,000 app and accessing all of its invaluable features when it’s released – which we can confirm will be with this Friday! Let the squealing and waving of arms commence."
And the Mywarhammer website has promptly crashed. Good start.
Companies who have been launching hype releases every other year struggle to keep their servers running during the initial onslaughts, did you really think GW would fare any better?
Being able to mitigate such huge spikes is quite expensive, for most companies the damage done by a day one crash doesn't even come close to the cost it takes to prevent something like that.
Then really the sensible thing for them to have done is to have launched this morning BST, rather than waiting until all the yanks were awake too. That way demand would have been staggered.
I got access to MyWarhammer just fine, but for now it's just… empty? I created an account, and I can give them my full name, change my password and opt in to receive email ads.
And I have links to the current GW webstore, FW webstore and WarCom.
They didn't say anything about merging current accounts with MyWarhammer accounts?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I got access to MyWarhammer just fine, but for now it's just… empty? I created an account, and I can give them my full name, change my password and opt in to receive email ads.
And I have links to the current GW webstore, FW webstore and WarCom.
They didn't say anything about merging current accounts with MyWarhammer accounts?
They sort of do; one interpretation of the coming soon section indicates that account merger is a future planned feature. Maybe.
Ideally, My Warhammer would become a central account covering GW, FW, BL, and all apps and games. Even more ideally, the £3.99 sub would be a single payment for all ‘premium’ features across each app and site.
It would be perfect if they 1. Allowed 2fa and 2. Ditched their silly password rules in favour of something actually secure like a 20 character minimum.
Yeah, the lack of an account merger is a bit of a weird thing not to have ready for launch.
So I'll just have to use a different account to buy White Dwarf digitally, a different account on the web store, and a different account in the 40k app until they fix it?
(Hey, GW, if I'm going to do this can I please save my paint inventory from the paint app to it? Because not having a way to transfer it between Android devices is a huge PITA...)
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Sadly merging tech data from different account on different systems (quite probably programmed by different teams) is a recipe for disaster
as many banks, government departments, hospitals etc have found out to their cost
As if that’s not bad enough, unmerging them later is worse as we discovered last year when someone used the pre-merger account numbers to pull the user data, which was fine, then used the pre-merger account table row ids to pull the balances, which only got the right values by sheer coincidence…
AduroT wrote: Didn’t I hear Forgeworld lost one of their main dudes or he was otherwise incapacitated?
You're thinking of the Horus Heresy rules team.
Would this be about Alan Bligh? The guy seemed like the heart of FW, I don't think they ever recovered from his loss.
The dude was great. He was literally writing the next imperial armor book on his own time. Fires over cyraxus
They even previewed for a release soon at a worlds event and then he died and the book became vaporware. He wasnt just Horus herey . This book was making rules for 40k for tau, And a lot of ad mech and some heresy marine stuff that never got converted. Lord knows if the new index is taking that initiative.
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
The balance in AoS has always been off.
Not anywhere as near as bad as 40k. Even with realm of battle not helping things.
Quite often as bad as 40k, and often even much worse. There was a significant period where 40k was, at least in faction winrates, reaching almost 50/50 balance in most factions. Then space marines happened. This was around the time that slaanesh was just crunching every single AoS army and living around 68ish winrates (If my memory of their winrates are correct). But I don't recall a time where AoS winrates are tracked that some faction isn't overperforming dramatically. The data on AoS is, admittedly, less extensive than 40k's.
AduroT wrote: Didn’t I hear Forgeworld lost one of their main dudes or he was otherwise incapacitated?
You're thinking of the Horus Heresy rules team.
Would this be about Alan Bligh? The guy seemed like the heart of FW, I don't think they ever recovered from his loss.
Three years is a long time to not have some return to normalcy for Forgeworld.
I think it's more likely that Alan Bligh was such an amazing creator that he papered over all the flaws in forge world's management by just shouldering the workload whenever other members of forgeworld dropped the ball, or got too focused on designing the next tank based off a ww2 or ww1 vehicle.
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
The balance in AoS has always been off.
Not anywhere as near as bad as 40k. Even with realm of battle not helping things.
Quite often as bad as 40k, and often even much worse. There was a significant period where 40k was, at least in faction winrates, reaching almost 50/50 balance in most factions. Then space marines happened. This was around the time that slaanesh was just crunching every single AoS army and living around 68ish winrates (If my memory of their winrates are correct). But I don't recall a time where AoS winrates are tracked that some faction isn't overperforming dramatically. The data on AoS is, admittedly, less extensive than 40k's.
Faction winrates are a screwy mechanic to judge balance by in both 40k and AoS simply due to the absolutely enormous gaps in skill that exist even at a tournament level. Even then, I straight up don't believe you that it was anywhere near 50/50 in most factions unless by 'most factions' you meant 'eldar and imperial soup'.
If you look at top 16 and top 32 finishes in big events, Sigmar is and has always been worlds better balanced. Even at Slaanesh's strongest point they were never more than 3 out of the top 16 (even if they did win fairly often) meanwhile marines in general but IH specifically were constantly 10-12 out of 16 for the entire supplement era. It also was capping out at 80% faction winrate before the the first round of nerfs came in and knocked them down to ravenguard's roughly 65-70% winrate (sound familiar?). Slaanesh was the the most OP army release we saw in AoS2 and it was nowhere near as bad as Ironhands and was only on par with post nerf IH and RG Asscents lists before recieving its own round of nerfs that leveled it back off far more effectively than marine nerfs have. Especially with 9th giving marines even more tools to stand above the pack.
You also have the fact that you'll see representation from 10-12 different factions in the top 16 of a Sigmar event whereas you're lucky to have 3-4 factions in a 40k event. This is the bigger problem with 40k balance vs AoS balance. Flesh Eater Courts might be a couple percentage points behind Slaanesh, but taking FEC to a tournament doesn't effectively lock you out of the top 16 the way taking Admech, or Grey Knights, or Nids, or Harlequins, or Necrons, or Space Wolves, or Blood Angels did.
TBF, I think the floor of how bad a faction can be is much lower in AoS. There were/are factions that bringing to a tournament did not just lock you out of the top few dozen places; they locked you out of anything higher than the bottom third. However, one could argue that such factions are not 'real' factions in the sense that they are not meant to compare to those with a battletome (AoS for 'codex').
Registered, but still waiting on the verification e-mail to arrive despite hitting resend a few times. Looks like teething troubles with the site as trying to return to the homepage gives an error!
Registered, but still waiting on the verification e-mail to arrive despite hitting resend a few times. Looks like teething troubles with the site as trying to return to the homepage gives an error!
Yeah. Hopefully GW doesn't try to push their app as some sort of tournament scoring system as well in future. Dread to imagine how badly their servers would cope with it...
Drakheart wrote: Registered, but still waiting on the verification e-mail to arrive despite hitting resend a few times. Looks like teething troubles with the site as trying to return to the homepage gives an error!
Drakheart wrote: Registered, but still waiting on the verification e-mail to arrive despite hitting resend a few times. Looks like teething troubles with the site as trying to return to the homepage gives an error!
Yeah I registered over 12 hours ago. No E-mail.
The confirmation emails are being sent by "no-reply" <no-reply@mywarhammer.com>, so they're blocked by many spam filters. Adding that sender to your safe senders list and hitting re-send may fix the issue (depending on what level it's being filtered).
Drakheart wrote: Registered, but still waiting on the verification e-mail to arrive despite hitting resend a few times. Looks like teething troubles with the site as trying to return to the homepage gives an error!
Yeah I registered over 12 hours ago. No E-mail.
The confirmation emails are being sent by "no-reply" <no-reply@mywarhammer.com>, so they're blocked by many spam filters. Adding that sender to your safe senders list and hitting re-send may fix the issue (depending on what level it's being filtered).
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
The balance in AoS has always been off.
Not anywhere as near as bad as 40k. Even with realm of battle not helping things.
Quite often as bad as 40k, and often even much worse. There was a significant period where 40k was, at least in faction winrates, reaching almost 50/50 balance in most factions. Then space marines happened. This was around the time that slaanesh was just crunching every single AoS army and living around 68ish winrates (If my memory of their winrates are correct). But I don't recall a time where AoS winrates are tracked that some faction isn't overperforming dramatically. The data on AoS is, admittedly, less extensive than 40k's.
Faction winrates are a screwy mechanic to judge balance by in both 40k and AoS simply due to the absolutely enormous gaps in skill that exist even at a tournament level. Even then, I straight up don't believe you that it was anywhere near 50/50 in most factions unless by 'most factions' you meant 'eldar and imperial soup'.
If you look at top 16 and top 32 finishes in big events, Sigmar is and has always been worlds better balanced. Even at Slaanesh's strongest point they were never more than 3 out of the top 16 (even if they did win fairly often) meanwhile marines in general but IH specifically were constantly 10-12 out of 16 for the entire supplement era. It also was capping out at 80% faction winrate before the the first round of nerfs came in and knocked them down to ravenguard's roughly 65-70% winrate (sound familiar?). Slaanesh was the the most OP army release we saw in AoS2 and it was nowhere near as bad as Ironhands and was only on par with post nerf IH and RG Asscents lists before recieving its own round of nerfs that leveled it back off far more effectively than marine nerfs have. Especially with 9th giving marines even more tools to stand above the pack.
You also have the fact that you'll see representation from 10-12 different factions in the top 16 of a Sigmar event whereas you're lucky to have 3-4 factions in a 40k event. This is the bigger problem with 40k balance vs AoS balance. Flesh Eater Courts might be a couple percentage points behind Slaanesh, but taking FEC to a tournament doesn't effectively lock you out of the top 16 the way taking Admech, or Grey Knights, or Nids, or Harlequins, or Necrons, or Space Wolves, or Blood Angels did.
You don't have to believe me. Look it up.
40kstatscenter. It has the data.
To make clear, in LVO 2019, the only faction that had a winrate approaching 60 was ynnari.
From there the majority of factions in the game were sitting 45 to 55 percent pure winrates, and actually much more generous faction winrates (EG winrates not counting mirror matches, though this pushes craftworlds eldar up, in that they made up a portion of the ynnari lists too).
The only faction overperforming was eldar, and they were not cracking 60 percent at least. Necrons, grey knights, tyranids, and space wolves were under performing. Blood angels had a strangely low pure winrate, but a significantly higher faction winrate.
This is a better balance than AoS has ever had, far as I can tell.
Asmodai wrote: The confirmation emails are being sent by "no-reply" <no-reply@mywarhammer.com>, so they're blocked by many spam filters. Adding that sender to your safe senders list and hitting re-send may fix the issue (depending on what level it's being filtered).
I registered when the first announcements came out, but had no email. Not in spam, nor elsewhere.
Pressing the 'resend' button on the screen will only clog up their system even more, so I gave it a day before trying that.
But, I can still log into the website, so the sign-up worked.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF, I think the floor of how bad a faction can be is much lower in AoS. There were/are factions that bringing to a tournament did not just lock you out of the top few dozen places; they locked you out of anything higher than the bottom third. However, one could argue that such factions are not 'real' factions in the sense that they are not meant to compare to those with a battletome (AoS for 'codex').
40k has that too. Renegades and Heretics, Corsairs, and inquisition. The bottom is just as low in 40k, all that changes is what people do and do not consider a 'faction'.
Also, not for nothing but almost every sigmar faction in the game has either gotten an update that makes them on par with everything else (cities of sigmar, LoN) or has been retired from competitive play (bretonnia, tomb kings).
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF, I think the floor of how bad a faction can be is much lower in AoS. There were/are factions that bringing to a tournament did not just lock you out of the top few dozen places; they locked you out of anything higher than the bottom third. However, one could argue that such factions are not 'real' factions in the sense that they are not meant to compare to those with a battletome (AoS for 'codex').
40k has that too. Renegades and Heretics, Corsairs, and inquisition. The bottom is just as low in 40k, all that changes is what people do and do not consider a 'faction'.
Also, not for nothing but almost every sigmar faction in the game has either gotten an update that makes them on par with everything else (cities of sigmar, LoN) or has been retired from competitive play (bretonnia, tomb kings).
Despite the buzz, CoS never competed with the big dogs.
Again, there are currently multiple factions with 60 plus percent winrates in AoS, and a lot of factions sub 45 percent. And this has always been the case
oni wrote: My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.
That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.
Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.
As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA.. I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved. There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut. Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.
Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.
The balance in AoS has always been off.
Not anywhere as near as bad as 40k. Even with realm of battle not helping things.
Quite often as bad as 40k, and often even much worse. There was a significant period where 40k was, at least in faction winrates, reaching almost 50/50 balance in most factions. Then space marines happened. This was around the time that slaanesh was just crunching every single AoS army and living around 68ish winrates (If my memory of their winrates are correct). But I don't recall a time where AoS winrates are tracked that some faction isn't overperforming dramatically. The data on AoS is, admittedly, less extensive than 40k's.
Faction winrates are a screwy mechanic to judge balance by in both 40k and AoS simply due to the absolutely enormous gaps in skill that exist even at a tournament level. Even then, I straight up don't believe you that it was anywhere near 50/50 in most factions unless by 'most factions' you meant 'eldar and imperial soup'.
If you look at top 16 and top 32 finishes in big events, Sigmar is and has always been worlds better balanced. Even at Slaanesh's strongest point they were never more than 3 out of the top 16 (even if they did win fairly often) meanwhile marines in general but IH specifically were constantly 10-12 out of 16 for the entire supplement era. It also was capping out at 80% faction winrate before the the first round of nerfs came in and knocked them down to ravenguard's roughly 65-70% winrate (sound familiar?). Slaanesh was the the most OP army release we saw in AoS2 and it was nowhere near as bad as Ironhands and was only on par with post nerf IH and RG Asscents lists before recieving its own round of nerfs that leveled it back off far more effectively than marine nerfs have. Especially with 9th giving marines even more tools to stand above the pack.
You also have the fact that you'll see representation from 10-12 different factions in the top 16 of a Sigmar event whereas you're lucky to have 3-4 factions in a 40k event. This is the bigger problem with 40k balance vs AoS balance. Flesh Eater Courts might be a couple percentage points behind Slaanesh, but taking FEC to a tournament doesn't effectively lock you out of the top 16 the way taking Admech, or Grey Knights, or Nids, or Harlequins, or Necrons, or Space Wolves, or Blood Angels did.
You don't have to believe me. Look it up.
40kstatscenter. It has the data.
To make clear, in LVO 2019, the only faction that had a winrate approaching 60 was ynnari.
From there the majority of factions in the game were sitting 45 to 55 percent pure winrates, and actually much more generous faction winrates (EG winrates not counting mirror matches, though this pushes craftworlds eldar up, in that they made up a portion of the ynnari lists too).
The only faction overperforming was eldar, and they were not cracking 60 percent at least. Necrons, grey knights, tyranids, and space wolves were under performing. Blood angels had a strangely low pure winrate, but a significantly higher faction winrate.
This is a better balance than AoS has ever had, far as I can tell.
Not really, it's about what we were at before slaanesh came out and pretty close to what the LVO 2020 had going too.
Also, look at the 8. 4 were Castellan Lists, 3 were eldar, 1 chaos soup, 1 tau. Meanwhile a GT for sigmar in the Slaanesh era was 1. Deepkin 2. Slaanesh 3. Skaven. 4.Daughters 5.sylvaneth 6. Blades of Khorne 7. Slaanesh 8. Deepkin. That's 6 factions vs 3 factions and 1 model.
Then compare that to LVO 2020: 40k had less factions in their top 16 than Sigmar did in their top 6. Go out to top 16 on Sigmar and they had as many different factions as 40k had marine lists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF, I think the floor of how bad a faction can be is much lower in AoS. There were/are factions that bringing to a tournament did not just lock you out of the top few dozen places; they locked you out of anything higher than the bottom third. However, one could argue that such factions are not 'real' factions in the sense that they are not meant to compare to those with a battletome (AoS for 'codex').
40k has that too. Renegades and Heretics, Corsairs, and inquisition. The bottom is just as low in 40k, all that changes is what people do and do not consider a 'faction'.
Also, not for nothing but almost every sigmar faction in the game has either gotten an update that makes them on par with everything else (cities of sigmar, LoN) or has been retired from competitive play (bretonnia, tomb kings).
Despite the buzz, CoS never competed with the big dogs.
Again, there are currently multiple factions with 60 plus percent winrates in AoS, and a lot of factions sub 45 percent. And this has always been the case
CoS competed just fine, even took a couple of events after the book. And what do you mean 'currently'? No ones playing any tournament games, how you getting 60% of 0?
So let's say those stats are true, why isn't that reflected in any major events or in player attitudes? Why do we see Beasts of Chaos, blades of khorne, stormcast, and other B and C tier armies 1. Being played and 2. finishing in the top brackets when playing grey knights or Nids gets apologetic looks and pats on the shoulder and threats to quit the game if their PA isn't crazy OP?
You're really focused on this 'average winrate' stat, which is fine but it's not anywhere near the full picture. The fact that the stat showed marines at 80%, which makes the IH supplement easily the worst bit of balance either game has EVER seen, is also getting glossed over a bit but that's neither here nor there.
Is there a way to quote just the part of a post that is the person's message without manually deleting literally all the old posts? Cause these chains can get ridiculous.
Aaaaanyways, The top X is not the best way to examine game balance, particularly for anyone not literally in the top 8. You're (and I'm not) not as good at tony or nick or whoever.
The best way to check balance is winrates, how often people with an idea to compete, but not the time and effort and money invested like the absolute top folks can win with an army.
Well, money was nice to have for a while. Looks like I’m going to be buying the box for all the cool models, and then all the individual kits for even more cool models.
Aww, poor guy. He has to fight with pistol and sword because he can't reach his shield, and his buddies won't help because it's too much fun to see him struggle.
Geifer wrote: Aww, poor guy. He has to fight with pistol and sword because he can't reach his shield, and his buddies won't help because it's too much fun to see him struggle.
Bah. Its Cawl-tech. If he does the right sort of Spin-kick motion they shield will automatically release from the backpack and drop right on his arm when he swings back around, instantly killing his opponent in the process.
The whole pistol+sword+shield looks incredibly impractical, until you realize those guys are ultramarines.
We all know that Ultramarines "defeated" the tyranids on Maccrage and that since then they have kept worshiping the two-armed emperor, so of course they can deal easily with three weapons and only two arms, and I don't mean by using a hidden third arm, of course!
Registered, but still waiting on the verification e-mail to arrive despite hitting resend a few times. Looks like teething troubles with the site as trying to return to the homepage gives an error!
Yeah. Hopefully GW doesn't try to push their app as some sort of tournament scoring system as well in future. Dread to imagine how badly their servers would cope with it...
Best Coast Pairings shouldn't be a high bar to exceed...
Now I'm hoping that Bladeguard Veterans can be in units of more than 3 when the full datasheet becomes available.
Hmm. There are only three of them. and GW's past precedent in doing 3 model primaris units...
It might go for the 3/6 model of aggressors and the two flyer units.
I first saw this on a Facebook Space Marine group, the poster there said it was from a facebook link to an official GW promotional page. That makes sense given the clarity of the image. I would expect this lot to be "revealed" on Saturday as reveals have already been promised.
As an aside is that mangled bit of wall behind the Bladeguard a new piece?
I first saw this on a Facebook Space Marine group, the poster there said it was from a facebook link to an official GW promotional page. That makes sense given the clarity of the image. I would expect this lot to be "revealed" on Saturday as reveals have already been promised.
As an aside is that mangled bit of wall behind the Bladeguard a new piece?
Yep, it looks like there is at least one (maybe more) new pieces of Imperial City terrain on the way.
We’re also taking this opportunity to tweak the Power Ratings of a few units in light of the new edition’s rules. We’ll be making those free to download next month, so stay tuned for the latest updates.
We’re also taking this opportunity to tweak the Power Ratings of a few units in light of the new edition’s rules. We’ll be making those free to download next month, so stay tuned for the latest updates.
Power level changes? Only time I ever saw one of those was when they made the Malanthropes PL 5 early in 8th....
We knew those were coming though. They said that there would be an initial Power adjustment and then they'd start doing them once or so a year or as new books dropped to bring other stuff in line.
Voss wrote: Other than the importance of objectives, that sounds like a lot of wibbly-wobbly non-committal nonsense.
Except the alpha strike bit. That doesn't even make sense with a coin flip after deployment.
Honestly though I give credit to that guy. He actually came out with an honest prediction while the other two were flowery non-statements. He may be wrong but he has my respect for putting himself out there in a way that could be. He didn't bs us like the other two.
Voss wrote: Other than the importance of objectives, that sounds like a lot of wibbly-wobbly non-committal nonsense.
Except the alpha strike bit. That doesn't even make sense with a coin flip after deployment.
Honestly though I give credit to that guy. He actually came out with an honest prediction while the other two were flowery non-statements. He may be wrong but he has my respect for putting himself out there in a way that could be. He didn't bs us like the other two.
You have a point with that, though the 'focus on objectives' is actually useful advice from the second guy, though it admittedly then turns into pure advertising (complete with links). Reece is the only one who went with pure waffling.
Voss wrote: Other than the importance of objectives, that sounds like a lot of wibbly-wobbly non-committal nonsense.
Except the alpha strike bit. That doesn't even make sense with a coin flip after deployment.
8th ed was at it's most alpha strikery when 1st turn was rolled after deployement. Was reduced when people knew who is going first during deployment. Makes perfect sense that when that comes back it goes toward what it was then
Voss wrote: Other than the importance of objectives, that sounds like a lot of wibbly-wobbly non-committal nonsense.
Except the alpha strike bit. That doesn't even make sense with a coin flip after deployment.
8th ed was at it's most alpha strikery when 1st turn was rolled after deployement. Was reduced when people knew who is going first during deployment. Makes perfect sense that when that comes back it goes toward what it was then
Not really.
Aside from the very early, 1st turn Deepstrike days, it's never been more alpha strike-heavy than in the last couple months of ITC when they removed seize.
I suspect that if PL was widely used in matched play then PL data would also not be free.
For now it is clear that GW believes putting points behind a pay wall drives revanue, while PL does not. Which in itself seems to indicate they know which is used more frequently by the community to design lists, guide purchase decisions, and assess balance and value.
PL is not used in matched play for list building but it is used there for tactical reserves so it has a need for revision as most are wayyyyy out of whack.
I suspect that if PL was widely used in matched play then PL data would also not be free.
For now it is clear that GW believes putting points behind a pay wall drives revanue, while PL does not. Which in itself seems to indicate they know which is used more frequently by the community to design lists, guide purchase decisions, and assess balance and value.
I was a little shocked by the AoSFAQs with points revisions. Could have done the same thing with 9th, and really should going forward.
Not many people are going to want to wait until summer or even winter 2021 for the next round of adjustments if their relevant codex isn't in the next 6-9 months.
Almost none uses PL so putting them out there for free isn't losing them bank and lets their shills go, "s-see! The old GW would never give anything out for free! What do you mean it's useless? Literally everyone I know uses PL!"
Almost none uses PL so putting them out there for free isn't losing them bank and lets their shills go, "s-see! The old GW would never give anything out for free! What do you mean it's useless? Literally everyone I know uses PL!"
Or their entire campaign ruleset is based on PL so would be a bit weird not to update it? I love that calling people a shill is the new cool kids term for white knight, what a time to be alive people have to try and be so edgy.
Eh. White knight still sounds edgier and more kiddy than shill.
'Shill' has a cultural legacy, while 'white knight' is still just emo kids posturing about virtue and nobility being 'lame'
buddha wrote: PL is not used in matched play for list building but it is used there for tactical reserves so it has a need for revision as most are wayyyyy out of whack.
I will enjoy my last couple of games with PL1 grot squads before they get changed to...god, they'll probably be revised to PL3 :^) yep, that sure does seem to make sense on the face of it, yes sir.
These Bladeguard Veterans look awesome! Wait a minute… these guys aren't in the Indomitus box – must be some sort of time dilation caused by a warp anomaly...
Almost none uses PL so putting them out there for free isn't losing them bank and lets their shills go, "s-see! The old GW would never give anything out for free! What do you mean it's useless? Literally everyone I know uses PL!"
Or their entire campaign ruleset is based on PL so would be a bit weird not to update it? I love that calling people a shill is the new cool kids term for white knight, what a time to be alive people have to try and be so edgy.
A Shill isn't the same as a White Knight. Check the definition of Shill.
I suspect that if PL was widely used in matched play then PL data would also not be free.
For now it is clear that GW believes putting points behind a pay wall drives revanue, while PL does not. Which in itself seems to indicate they know which is used more frequently by the community to design lists, guide purchase decisions, and assess balance and value.
I was a little shocked by the AoSFAQs with points revisions. Could have done the same thing with 9th, and really should going forward.
Not many people are going to want to wait until summer or even winter 2021 for the next round of adjustments if their relevant codex isn't in the next 6-9 months.
You shouldn't have been as they did the same thing last year for those armies that didn't make the cutoff for the book. From Warhammer Community:
Like in last year’s edition, we’ll be ensuring that armies released after the General’s Handbook went to print (that’s everything since Cities of Sigmar) will have their matched play profiles updated for free with a set of downloads in the very near future.
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Voss wrote: [spoiler]
I was a little shocked by the AoSFAQs with points revisions. Could have done the same thing with 9th, and really should going forward.
Not many people are going to want to wait until summer or even winter 2021 for the next round of adjustments if their relevant codex isn't in the next 6-9 months.
You shouldn't have been as they did the same thing last year for those armies that didn't make the cutoff for the book.
Yeah, I don't keep that close an eye on those things. It just seems a universal thing for AoSFAQs, whenever they started doing it.
Whenever I start getting interested in AoS, they give me reasons not to be (early Lumineth models vs later reveals, or the nagging Old World on square bases thing, which is keeping me from expanding my WFB armies into AoS).
I also expect CA2021 in December, but frankly don't see the need for it. I'm also not terribly convinced that there won't be pushback on keeping the new point values around for that long.
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Question is which December
a book in December 2020 makes no sense it would go into printing now
and December 2021 makes it 1.5 years until we get any corrections to the failures of the release
Since we're referring to CA2021, the question of which December pretty much solves itself.
2020 isn't workable, as that already exists and releases in 3 days, and as you note, there wouldn't be time to get it done before this December.
General Kroll wrote: Don’t understand why people are getting so wound up about PL. If you don’t personally play PL games, what does it matter?
Because several things in the ruleset rely on PL, even if you don't use them for army building. Reinforcements, for example. Its worth knowing if reserving your big unit of bikers is going to cost you 2 CP or 3 to bring on the table.
Oh and I haven’t used points since seventh edition. Not everyone are hyper competitive tournament players.
That's... nice to know, I guess? Its a complete non-sequitur, since people who aren't 'hyper competitive tournament players' have been using points in 40k since 1989 or so. (There was a points formula in the original RT rulebook). And points based army lists swiftly followed.
Almost none uses PL so putting them out there for free isn't losing them bank and lets their shills go, "s-see! The old GW would never give anything out for free! What do you mean it's useless? Literally everyone I know uses PL!"
Or their entire campaign ruleset is based on PL so would be a bit weird not to update it? I love that calling people a shill is the new cool kids term for white knight, what a time to be alive people have to try and be so edgy.
A Shill isn't the same as a White Knight. Check the definition of Shill.
Shill: "an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others." Via Oxford dictionary.
White knight via Colins dictionary: "A white knight is a person or an organization that rescues a company from difficulties such as financial problems or an unwelcome takeover bid."
So in context for these forums a white knight is someone buying GW stock to prevent them going under and a shill is someone who financially benefits convincing others to buy from GW.
Well done Dakka on using out of context terminology.
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Question is which December
a book in December 2020 makes no sense it would go into printing now
and December 2021 makes it 1.5 years until we get any corrections to the failures of the release
Since we're referring to CA2021, the question of which December pretty much solves itself.
2020 isn't workable, as that already exists and releases in 3 days, and as you note, there wouldn't be time to get it done before this December.
General Kroll wrote: Don’t understand why people are getting so wound up about PL. If you don’t personally play PL games, what does it matter?
Because several things in the ruleset rely on PL, even if you don't use them for army building. Reinforcements, for example. Its worth knowing if reserving your big unit of bikers is going to cost you 2 CP or 3 to bring on the table.
Oh and I haven’t used points since seventh edition. Not everyone are hyper competitive tournament players.
That's... nice to know, I guess? Its a complete non-sequitur, since people who aren't 'hyper competitive tournament players' have been using points in 40k since 1989 or so. (There was a points formula in the original RT rulebook). And points based army lists swiftly followed.
I mentioned it because there seem to be people here who are ignorant of the fact that plenty of people DO play using PL. I’d be happy playing using either system, but most people I know can’t be arsed to spend time squeezing every last point out of a list. We aren’t too bothered about balance aside from a vague need for us not to be overwhelmingly one sided.
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Question is which December
a book in December 2020 makes no sense it would go into printing now
and December 2021 makes it 1.5 years until we get any corrections to the failures of the release
Since we already have the Chapter Approved for 2020, it would be for December 2021.
I don’t know why people are assuming GW is going to follow the old 8th edition Chapter approved and point adjustment timeline...
Since CA2020 comes out this july I would think GW just flipped the updated so instead of a spring points faq it will just get moved to November/December. And we get a new CA2021 next June/July...
This point adjustment algorithm was kind of a mess and completely looks like it was pushed thru when it wasn’t ready and it’s going to need a lot of adjustments to fix it. GW will just charge us for it in a winter faq with some extra crusade missions thrown in
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Question is which December
a book in December 2020 makes no sense it would go into printing now
and December 2021 makes it 1.5 years until we get any corrections to the failures of the release
Since we already have the Chapter Approved for 2020, it would be for December 2021.
I don’t know why people are assuming GW is going to follow the old 8th edition Chapter approved and point adjustment timeline...
Since CA2020 comes out this july I would think GW just flipped the updated so instead of a spring points faq it will just get moved to November/December. And we get a new CA2021 next June/July...
This point adjustment algorithm was kind of a mess and completely looks like it was pushed thru when it wasn’t ready and it’s going to need a lot of adjustments to fix it. GW will just charge us for it in a winter faq with some extra crusade missions thrown in
Because leaving it as a July release has it too close to the General's Handbook release. It makes more sense to move the Chapter Approved release back to December for 2021 as it will (potentially) give them some feedback from the early year conventions like the Las Vegas Open, AdeptiCon, etc.
The free rules pdf and power levels are obviously there for beginners and casual players who just want a basic game, and fast. Charging for those would be a sure way to drive away such custom.
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Question is which December
a book in December 2020 makes no sense it would go into printing now
and December 2021 makes it 1.5 years until we get any corrections to the failures of the release
Since we're referring to CA2021, the question of which December pretty much solves itself.
2020 isn't workable, as that already exists and releases in 3 days, and as you note, there wouldn't be time to get it done before this December.
General Kroll wrote: Don’t understand why people are getting so wound up about PL. If you don’t personally play PL games, what does it matter?
Because several things in the ruleset rely on PL, even if you don't use them for army building. Reinforcements, for example. Its worth knowing if reserving your big unit of bikers is going to cost you 2 CP or 3 to bring on the table.
Oh and I haven’t used points since seventh edition. Not everyone are hyper competitive tournament players.
That's... nice to know, I guess? Its a complete non-sequitur, since people who aren't 'hyper competitive tournament players' have been using points in 40k since 1989 or so. (There was a points formula in the original RT rulebook). And points based army lists swiftly followed.
I mentioned it because there seem to be people here who are ignorant of the fact that plenty of people DO play using PL. I’d be happy playing using either system, but most people I know can’t be arsed to spend time squeezing every last point out of a list. We aren’t too bothered about balance aside from a vague need for us not to be overwhelmingly one sided.
Which is fine? But you specifically asked why people cared, and there is actually an answer- various rules sections use PL.
And then you followed up not with 'my buddies and I do fine without points' but with blather about 'hypercompetitive,' which rather gave the impression of 'stop liking things I don't like'
General Kroll wrote: Don’t understand why people are getting so wound up about PL. If you don’t personally play PL games, what does it matter?
Oh and I haven’t used points since seventh edition. Not everyone are hyper competitive tournament players.
Or just...the vast majority of people who play 40k?
last poll on dakka was pretty in favour of pts.
40K players on dakka ≠ majority of people who play 40K.
People throw this around a lot. Is there any real evidence or indications that it is true?
Since there isn't any way to survey the majority, no. And only entity that could even partially (because many people don't play only in GW stores or events) do so is GW, and they never tried.
For it to be really true, you'd have to accept that people who used to play 40k before PL was a thing stopped playing in the manner they were used to, and new players never had any contact with people who kept playing the way they used to, and never tried points themselves.
At best 'how people play' is a complete unknown.
Edit: I'm presuming the question is about points vs PL, not dakka is smaller than the majority, because I can't see why anyone would care about the latter (or not come to the obvious conclusion about a subset)
People throw this around a lot. Is there any real evidence or indications that it is true?
How many people are on Dakka? How many are 40k players?
We may not know for sure how many play 40k, but surely we know how many people are on Dakka at least, and if it doesn't reach some plausible looking number we can probably discount them being the majority straight away.
I've seen a few guesses at number of 40k players worldwide, and they are just guesses extrapolated from what facts we do supposedly know, and the lowest guess seems to be several hundred thousand.
People throw this around a lot. Is there any real evidence or indications that it is true?
Let me put it this way; I've been told to shut up and go away from various tactica-threads because I advocated units and tactics that was less competitive than different units and tactics.
The average competitiveness among Dakkadakka-users is way higher than the average competitiveness of 40k-players in general.
I've honestly been to tournaments where the participants where less competitive (excluding the handful of people who where there to WAAC and nothing else.)
I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to bet everything I own on that being the case.
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Question is which December
a book in December 2020 makes no sense it would go into printing now
and December 2021 makes it 1.5 years until we get any corrections to the failures of the release
Since we're referring to CA2021, the question of which December pretty much solves itself.
2020 isn't workable, as that already exists and releases in 3 days, and as you note, there wouldn't be time to get it done before this December.
General Kroll wrote: Don’t understand why people are getting so wound up about PL. If you don’t personally play PL games, what does it matter?
Because several things in the ruleset rely on PL, even if you don't use them for army building. Reinforcements, for example. Its worth knowing if reserving your big unit of bikers is going to cost you 2 CP or 3 to bring on the table.
Oh and I haven’t used points since seventh edition. Not everyone are hyper competitive tournament players.
That's... nice to know, I guess? Its a complete non-sequitur, since people who aren't 'hyper competitive tournament players' have been using points in 40k since 1989 or so. (There was a points formula in the original RT rulebook). And points based army lists swiftly followed.
I mentioned it because there seem to be people here who are ignorant of the fact that plenty of people DO play using PL. I’d be happy playing using either system, but most people I know can’t be arsed to spend time squeezing every last point out of a list. We aren’t too bothered about balance aside from a vague need for us not to be overwhelmingly one sided.
Which is fine? But you specifically asked why people cared, and there is actually an answer- various rules sections use PL.
And then you followed up not with 'my buddies and I do fine without points' but with blather about 'hypercompetitive,' which rather gave the impression of 'stop liking things I don't like'
That really wasn’t my intention. But I was seeing a lot of people getting pissy because GW had the audacity to give away the PL changes for free. People need to chill out.
Almost none uses PL so putting them out there for free isn't losing them bank and lets their shills go, "s-see! The old GW would never give anything out for free! What do you mean it's useless? Literally everyone I know uses PL!"
Or their entire campaign ruleset is based on PL so would be a bit weird not to update it? I love that calling people a shill is the new cool kids term for white knight, what a time to be alive people have to try and be so edgy.
A Shill isn't the same as a White Knight. Check the definition of Shill.
Shill: "an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others." Via Oxford dictionary.
White knight via Colins dictionary: "A white knight is a person or an organization that rescues a company from difficulties such as financial problems or an unwelcome takeover bid."
So in context for these forums a white knight is someone buying GW stock to prevent them going under and a shill is someone who financially benefits convincing others to buy from GW.
Well done Dakka on using out of context terminology.
White Knight is a term popularized by the alt right to use to dismiss men defending women from their hateful misogyny, taken from the original idea of white knight as described above and the old school nerd culture of knights protecting ladies itself taken from chivalric literature.
It was then shifting to be a dismissal of any sorts of defense of something and slowly shifted out of being a mostly right wing dog whistle, though its roots in that stick around the term like a fething terrible smell and it still will be used in this context. The more modern popular term though is simp, itself stolen by the right from black culture and now undergoing the process of filtering into general internet slang. In five years, people on dakka will be talking about how others are simping for GW.
The phenomena can be somewhat troubling because the shifts don't ever fully move it away from the bigotry and general usage indicates an unconscious increased acceptance for the bigoted concepts behind it.
People throw this around a lot. Is there any real evidence or indications that it is true?
Let me put it this way; I've been told to shut up and go away from various tactica-threads because I advocated units and tactics that was less competitive than different units and tactics.
The average competitiveness among Dakkadakka-users is way higher than the average competitiveness of 40k-players in general.
I've honestly been to tournaments where the participants where less competitive (excluding the handful of people who where there to WAAC and nothing else.)
I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to bet everything I own on that being the case.
lol, that wasn't why. You might have gotten some pretty vehement disagreements from people in the tactics threads for advocating less popular units and strategies, but 'shut up and go away' is almost exclusively a response to conduct, not ideas.
I would find it hard to believe that Dakkanaughts were not, on average, more serious/competitive than the 40k population as a whole. Because that sub-segment is more likely to be on a forum for discussing the game (something we see with games in general). BUT I would not be surprised if there was a bigger difference between US and EU in competitive culture than overall vs Dakka. US culture is very strong in promoting a competitive mentality.
General Kroll wrote: Don’t understand why people are getting so wound up about PL. If you don’t personally play PL games, what does it matter?
Oh and I haven’t used points since seventh edition. Not everyone are hyper competitive tournament players.
Or just...the vast majority of people who play 40k?
last poll on dakka was pretty in favour of pts.
40K players on dakka ≠ majority of people who play 40K.
That's fallacy sir or ma'am. Everyone knows that the 2 or 3 dozen regular posters to Dakka represent the voices of millions of players worldwide.
You must be new to this forum. LOL.
Impressive show of Skill in ignoring answers given and misrepresentation.
Was agreeing with the poster who said 40k players on dakka do not equal the majority of 40k players worldwide. Dakka polls only represent the opinions of people on Dakka. Opinions stated by people on Dakka only represent people on Dakka. I'm not saying that isn't true. I'm being snarky and a smartass in saying that, in my experience on this forum, SOME people on Dakka are of the opinion that their opinion of the game is shared by ALL 40k players. I've even seen phrases thrown around like "Nobody uses PL" or "40k players hate the terrain rules in 9th edition".
As a Demons player PL does affect me. If the PL goes up for my Daemon units it means less I can summon (and yes, I do use summoning rules even though, again according to Dakka, summoning sucks). If the PL goes down it means more bang for my troubles. Also, strategic reserves as a whole use PL now. So that will affect anyone who intends to use SR in 9th.
stratigo wrote: White Knight is a term popularized by the alt right to use to dismiss men defending women from their hateful misogyny...
No. No. A thousand times no. White Knight has been used at Dakka long before the words "alt-right" ever crept onto the Internet.
Don't try to make this a left/right political thing when it's not.
It's really easy to tell who did and didn't grow up with the early internet. Back in my day we used IRC, Usenet and BBS over 28k dial up and we liked it!
stratigo wrote: White Knight is a term popularized by the alt right to use to dismiss men defending women from their hateful misogyny...
No. No. A thousand times no. White Knight has been used at Dakka long before the words "alt-right" ever crept onto the Internet.
Don't try to make this a left/right political thing when it's not.
It's really easy to tell who did and didn't grow up with the early internet. Back in my day we used IRC, Usenet and BBS over 28k dial up and we liked it!
28k? Luxury! I used a 300 baud acoustic modem where you dialed the phone and put it in the cradle. If you wanted to see pictures on the internet, you got them in ASCII art.
More on topic, I do think Dakka is a slice of the more competitive side of the hobby. People happy playing floorhammer rarely come here to find ways to optimize their lists.
Nevelon wrote: More on topic, I do think Dakka is a slice of the more competitive side of the hobby. People happy playing floorhammer rarely come here to find ways to optimize their lists.
Well, there are also lore and painting sections. YMDC and rules aren't the only thing people come here too.
Nevelon wrote: More on topic, I do think Dakka is a slice of the more competitive side of the hobby. People happy playing floorhammer rarely come here to find ways to optimize their lists.
I tend to agree. My standard method of making lists (pick a unit I like, see if I can build a list around it, and almost never take the same list twice) is a kind of anathema to the way things are done here.
But at the same time I'm not about to claim that points, something that has been intrinsic to 40k for decades now, is something that only "competitive" players use, as some people here continue to imply/outright state.
As for Chapter Approved 2021, I expect it to return to it's usual December release date.
Question is which December
a book in December 2020 makes no sense it would go into printing now
and December 2021 makes it 1.5 years until we get any corrections to the failures of the release
Since we already have the Chapter Approved for 2020, it would be for December 2021.
I don’t know why people are assuming GW is going to follow the old 8th edition Chapter approved and point adjustment timeline...
Since CA2020 comes out this july I would think GW just flipped the updated so instead of a spring points faq it will just get moved to November/December. And we get a new CA2021 next June/July...
This point adjustment algorithm was kind of a mess and completely looks like it was pushed thru when it wasn’t ready and it’s going to need a lot of adjustments to fix it. GW will just charge us for it in a winter faq with some extra crusade missions thrown in
Because leaving it as a July release has it too close to the General's Handbook release. It makes more sense to move the Chapter Approved release back to December for 2021 as it will (potentially) give them some feedback from the early year conventions like the Las Vegas Open, AdeptiCon, etc.
That didn’t prevent them from doing it this year...
It also makes more sense releasing a chapter approved in June or July as that’s when they do thier summer campaign push.
I don’t beleive GW has any intentions of following thier old timetable sorry
Nevelon wrote: More on topic, I do think Dakka is a slice of the more competitive side of the hobby. People happy playing floorhammer rarely come here to find ways to optimize their lists.
Well, there are also lore and painting sections. YMDC and rules aren't the only thing people come here too.
If you want to be a better painter, there are a lot of other avenues to improve. If you want to know more about the fluff, you read more BL books. If you want to up your game, you come to places like this. Not to imply absolutes. There are all sorts of people who do things for all kinda of reasons. I just think that the more competitive end of the spectrum will tend to gravitate to forums like this. Obviously, our community is wide and varied. I’m a casual player myself.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I tend to agree. My standard method of making lists (pick a unit I like, see if I can build a list around it, and almost never take the same list twice) is a kind of anathema to the way things are done here.
But at the same time I'm not about to claim that points, something that has been intrinsic to 40k for decades now, is something that only "competitive" players use, as some people here continue to imply/outright state.
I’m pretty casual, and I think I played one game with power levels. It was fine for a tossed together last minute thing. I like the granularity of points. Both systems have issues, but points are the old comfortable way.
My top priority in list building is getting new paint to the table. I’ll wrap a theme around that and work it up into a TAC list.
i guess you could argue they still got rules 
At least main studio ones. Specialist games have better balance likely because they aren't designed to stay around so no need to create intentional unbalance to keep changing what sells
