A synergy of the system could be implemented though.
If a targets toughness is over double the weapons strength, wounds could be impossible again. Lasguns then could not damage dreadnaughts for example but a bolter could still.
Its not going to happen mind, but I think it should.
Some units would require toughness tweaks, for example Knights, you don't want them being harmed by bolters really etc etc so would need to go up to T9.
If a targets toughness is over double the weapons strength, wounds could be impossible again. Lasguns then could not damage dreadnaughts for example but a bolter could still.
Its not going to happen mind, but I think it should.
Some units would require toughness tweaks, for example Knights, you don't want them being harmed by bolters really etc etc so would need to go up to T9.
One of the problems, I think, with inter-weapon balance in 8th is that the S-vs-T comparison is very gradual. It makes moderate-S, high-ROF weapons much more useful than single-shot high-S high-Dam weapons, because the somewhat reduced chance to wound is offset by more shots.
If I were writing the rules from scratch, I'd do something like:
Strength is double Toughness: Auto-wound
Strength is 2+ greater than Toughness: 2+
Strength is 1 greater than Toughness: 3+
Strength equals Toughness: 4+
Strength is 1 less than Toughness: 5+
Strength is 2+ less than Toughness: 6+
Strength is half Toughness: Cannot wound
So a lasgun would be wounding T4 on 5+, T5 on 6+, and against T6+ can't wound at all. Bolters would wound T4 on 4+, T5 on 5+, T6/7 on 6+, and couldn't wound T8 at all. Lascannons would zap T7 light vehicles on a 2+.
This is actually pretty close to how the old wounding table used to be.
If a targets toughness is over double the weapons strength, wounds could be impossible again. Lasguns then could not damage dreadnaughts for example but a bolter could still.
Its not going to happen mind, but I think it should.
Some units would require toughness tweaks, for example Knights, you don't want them being harmed by bolters really etc etc so would need to go up to T9.
One of the problems, I think, with inter-weapon balance in 8th is that the S-vs-T comparison is very gradual. It makes moderate-S, high-ROF weapons much more useful than single-shot high-S high-Dam weapons, because the somewhat reduced chance to wound is offset by more shots.
If I were writing the rules from scratch, I'd do something like:
Strength is double Toughness: Auto-wound
Strength is 2+ greater than Toughness: 2+
Strength is 1 greater than Toughness: 3+
Strength equals Toughness: 4+
Strength is 1 less than Toughness: 5+
Strength is 2+ less than Toughness: 6+
Strength is half Toughness: Cannot wound
So a lasgun would be wounding T4 on 5+, T5 on 6+, and against T6+ can't wound at all. Bolters would wound T4 on 4+, T5 on 5+, T6/7 on 6+, and couldn't wound T8 at all. Lascannons would zap T7 light vehicles on a 2+.
This is actually pretty close to how the old wounding table used to be.
But like you said, not going to happen.
The problem with those tables always come with the realization that not all Tougthness values are equal so some strenght jumps are much relevant than others. And I mean, that problems also happens now, but at least the table is more simple.
Anyone else think that these new marines would look really good as DA?
I was considering making my UM into DA when Ritual of the Damned dropped but then stuck with UM. Now with all the gothic iconography and robes...
Plus those new veterans with storm shields modelled with DA hooded heads with Lazarus’ 5+++ aura and 3++ storm shield saves might be a nice little unit
Do we have a date when 9th is coming? Noticed that Dark Millenium and the rulebook has gone to "Last Chance to Buy", so seems it should be coming soon (July?).
Also, the Start Collecting for AdMech is unavailable - I'm wondering if they are going to swap out the contents in some way.
Which brings up another thought - I wonder if they are planning to change any of the datasheet that are packed with the models to 9th ed version if their rules are significantly changed.
Stormonu wrote: Do we have a date when 9th is coming? Noticed that Dark Millenium and the rulebook has gone to "Last Chance to Buy", so seems it should be coming soon (July?).
Also, the Start Collecting for AdMech is unavailable - I'm wondering if they are going to swap out the contents in some way.
Which brings up another thought - I wonder if they are planning to change any of the datasheet that are packed with the models to 9th ed version if their rules are significantly changed.
They told us last week it was going last chance to buy, no date yet but assumed July. They also confirmed the start collecting was changing to have the techpriest, 10 infantry and the transport last week.
They also confirmed that all current codex and publications are supported so wouldn't expect any changed datasheetz at this stage.
Stormonu wrote: Do we have a date when 9th is coming? Noticed that Dark Millenium and the rulebook has gone to "Last Chance to Buy", so seems it should be coming soon (July?).
No date yet, that isn't GW's way. But Engine War goes on preorder tomorrow (for release on the 6th), and they still need to squeeze out War of the Spider and Pariah, so the 27th is almost certainly the earliest the new edition could possibly be. (Though there should be various other releases either alongside the PA books or separately. The big question is if Cow Elves are supposed to come out before 9th or not. That would definitely push it into July.
Also, the Start Collecting for AdMech is unavailable - I'm wondering if they are going to swap out the contents in some way.
New start collecting box was already shown off on Sunday:
Skitarii squad, Enginseer and Tank/Transport. Biggest thing is no more Dominus, which means a lot of Ad Mech players will buy it on principle or out of sheer sobbing relief that a box set doesn't contain their third, fourth or fifth copy of the silly guy.
Jimbobbyish wrote: Just for clarification can some one point to the "rule of 3" I can't find it.
NVM I looked it up, it was added in the big faq 1 as a beta rule, but has since been replaced by big faq 2 and the rule no longer exists. you can look it up as well if you want to check the warhammer community faqs.
Jimbobbyish wrote: Just for clarification can some one point to the "rule of 3" I can't find it.
NVM I looked it up, it was added in the big faq 1 as a beta rule, but has since been replaced by big faq 2 and the rule no longer exists. you can look it up as well if you want to check the warhammer community faqs.
My biggest problem with the rule of 3 is the inconsistency of its implementation. Why do IG get to have 3 tanks per slot but we only get 1 falcon body type tank per slot?
Jimbobbyish wrote: Just for clarification can some one point to the "rule of 3" I can't find it.
NVM I looked it up, it was added in the big faq 1 as a beta rule, but has since been replaced by big faq 2 and the rule no longer exists. you can look it up as well if you want to check the warhammer community faqs.
It's actually been in the Main Rulebook since Day 1. Page 214, Organised Events. The current version can be found on the last page of the Main Rulebook FAQ.
I was considering making my UM into DA when Ritual of the Damned dropped but then stuck with UM. Now with all the gothic iconography and robes...
Plus those new veterans with storm shields modelled with DA hooded heads with Lazarus’ 5+++ aura and 3++ storm shield saves might be a nice little unit
They look literally nothing like DA. For one, they don't wear dumb pajamas, or obsolete armour bits looking vaguely medieval-y (even the helmets fit BA/UM/BT much better), or spade-swords, or have obsession with plasma. The half-robes actually do look vaguely OK and funnily enough, like stuff UM already wear:
Spoiler:
Then there is the whole funny issue of DA being closet traitors and almost zero Primaris being in their first company lest they expose all the crap, making the new unit terribad fit from fluff perspective too, but if you want to add it for gamey "I win" wombo combo reasons, sure, knock yourself out.
jeff white wrote: After the excitement is wearing off, I am getting worried abot boltpistols blowing up tanks again. Ick. That always reminds me of the bridge science during Saving Private Ryan. If grots can't stop your tank, then they shoudn't be able to damage it without appropriate arms, either.
I do remember irritating a friend a long time ago, when I kept talking about how to design a tank-killing potato gun. I stole the idea of using bromine from my chem prof. Just hollow out the potato, put a flask of bromine in there, cap it, wrap it, and aim for something tender for the bromine to eat. Best I could do, but the very idea pissed him off.
I don't really want to go back to that system since it means having a tank one shotted by a good damage table roll.
Besides, there are parts of a tank that can be damaged by other weapons. Heck, get it to throw a track and it's a sitting duck.
Get it to throw a track with a service rifle and it is not a tank.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Conservative Heretic wrote: The new assault Primaris marines with chainswords are the only Primaris marines that I'm actually tempted to buy.
jeff white wrote: After the excitement is wearing off, I am getting worried abot boltpistols blowing up tanks again. Ick. That always reminds me of the bridge science during Saving Private Ryan. If grots can't stop your tank, then they shoudn't be able to damage it without appropriate arms, either.
I do remember irritating a friend a long time ago, when I kept talking about how to design a tank-killing potato gun. I stole the idea of using bromine from my chem prof. Just hollow out the potato, put a flask of bromine in there, cap it, wrap it, and aim for something tender for the bromine to eat. Best I could do, but the very idea pissed him off.
I don't really want to go back to that system since it means having a tank one shotted by a good damage table roll.
Besides, there are parts of a tank that can be damaged by other weapons. Heck, get it to throw a track and it's a sitting duck.
Get it to throw a track with a service rifle and it is not a tank.
Tracked vehicles throw tracks far more often than people think they do. It wasn't too uncommon when I was in an Mechanized Infantry Battalion for them to toss a track just being driven hard. Granted that's a Bradley and not a future space tank, but point stands, especially when the most common service weapon we see on the table in 40k is a .75cal RPG which could easilly damage the wheels on a tank, of the linkage on a track.
I was considering making my UM into DA when Ritual of the Damned dropped but then stuck with UM. Now with all the gothic iconography and robes...
Plus those new veterans with storm shields modelled with DA hooded heads with Lazarus’ 5+++ aura and 3++ storm shield saves might be a nice little unit
They look literally nothing like DA. For one, they don't wear dumb pajamas, or obsolete armour bits looking vaguely medieval-y (even the helmets fit BA/UM/BT much better), or spade-swords, or have obsession with plasma. The half-robes actually do look vaguely OK and funnily enough, like stuff UM already wear:
Spoiler:
Then there is the whole funny issue of DA being closet traitors and almost zero Primaris being in their first company lest they expose all the crap, making the new unit terribad fit from fluff perspective too, but if you want to add it for gamey "I win" wombo combo reasons, sure, knock yourself out.
So swords and shields are non-medieval-y? OK.... And why not use them as Dark Angels Primaris Company Veterans? How is that unfluffy? Primaris have been fighting for a while now. I'd hardly call it a gamey wombo-combo.
I think I'll give it a whirl for my Dark Angels when the models/rules drop.
I was considering making my UM into DA when Ritual of the Damned dropped but then stuck with UM. Now with all the gothic iconography and robes...
Plus those new veterans with storm shields modelled with DA hooded heads with Lazarus’ 5+++ aura and 3++ storm shield saves might be a nice little unit
They look literally nothing like DA. For one, they don't wear dumb pajamas, or obsolete armour bits looking vaguely medieval-y (even the helmets fit BA/UM/BT much better), or spade-swords, or have obsession with plasma. The half-robes actually do look vaguely OK and funnily enough, like stuff UM already wear:
Spoiler:
Then there is the whole funny issue of DA being closet traitors and almost zero Primaris being in their first company lest they expose all the crap, making the new unit terribad fit from fluff perspective too, but if you want to add it for gamey "I win" wombo combo reasons, sure, knock yourself out.
I sense some disdain for Dark Angels from this post but I'm not sure why...
I was considering making my UM into DA when Ritual of the Damned dropped but then stuck with UM. Now with all the gothic iconography and robes...
Plus those new veterans with storm shields modelled with DA hooded heads with Lazarus’ 5+++ aura and 3++ storm shield saves might be a nice little unit
They look literally nothing like DA. For one, they don't wear dumb pajamas, or obsolete armour bits looking vaguely medieval-y (even the helmets fit BA/UM/BT much better), or spade-swords, or have obsession with plasma. The half-robes actually do look vaguely OK and funnily enough, like stuff UM already wear:
Spoiler:
Then there is the whole funny issue of DA being closet traitors and almost zero Primaris being in their first company lest they expose all the crap, making the new unit terribad fit from fluff perspective too, but if you want to add it for gamey "I win" wombo combo reasons, sure, knock yourself out.
Ok first of all, Primaris Marines have been around awhile. plemty of chances for dark angel primaris created by the dark angels to have grown up. they're not all Mars born (for the billion fething time)
Secondly we dunno how the sword guys will fit into dark angels orginization, remember though that dark angels have COMPANY veterns so they don't exactly have to be Deathwing. Veteran Primaris DAs is already a thing BTW they have the vetern intercessor strat.
jeff white wrote: After the excitement is wearing off, I am getting worried abot boltpistols blowing up tanks again. Ick. That always reminds me of the bridge science during Saving Private Ryan. If grots can't stop your tank, then they shoudn't be able to damage it without appropriate arms, either.
I do remember irritating a friend a long time ago, when I kept talking about how to design a tank-killing potato gun. I stole the idea of using bromine from my chem prof. Just hollow out the potato, put a flask of bromine in there, cap it, wrap it, and aim for something tender for the bromine to eat. Best I could do, but the very idea pissed him off.
I don't really want to go back to that system since it means having a tank one shotted by a good damage table roll.
Besides, there are parts of a tank that can be damaged by other weapons. Heck, get it to throw a track and it's a sitting duck.
Get it to throw a track with a service rifle and it is not a tank.
Tracked vehicles throw tracks far more often than people think they do. It wasn't too uncommon when I was in an Mechanized Infantry Battalion for them to toss a track just being driven hard. Granted that's a Bradley and not a future space tank, but point stands, especially when the most common service weapon we see on the table in 40k is a .75cal RPG which could easilly damage the wheels on a tank, of the linkage on a track.
Bolsters should just damage rear rhino armor iirc. Side armor ok. Sure... cuz tracks. But, against heavier tanks? Land raider that is a few thousand years old?
Stormonu wrote: Do we have a date when 9th is coming? Noticed that Dark Millenium and the rulebook has gone to "Last Chance to Buy", so seems it should be coming soon (July?).
No date yet, that isn't GW's way. But Engine War goes on preorder tomorrow (for release on the 6th), and they still need to squeeze out War of the Spider and Pariah, so the 27th is almost certainly the earliest the new edition could possibly be. (Though there should be various other releases either alongside the PA books or separately. The big question is if Cow Elves are supposed to come out before 9th or not. That would definitely push it into July.
Also, the Start Collecting for AdMech is unavailable - I'm wondering if they are going to swap out the contents in some way.
New start collecting box was already shown off on Sunday:
Skitarii squad, Enginseer and Tank/Transport. Biggest thing is no more Dominus, which means a lot of Ad Mech players will buy it on principle or out of sheer sobbing relief that a box set doesn't contain their third, fourth or fifth copy of the silly guy.
What are Cow elves? Craftworld? Or Dark Eldar with a leather fetish?
Cow Elves is a cheeky name for the Lumineth Realmlords, because they have a massive goat-like 'construct' that the literal spirits of mountains are able to inhabit--and a unit from an elemental temple that accompanies it.
jeff white wrote: After the excitement is wearing off, I am getting worried abot boltpistols blowing up tanks again. Ick. That always reminds me of the bridge science during Saving Private Ryan. If grots can't stop your tank, then they shoudn't be able to damage it without appropriate arms, either.
I do remember irritating a friend a long time ago, when I kept talking about how to design a tank-killing potato gun. I stole the idea of using bromine from my chem prof. Just hollow out the potato, put a flask of bromine in there, cap it, wrap it, and aim for something tender for the bromine to eat. Best I could do, but the very idea pissed him off.
I don't really want to go back to that system since it means having a tank one shotted by a good damage table roll.
Besides, there are parts of a tank that can be damaged by other weapons. Heck, get it to throw a track and it's a sitting duck.
Get it to throw a track with a service rifle and it is not a tank.
Tracked vehicles throw tracks far more often than people think they do. It wasn't too uncommon when I was in an Mechanized Infantry Battalion for them to toss a track just being driven hard. Granted that's a Bradley and not a future space tank, but point stands, especially when the most common service weapon we see on the table in 40k is a .75cal RPG which could easilly damage the wheels on a tank, of the linkage on a track.
Bolsters should just damage rear rhino armor iirc. Side armor ok. Sure... cuz tracks. But, against heavier tanks? Land raider that is a few thousand years old?
And grot blastas? No...just no.
Unless we're putting vehicles on square bases I don't want to see facings to come back. Too many arguements about walker facings, much less Eldar and Tau tank facings.
Stormonu wrote: Do we have a date when 9th is coming? Noticed that Dark Millenium and the rulebook has gone to "Last Chance to Buy", so seems it should be coming soon (July?).
No date yet, that isn't GW's way. But Engine War goes on preorder tomorrow (for release on the 6th), and they still need to squeeze out War of the Spider and Pariah, so the 27th is almost certainly the earliest the new edition could possibly be. (Though there should be various other releases either alongside the PA books or separately. The big question is if Cow Elves are supposed to come out before 9th or not. That would definitely push it into July.
Also, the Start Collecting for AdMech is unavailable - I'm wondering if they are going to swap out the contents in some way.
New start collecting box was already shown off on Sunday:
Skitarii squad, Enginseer and Tank/Transport. Biggest thing is no more Dominus, which means a lot of Ad Mech players will buy it on principle or out of sheer sobbing relief that a box set doesn't contain their third, fourth or fifth copy of the silly guy.
What are Cow elves? Craftworld? Or Dark Eldar with a leather fetish?
Soo, what are your thoughts on the new CP System? (Cp are linked to game size, every army gets the same amount to spent, Detachments no longer generate CP)
I fear the invalidation of troop choices for some armies. Why bring sth like a brigade or batallion if you just could bring way more "elite" or efficent units.
I mean Guardsmen will be a stable choice because you can use them as a meatshield for your tanks.
But some armies have quite mediocre / bad troops like Necrons. Other armies like Sisters of Battle could utilise stronger units than their standard sisters. I think of massed Celestials or Dominions - more or less same point costs but way better rules and equipment options.
You're assuming that you can just bring whatever you like with no penalties.
I won't be shocked of certain HQ choices 'unlock' certain units to count as Troops choices. We get that all the time in AoS--with some subfactions even changing Artillery or Behemoths into Battleline(Troops) choices.
Conservative Heretic wrote: The new assault Primaris marines with chainswords are the only Primaris marines that I'm actually tempted to buy.
So long overdue, even more so than devastator marines. Even just the running poses adds so much to how marines should look. I'm not a fan of literally every one of them in a full bore charging pose, that's a bit monotonous, but take some of these out and add them to bolter squads, replace them with some of the original, more static static Intercessoers armed with swords/pistols, and marine armies are finally once again looking how they should look .
Kanluwen wrote: You're assuming that you can just bring whatever you like with no penalties.
I won't be shocked of certain HQ choices 'unlock' certain units to count as Troops choices. We get that all the time in AoS--with some subfactions even changing Artillery or Behemoths into Battleline(Troops) choices.
Well afaik the detachments we have now are going to stay but loose their cp boni. This means Brigade gets pretty much invalidated.
Many troops are just tax right now to generate more cp to burn for the more elite choices. with fixed amounts of cp and most likely higher amounts of these cp you can burn more of them without the need of troops.
This could result in even higher alpha strike potential than we have now and much "killier" lists to be built
- You get 1 detachment for free but have to "buy" the rest of the detachments
- Battalions and brigades cost 1CP each (due to having to be filled out with troops) and the rest cost 3CP each
- Each detachment cost extra CP if they're from a different force than your warlords', so if he's an Ultramarine and you slot in a Raven Guard detachment then that's 1 extra CP per detachment (because they're still C:SM) but say a Admech detachment would cost an extra 2CP (due to being an entirely different book)
Note that this is just me speculation how it'll work in the end by trying to piece together clues from what have been said, and it's quite likely it won't look anything like this.
- You get 1 detachment for free but have to "buy" the rest of the detachments
- Battalions and brigades cost 1CP each (due to having to be filled out with troops) and the rest cost 3CP each
- Each detachment cost extra CP if they're from a different force than your warlords', so if he's an Ultramarine and you slot in a Raven Guard detachment then that's 1 extra CP per detachment (because they're still C:SM) but say a Admech detachment would cost an extra 2CP (due to being an entirely different book)
Note that this is just me speculation how it'll work in the end by trying to piece together clues from what have been said, and it's quite likely it won't look anything like this.
They said CP was based on game size, and there are four game sizes. This means it's like CP for a range of points, not 1 for every 100 points.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: My biggest problem with the rule of 3 is the inconsistency of its implementation. Why do IG get to have 3 tanks per slot but we only get 1 falcon body type tank per slot?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: My biggest problem with the rule of 3 is the inconsistency of its implementation. Why do IG get to have 3 tanks per slot but we only get 1 falcon body type tank per slot?
Good thing it's not actually a rule.
Unless you play tournaments, or play with people who play in tournaments because those folk are usually practicing with their tournament army and want tournament compatible games.
as for how detachments work, I bet the FOC chart might change, I bet at low points games your first patrol detachment is free, at higher your first battalion.
so if you want to field a spear point, you're losing CPs.
I expect the game to get even more lethal, with more CP. People will just use one detachment, and spend the additional CP on stratagems. Stacking negatives to hit wont be possible anymore.
p5freak wrote: I expect the game to get even more lethal, with more CP. People will just use one detachment, and spend the additional CP on stratagems. Stacking negatives to hit wont be possible anymore.
Perhaps, but sneaking through terrain has been mentioned and it seems terrain density will be increasing along with rules that should allow things to survive being shot at a bit more.
BrianDavion wrote: as for how detachments work, I bet the FOC chart might change, I bet at low points games your first patrol detachment is free, at higher your first battalion.
so if you want to field a spear point, you're losing CPs.
it's how I'd do it anyway *shrugs*
Except they aren't forcing you to take any unit type so set starting det isn't happening
I got a little sad realising that the new cp mechanic will continue to hurt my daemons. To keep the mono god detachments you'll now hemorrhage cp even if its just for patrol slots assumingly.
BrianDavion wrote: as for how detachments work, I bet the FOC chart might change, I bet at low points games your first patrol detachment is free, at higher your first battalion.
so if you want to field a spear point, you're losing CPs.
it's how I'd do it anyway *shrugs*
Except they aren't forcing you to take any unit type so set starting det isn't happening
That doesn't force you to take a unit type either, it just says taking a detachment with a troop requirement gives you full CP for the game, taking a specialised detachment will cost you some.
I think that's likely how it will work so as to encourage you to take troops, much as the current system does but just in reverse
Might just be whatever detachment your warlord is in is free - gives you more flexibility as you won’t feel forced to have a specific detachment to not ‘waste’ CPs and does restrict you in small games.
BrianDavion wrote: as for how detachments work, I bet the FOC chart might change, I bet at low points games your first patrol detachment is free, at higher your first battalion.
so if you want to field a spear point, you're losing CPs.
it's how I'd do it anyway *shrugs*
Except they aren't forcing you to take any unit type so set starting det isn't happening
That doesn't force you to take a unit type either, it just says taking a detachment with a troop requirement gives you full CP for the game, taking a specialised detachment will cost you some.
I think that's likely how it will work so as to encourage you to take troops, much as the current system does but just in reverse
Its fun to speculate, which is the point of the thread I suppose. From what I can glean from the Q&A I do not get the impression that Troops will be needed to get "full CP." You get your CP allocation based on the game size and then spend them either in list construction (relics, traits etc, allies) or during the game. They have not talked about Detachments - they have mentioned them but not in detail. They do make the point that players should not be forced to take units to unlock things.
My hope is that they keep the current Detachments: first is free and subsequent ones are 1 CP each unless they are from another Codex in which they would be more. If they keep designations like Troops etc then I think that we would take them on their own merits and not because we feel we need to. If the 9th Ed Eternal War missions are anything like the CA19 missions, players will often want Troops to achieve victory conditions/points.
I have never liked the FOC - one of things about the shift to 3rd Ed that I was not happy about. Yes, grudges hold strong...Invalidate my favourite army will you!!! My sense is that 8th tried to give more freedom but the CP system essentially forced players to take one or two Battalions at the 2,000 point level. It seems that 9th is trying to open up list construction. Good for me!
BrianDavion wrote: as for how detachments work, I bet the FOC chart might change, I bet at low points games your first patrol detachment is free, at higher your first battalion.
so if you want to field a spear point, you're losing CPs.
it's how I'd do it anyway *shrugs*
Except they aren't forcing you to take any unit type so set starting det isn't happening
That doesn't force you to take a unit type either, it just says taking a detachment with a troop requirement gives you full CP for the game, taking a specialised detachment will cost you some.
I think that's likely how it will work so as to encourage you to take troops, much as the current system does but just in reverse
Eh if you are given bat you have 3 troops to fillx hlw is that not forcing?
A few pages back we were wondering if all Vehicles would benefit from the changes to shooting out of melee or whether "Tank" was going to be a keyword. There is one of those Warhammer Community articles out yesterday (29 May) called Nine Ways to Prepare for Warhammer 40K's New Edition where they offer: "the Vehicles and Monsters of the 41st Millenium are about to become a whole lot nastier." So while these articles are not rules and are written in a light-hearted manner, perhaps we can infer that all Vehicles will gain the ability to shoot out of melee? I certainly hope so: easier to implement and if a Leman Russ can shoot out of melee and not break the game why not a Rhino? If a Carnifex can shoot its guns in melee why not a Dreadnought? Would make some of the vanilla Dreadnoughts a bit more fun to play.
Not going to be that big a difference for a Rhino to shoot its guns into melee. But for other shootier vehicles, it would certainly make a difference. There is also the whole question about what the said vehicle can shoot at.
Can it only shoot at the unit it is in melee with? Or does it basically act as if normal despite being locked in melee and can shoot at something 48 inches away...
Eldenfirefly wrote: Not going to be that big a difference for a Rhino to shoot its guns into melee. But for other shootier vehicles, it would certainly make a difference. There is also the whole question about what the said vehicle can shoot at.
Can it only shoot at the unit it is in melee with? Or does it basically act as if normal despite being locked in melee and can shoot at something 48 inches away...
Or option 3 it can shoot everything but what it's in melee with.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Not going to be that big a difference for a Rhino to shoot its guns into melee. But for other shootier vehicles, it would certainly make a difference. There is also the whole question about what the said vehicle can shoot at.
Can it only shoot at the unit it is in melee with? Or does it basically act as if normal despite being locked in melee and can shoot at something 48 inches away...
Or option 3 it can shoot everything but what it's in melee with.
Or option 4 it can shoot out of combat but not into. Unlikely vehic'es/monsters will gain ability to shoot pinpoint into combat half a table away.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Not going to be that big a difference for a Rhino to shoot its guns into melee. But for other shootier vehicles, it would certainly make a difference. There is also the whole question about what the said vehicle can shoot at.
Can it only shoot at the unit it is in melee with? Or does it basically act as if normal despite being locked in melee and can shoot at something 48 inches away...
I'm guessing they all basically get the "Steel Behemoth" rule. So they can fire at anything but only non "blast" type weapons can fire at targets closer than 1. But that's just a guess.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Not going to be that big a difference for a Rhino to shoot its guns into melee. But for other shootier vehicles, it would certainly make a difference. There is also the whole question about what the said vehicle can shoot at.
Can it only shoot at the unit it is in melee with? Or does it basically act as if normal despite being locked in melee and can shoot at something 48 inches away...
Or option 3 it can shoot everything but what it's in melee with.
Or option 4 it can shoot out of combat but not into. Unlikely vehic'es/monsters will gain ability to shoot pinpoint into combat half a table away.
I hadn't even considered that tbhlol I assumed you wouldn't be able to anyway.
When they mentioned it they described something that sounded like you pick all your targets, and if you kill enough stuff you're engaged with via shooting, you can then shoot at other targets, but it seems like if you don't shoot your way out of combat then you won't be able to shoot at other targets.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Not going to be that big a difference for a Rhino to shoot its guns into melee. But for other shootier vehicles, it would certainly make a difference. There is also the whole question about what the said vehicle can shoot at.
Can it only shoot at the unit it is in melee with? Or does it basically act as if normal despite being locked in melee and can shoot at something 48 inches away...
I'm guessing they all basically get the "Steel Behemoth" rule. So they can fire at anything but only non "blast" type weapons can fire at targets closer than 1. But that's just a guess.
I was thinking along the same lines - with Blast becoming a thing it should be easy enough to write the intent of the Baneblade's Steel Behemoth into the core shooting rules. I'm being optimistic here!
Why not actually look at the other systems GW produces and make some rational guesses vs personal preference?
AoS already has some of these rules in place as well as army construction. And seeing as the aesthetic is moving towards being Sigmarines, it’s likely the rules systems will be very similar.
But feel free to add another 10 pages of making yourself feel better. Squat the Legend Marines already and let’s move the timeline forward.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Why not actually look at the other systems GW produces and make some rational guesses vs personal preference?
AoS already has some of these rules in place as well as army construction. And seeing as the aesthetic is moving towards being Sigmarines, it’s likely the rules systems will be very similar.
But feel free to add another 10 pages of making yourself feel better. Squat the Legend Marines already and let’s move the timeline forward.
Of course I missed all 8 battlefield roles/slots when picking armies in sigmar, or stratagems (hint they're not on heroes datasheets in 40k), the ability to actually customise units on a per model level, lack of formations etc.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Why not actually look at the other systems GW produces and make some rational guesses vs personal preference?
AoS already has some of these rules in place as well as army construction. And seeing as the aesthetic is moving towards being Sigmarines, it’s likely the rules systems will be very similar.
But feel free to add another 10 pages of making yourself feel better. Squat the Legend Marines already and let’s move the timeline forward.
They aren't moving the timeline forward, though.
They're actually backing up.
Dark Imperium hit the end of the Indomitus Crusade when 8th edition came out- the triumph happened and everybody was split off and sent to new war zones. It was the very first novel out of the gate, and it was 100 years on and the crusade was over.
Psychic Awakening backtracked in some vague fashion and set things during the crusade.
Dawn of Fire (the new book series) is also explicitly set during the crusade.
So rule systems are one thing, but the timeline is officially 'sometime during the first century of M42,' where details are being backfilled from the starting point of 8th edition.
Voss wrote: So rule systems are one thing, but the timeline is officially 'sometime during the first century of M42,' where details are being backfilled from the starting point of 8th edition.
And we still haven't caught up to the Cain books, where Inquisitor Vail's notes are written in the mid-200s M42!
Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .
Chopstick wrote: The price may keep going up but the effort are becoming lower, not even a single sprue pic or 360 view for the new stuff on the webstore.
Unless you know exactly how far in advance the photos are done it could be that the staff who do that haven't returned to work yet.
keas66 wrote: Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .
Yeah, I am with you on most things.
I want to try to build the Garden of Moor with my nieces, make a Halloween thing out of it, so i bought that when the new price increases were announced.
They like to paint and so it should be fun.
Otherwise, I focus on painting what I have to paint, which is enough ... but the new boxset has some selling points.
Chopstick wrote: The price may keep going up but the effort are becoming lower, not even a single sprue pic or 360 view for the new stuff on the webstore.
Unless you know exactly how far in advance the photos are done it could be that the staff who do that haven't returned to work yet.
Yes, just like your nana’s Etsy store they photograph it just before it goes live...NO, the spruces would be photographed shortly after mastering. Web work can be done from home. GW got lazy—period.
Chopstick wrote: The price may keep going up but the effort are becoming lower, not even a single sprue pic or 360 view for the new stuff on the webstore.
Unless you know exactly how far in advance the photos are done it could be that the staff who do that haven't returned to work yet.
Yes, just like your nana’s Etsy store they photograph it just before it goes live...NO, the spruces would be photographed shortly after mastering. Web work can be done from home. GW got lazy—period.
Pretty sure they have never gone around photographing plants.
Yes, just like your nana’s Etsy store they photograph it just before it goes live...NO, the spruces would be photographed shortly after mastering. Web work can be done from home. GW got lazy—period.
You seem to know a lot about the internal functions of the company. Care to tell us the camera used, what storage medium the photos are taken on, what post-processing tools are used and what part of the network said files are stored on.
'Web' work may be able to be done from home, but some physical photography can not.
keas66 wrote: Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .
It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.
Yes, just like your nana’s Etsy store they photograph it just before it goes live...NO, the spruces would be photographed shortly after mastering. Web work can be done from home. GW got lazy—period.
You seem to know a lot about the internal functions of the company. Care to tell us the camera used, what storage medium the photos are taken on, what post-processing tools are used and what part of the network said files are stored on.
'Web' work may be able to be done from home, but some physical photography can not.
keas66 wrote: Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .
It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.
The box can be thick but I doubt there is much difference in plastic between all the options just some weapons there or not there between a couple of the variants. The cost of it is intense, we're not paying for " Thick box feels " It's just the ever bloating costs for moar profits while I am sure even at say, 80 which is still high, they'd have pretty good profit. Or, they could just sit back and pull in some of those extra profits from the extra expensive Cavalry units. Might as well claim it costs so much because once you buy it all your dreams will come true. Especially if your dream was to pay a mint for the Davinci Code.
Wow an entire month until Pariah and another few weeks until 9th? I’d of expected both of the other PA’s to come out back to back. Interesting, maybe Lumineth are going up for the rest of June then I guess?
Tiberius501 wrote: Wow an entire month until Pariah? I’d of expected both of the other PA’s to come out back to back. Interesting, maybe Lumineth are going up for the rest of June then I guess?
Lumineth were, purportedly, going to be a one week release of the army pack and the other stuff.
Tiberius501 wrote: Wow an entire month until Pariah? I’d of expected both of the other PA’s to come out back to back. Interesting, maybe Lumineth are going up for the rest of June then I guess?
Lumineth were, purportedly, going to be a one week release of the army pack and the other stuff.
Yeah so what’s the rest of June gonna be? Spider PA, Zoat, Lumineth then is there a 4th thing to put in the 4th week?
I think it's safe to say that some things will be pushed back (the Lumineth could be the sacrifice here, along with any specialist things like the Escher book).
Or they could majorly truncate the release of things (like putting the Lumineth out over two weeks rather than 3-4).
The only time limit they have is that they have to get the last three PA books out before 9th, and they appear set on a July release for 9th. Doesn't give them a lot of time.
Lumineth books+cards & Sons of Behemat books+cards cleared US customs pre-COVID shutdown...which means it would have gone to the warehouses for distribution within a week.
I reckon they might want everything out before 9th, so it can be the big drop it wants to be. So I’d assume Lumineth is next, War of the Spider after that, specialist games shared with that, and then the rest the week after, then July comes. That’s my guess anyway.
I would be surprised if GW left an 8 week gap between announcing 9th edition and releasing the starter set. Appreciating that the Covid situation has kinda messed up their release schedule i was anticipating back to back releases of the last 3 PA books.
We had engine war this weekend and there are 4 more Saturdays between now and the end of June. That should be enough time to release the last two PA books and maybe sprinkle some smaller new releases in too. For example, Deadly Alliance could drop the same weekend as a PA book. This would leave a saturday for the one week Lumineth release and still allow for an early July release for 9th ed. All speculation on my part though.
Tiberius501 wrote: Wow an entire month until Pariah and another few weeks until 9th? I’d of expected both of the other PA’s to come out back to back. Interesting, maybe Lumineth are going up for the rest of June then I guess?
How legit is this btw?
I don't really know, he's friends with a local store owner but I haven't seen it anywhere else.
Tiberius501 wrote: Wow an entire month until Pariah and another few weeks until 9th? I’d of expected both of the other PA’s to come out back to back. Interesting, maybe Lumineth are going up for the rest of June then I guess?
How legit is this btw?
I don't really know, he's friends with a local store owner but I haven't seen it anywhere else.
Well we’ll see if it’s got any credence tonight, based on what’s being pre-ordered. It does make sense though the more I think about it. Just a painful wait for me new Necrons!
Kanluwen wrote: Don't expect the Khainite Shadowstalker WarCry stuff just yet. That was an Adepticon reveal...and they said it's the first of a new thing.
Tiberius501 wrote: Wow an entire month until Pariah and another few weeks until 9th? I’d of expected both of the other PA’s to come out back to back. Interesting, maybe Lumineth are going up for the rest of June then I guess?
How legit is this btw?
Seems about right. July was likely 9th ed original date anyway. Unlikely they would move it FORWARD due to corona...IF anything it's fast. They got 2 month delay so in june they would get april, may and june out.
Yes, just like your nana’s Etsy store they photograph it just before it goes live...NO, the spruces would be photographed shortly after mastering. Web work can be done from home. GW got lazy—period.
You seem to know a lot about the internal functions of the company. Care to tell us the camera used, what storage medium the photos are taken on, what post-processing tools are used and what part of the network said files are stored on.
'Web' work may be able to be done from home, but some physical photography can not.
I saw their studio some years ago - fairly big room decked out for all the product photography - lights etc.... Camera they use could be a standard DSLR or a Hassleblad.
When you look at the store photos its all product box-shots which suggests that they were produced earlier for the box art and content. The 360 and a few other snaps appear to then be taken later in the process. With the main site shut its clear that they are just still using the same earlier prepared box photos for the product display and the photography team hasn't been back to take the 360 shots.
Thing is 360 shots aren't horrendously complex, but if you don't have room, lights, diffusers etc... then suddenly it can become a bit more of a pain to try and get that kind of photography at home. Esp if you don't own multiple flashes, etc... Chances are simply moving all the gear over for a few shots isn't worth it next to just wiating for the main site to open and spending less time using the in-house setup.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I would be surprised if GW left an 8 week gap between announcing 9th edition and releasing the starter set. Appreciating that the Covid situation has kinda messed up their release schedule i was anticipating back to back releases of the last 3 PA books.
We had engine war this weekend and there are 4 more Saturdays between now and the end of June. That should be enough time to release the last two PA books and maybe sprinkle some smaller new releases in too. For example, Deadly Alliance could drop the same weekend as a PA book. This would leave a saturday for the one week Lumineth release and still allow for an early July release for 9th ed. All speculation on my part though.
Gotta remember that this stuff hasn't been piling up in a warehouse somewhere during lockdown just waiting to go on sale. Production was completely shut down too. They can't just goo 3 months' worth of releases all over us right now. The pace can't be much quicker than normal because normally they're already releasing new product pretty much as fast as they can cast it. AND they have to restock a planet's worth of empty stores at the same time.
I figure GW knows they can't keep everything in stock at present, but that its better to get new stuff out the door quickly rather than wait to overcome the production shortfall because with their system restricted they just won't make it.
So I'd bank on a release rate at least as fast as normal if not faster. Eg they might merge some smaller releases with big ones. So something like Luminoth might not get a whole weekend to itself, it might get bundled along with Giants and other stuff. Probably pushing specialist games into release with bigger things.
As for Forgeworld we don't even know when they are coming back online to sell let alone any future releases. I really hope we find out soon though - I'm sitting on some money and I need some resin - plastic just doesn't cut it, I need my resin fix.
I think this week is indicative of GW's possible release schedule. I don't believe all of the AM would have been released in one week during original schedule, so I think they will continue to accelerate their release with items that were already prepped and ready to go.
bullyboy wrote: I think this week is indicative of GW's possible release schedule. I don't believe all of the AM would have been released in one week during original schedule, so I think they will continue to accelerate their release with items that were already prepped and ready to go.
Really? It's only three new kits, a character that was released before and a new Start Collecting, it doesn't seem like an especially big release that they wouldn't have fit in one week before.
bullyboy wrote: I think this week is indicative of GW's possible release schedule. I don't believe all of the AM would have been released in one week during original schedule, so I think they will continue to accelerate their release with items that were already prepped and ready to go.
Really? It's only three new kits, a character that was released before and a new Start Collecting, it doesn't seem like an especially big release that they wouldn't have fit in one week before.
It's a book, 3 new kits, a character and a Start Collecting box. Yes, that's not usually a 1 week release.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So when will the new fw books be released? Any news on that? They're supposed to come out with 9th.
No, they aren't. The announcement FAQ said that they're coming but to continue using the Indexes until they're released. That heavily implies that we have a while before the newer FW books come out.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So when will the new fw books be released? Any news on that? They're supposed to come out with 9th.
No, they aren't. The announcement FAQ said that they're coming but to continue using the Indexes until they're released. That heavily implies that we have a while before the newer FW books come out.
Sorry to be contradictory, but they also said the books are done. So they'll be released fairly early in 9th, even if they're not out at the same exact time.
It's a book, 3 new kits, a character and a Start Collecting box. Yes, that's not usually a 1 week release.
You can order everything since yesterday.
Eh point he was making he figures originally they would have been split into two weeks rather than 1 week now. Ie to compensate for corona lockdown GW would have sped up schedule.
At the earliest that puts spider at the 20th, and pariah at the 27th (maybe the 4th if they plan for two weeks between).
So 9th will definitely be July, with a small possibility of later, depending on how much else they're fitting in.
I figured that’s just some of the usual cartoony art fro the week plan, rather than meaning specifics.
Necrons would 100% be there if that was the case.
Asmodai wrote: Maybe Flyers, Custodes, Orks, Tau and Guard for the first spate of preview shows, if the artwork is meaningful.
It's possible. But that artwork is from the 9 new things about 9th video they showed us, so it might represent what they were talking about in the video (the ork picture is from when they're discussing cover as an example). Or it's just some fun artwork. Either way, I'm hyped up about learning more
Kanluwen wrote: His point still would have been incorrect as "3 new kits, a character, and a Start Collecting" has been a 1 week release.
Sisters say hi.
Greater Good release week says hi right back.
A slew of Titanicus releases, Greater Good, Shadowsun, individual release of the Kellermorph, GSC Start Collecting, Middle Earth cards, and the Chibis.
Sisters wasn't a Psychic Awakening release. It was a generic faction release. Those get staggered for reasons known only to those who can comprehend the vagueries of the Warp. Or because they view an army 'start' like Sisters (post-Army Pack, mind you) as something better done gradually.
Kanluwen wrote: His point still would have been incorrect as "3 new kits, a character, and a Start Collecting" has been a 1 week release.
Sisters say hi.
The same Sisters that got 8 kits in their final release week you mean?
Sisters were spread out weirdly, but that doesn’t mean 5 kits (one of which being a previously released character and one being a start collecting made up of existing kits) is so,e strangely large release.
I think sisters got delayed weirdly largely due to shipment issues. They could have been waiting on boxes or instruction books or decals for the boxes leading to a stall on the release cycle.
That or customs being a problem. Who knows, they did have issues last year with their shipments from China.
That said wasn't there something about the rest of Psychic Awaking being postponed until after 9th drops?
Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.
Asmodai wrote: Maybe Flyers, Custodes, Orks, Tau and Guard for the first spate of preview shows, if the artwork is meaningful.
Flyers, command points and strategems, close combat, shooting and reserves (maybe crusade/campaign as I think they used that image twice) if we're going off the places we've seen that art before.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.
Presumably, it will be pick a single detachment from a list of options available for the game size you're playing and that's free. That would make sense based on everything we've seen thus far.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.
Presumably, it will be pick a single detachment from a list of options available for the game size you're playing and that's free. That would make sense based on everything we've seen thus far.
IMHO if they do that they should make you pay for anything thats not a battalion,
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.
Presumably, it will be pick a single detachment from a list of options available for the game size you're playing and that's free. That would make sense based on everything we've seen thus far.
I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).
Kanluwen wrote: His point still would have been incorrect as "3 new kits, a character, and a Start Collecting" has been a 1 week release.
Sisters say hi.
Greater Good release week says hi right back.
A slew of Titanicus releases, Greater Good, Shadowsun, individual release of the Kellermorph, GSC Start Collecting, Middle Earth cards, and the Chibis.
Sisters wasn't a Psychic Awakening release. It was a generic faction release. Those get staggered for reasons known only to those who can comprehend the vagueries of the Warp. Or because they view an army 'start' like Sisters (post-Army Pack, mind you) as something better done gradually.
Not sure why you are adding non 40K releases in the bundle, that's not how it works unless you want to add in the Black Library releases this week too.
So basically you have a similar release except you are directly comparing Shadowsun to all of the brand new Admech releases (if Start collecting and individual figures match up), ok.So, 3 kits that make 7 variants is identical to 1 Shadowsun model.
Imateria wrote: I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).
Likely this belief/hope is that not having additional and/or specialized detachments cost CP means that here may as well not be any restrictions on a mono faction build. If the system allows that kind of freedom be ready to face all kinds of very focused optimal units only spam lists with even less unit diversity than we have now.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.
Presumably, it will be pick a single detachment from a list of options available for the game size you're playing and that's free. That would make sense based on everything we've seen thus far.
I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).
In the Saturday stream they clearly state additional detachments will cost CP, they then talk about aditional codex's costing CP.
Now that could be interpreted as one and the same, or as you pay extra for multiple detachments and extra again for souping.
Simply put outside of Drukari GW dont agree with most players that they "MUST" optimise subfactions. They are correct for that someone who plays entirely mono subfaction should probably start eith a bonus over someone optimising their units into the.best subfactions. However both of them should have and advantage over someone cherry picking from multiple codex's.
Not sure why you are adding non 40K releases in the bundle, that's not how it works unless you want to add in the Black Library releases this week too.
I believe the topic is GW's release capacity, not another whingefest on who gets more, and the point made was that this week's release is not bigger than some past releases, thus not indicating an accelerated release schedule to make up for the lockdown stall. I am baffled as to why this has triggered a headbutting contest.
Not sure why you are adding non 40K releases in the bundle, that's not how it works unless you want to add in the Black Library releases this week too.
I believe the topic is GW's release capacity, not another whingefest on who gets more, and the point made was that this week's release is not bigger than some past releases, thus not indicating an accelerated release schedule to make up for the lockdown stall. I am baffled as to why this has triggered a headbutting contest.
No idea either. I just would be surprised if GW didn't at least try a moderately advanced cycle to try and catch up (or delay something), but they also realize they can't push too much product at one time as a hobby budget only stretches so far. Proof in the pudding will be seeing how soon War of the Spider and Pariah are released. Each PA book would have been 1 month apart, putting them at end of June and July respectively. I have a feeling this will not be the case.
I mean war of the spider and Pariha are both notable in that, as far as we know they only have 1 new model accompany it, so at least it's not back to back 40k army releases or something
Pariah has at least three kits for the release:
* Daemonifuge - Ephrael Stern and Kyganil
* Illuminor Szeras
* Lord Inquisitor Kyria Draxus
That being said, I expect it will be released with some non-40K content since a book and 3 model character kits is a light week of releases. Maybe this is when they slot in some Warcry or Underworlds releases.
Getting back on topic, looks like we're going to have articles and video about 9th all week, so we should get more info pretty soon. Like in about 9 and-a-half hours from this post soon.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
My alternate take was a simple Batallion for all games of 1000 pts or more, with something like:
Imateria wrote: I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).
Well certainly given how poor GW's track record is with balance I wouldn't be surprised them to do good idea and then blow the balance up by forgetting to put cost to CP within same codex.
Different regiment/klan/etc=powerup. Powerups needs to have cost. If you want balanced game you can't have one army get free bonuses with no drawback.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
My alternate take was a simple Batallion for all games of 1000 pts or more, with something like:
MajorWesJanson wrote: Just mulling over detachments in 9th, and how they can change things up as a result of costing command points rather than granting them- Potentially is there a reason for some of the specialist detachments anymore? Instead of spearhead detachments or vanguard or flyer wings, they could do a set of strategems that just say- 2 CP: You may increase the maximum allowance of (elite, Fast attack, flyer, ect) by 1 for a patrol detachment, 2 for a battalion, or 3 for a brigade. And maybe do the same for fortifications, but make that one 1 cp.
Easy to do, and would cut down on the number of different detachments and ability to detachment spam certain types of units and rules
You'd still have a minimum Troops if they were add-ons. They've said that pure Deathwing armies (only Elites, HQs and Heavy Support) will be playable in 9th - so presumably Batts or Brigades won't be mandatory.
Presumably, it will be pick a single detachment from a list of options available for the game size you're playing and that's free. That would make sense based on everything we've seen thus far.
I'm not sure why people are so insistent on any detachment after the first will always cost CP given that in both streams the question was solely in relation to soup and for me the implication was that only detachments from allied codexes would cost CP. Given that there are several codexes that would autamitaclly be handicapped by any system that forces you to spend CP to take more than 1 detachment, I suspect it will be the latter set up (but on past evidence I wont be shocked if they take the boneheaded move of the former system).
In the Saturday stream they clearly state additional detachments will cost CP, they then talk about aditional codex's costing CP.
Now that could be interpreted as one and the same, or as you pay extra for multiple detachments and extra again for souping.
Simply put outside of Drukari GW dont agree with most players that they "MUST" optimise subfactions. They are correct for that someone who plays entirely mono subfaction should probably start eith a bonus over someone optimising their units into the.best subfactions. However both of them should have and advantage over someone cherry picking from multiple codex's.
And as I've already pointed out, in both streams the answers regarding detachments costing CP were very explicitly regarding questions on soup, which is pretty universally a term for allying in different codexes. My problem is that too many people seem to be posting as if they know that all detachments after the first will cost CP and we simply just don't know that.
Very tasty. Also the actual models look dope af. Really liking the creepiness of these new units.
I'm enjoying the "weapons are hands" approach they've taken but it feels very nid-like!
So do the spine like things on the back of some of the new characters, it's kind of entertaining. I think the hands are weapons work really well for the destroyers, helps them stick to the theme of replacing bits to make them better at killing things
So as was suspected, all these non-bipedal Necrons are insane Destroyers. These Skorpekh seem to be Khorne-like with their focus on getting up close and personal with a choppy blade. That seems...inefficient if one's goal is to sterilize the galaxy as fast as possible.
Iracundus wrote: So as was suspected, all these non-bipedal Necrons are insane Destroyers. These Skorpekh seem to be Khorne-like with their focus on getting up close and personal with a choppy blade. That seems...inefficient if one's goal is to sterilize the galaxy as fast as possible.
They're not about efficiency, they're about hatred for anything that lives.
Iracundus wrote: So as was suspected, all these non-bipedal Necrons are insane Destroyers. These Skorpekh seem to be Khorne-like with their focus on getting up close and personal with a choppy blade. That seems...inefficient if one's goal is to sterilize the galaxy as fast as possible.
They're not about efficiency, they're about hatred for anything that lives.
Yeah and when you hate something that much, sometimes blasting from a distance isn’t cathartic enough.
So from the stream they mentioned the Movement phase will have a reinforcement step, so it seems like we'll see more subphases to help clarify when certain rules take effect.
Kanluwen wrote: The modifiers are to dice rolls, not to characteristics. Stu Black specifically addressed this.
"What's the point of having +2 if it's capped at +1?"..."Then if they have a -1? You still have a +1".
A +3 or -3 is still a bit much, but stacking a -2 against armies that can get a +2 (or a +2 vs a -1) seems like a solid plan. Looks like spreading out the buffs is a better strategy now.
They mentioned filling out battalions, so that means we'll still have the current detachments in some form or another. Still no explanation of how they'll affect cp though.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They mentioned filling out battalions, so that means we'll still have the current detachments in some form or another. Still no explanation of how they'll affect cp though.
Seems to be a question they're actively avoiding answering at the moment.
There's only so many questions they can answer at a time. I'm sure we'll get a better picture of things as it goes forward, today was a nice mix of new model + 9th Ed. rules + quick discussion on Engine War
"Now don't get me wrong: God created a lot of useless stupid-looking creatures on this world, too, but he didn't see fit to make any of them three-legged. Why was that do you think?"
- Edward Hyde
"Now don't get me wrong: God created a lot of useless stupid-looking creatures on this world, too, but he didn't see fit to make any of them three-legged. Why was that do you think?"
- Edward Hyde
Because mutations that reconfigure the hips of terran animal to accept a third leg are also going to have to successfully adjust both the reproductive and digestive system, and that's too big an ask for a random mutation that will be successfully passed on to progeny.
The Command phase is a quick new addition to the turn sequence. In this phase, Battle-forged armies will acquire new Command points and spend the ones they have on certain Stratagems.
We’ll have a closer look at command points specifically, later this week.
Do we need this? I mean, if they restructured the entire stratagem mechanic so that stratagems are ONLY played during the command phase than thats great.
But that wont happen. So what will be the use of this phase?
Do we need this? I mean, if they restructured the entire stratagem mechanic so that stratagems are ONLY played during the command phase than thats great.
But that wont happen. So what will be the use of this phase?
Command Phase stratagems that were played during Movement phase in the past edition and the cp generation mechanic. I don't think it's as useless as you think
You could read what it says. It's why I linked the image.
Both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities.
Extreme likelihood is that, as it is with Age of Sigmar, we'll see certain abilities(deep strike, granting bonus attacks from a hero, etc) situated here. Also extremely likely that you have to choose what stratagems you're going to even use here.
Getting the CP during the game instead of getting it all at once is excellent. It reduces the alpha-strikeyness and keeps the latter turns more interesting.
Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.
Obviously still to early to tell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Getting the CP during the game instead of getting it all at once is excellent. It reduces the alpha-strikeyness and keeps the latter turns more interesting.
That's actually one of my favorite parts of KillTeam. It really makes you have to think tactically about how you're going to use your stratagems. Use some cheaper ones spread out over several turns? Not use any for a turn or two to save up for a wombo-combo?
I'm hoping 40k is in fact implementing something similar.
Oh man, getting CP’s through the game sounds great. The more I hear of this edition the more it’s everything people have been asking for and the more I get hyped.
Do we need this? I mean, if they restructured the entire stratagem mechanic so that stratagems are ONLY played during the command phase than thats great.
But that wont happen. So what will be the use of this phase?
They say "certain stratagems." GIven that current books are still valid, I infer that Full Throttle (Ritual of the Damned) is still played in the Movement Phase as the Stratagem says that. Any that are triggered "when a unit is chosen as the target of an attack" will occur as they do now. It would seem that we are going to get some additional stratagems that are common to all: perhaps those linked to ambush or outflank. Those might have to be played in the Command Phase?
Kanluwen wrote: You could read what it says. It's why I linked the image.
Both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities.
Extreme likelihood is that, as it is with Age of Sigmar, we'll see certain abilities(deep strike, granting bonus attacks from a hero, etc) situated here. Also extremely likely that you have to choose what stratagems you're going to even use here.
I wonder if we could see something similar to the Bonereapers, where you can roll for certain units on the battlefield to possible gain command points. If you say roll a D6 for every troop you have on the battlefield, generating a CP on a 6, could incentive troops. This could also lead to other issues though.
There's enough stratagems played in the beginning of turn to warrant a phase for that, surely?
And stratagem authors who took care to write in the "beginning of movement phase" in lack of something better (not saying that all are lacking), now have a phase reserved for them if needed.
What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!
Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water. You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right? There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.
If you really want to critique the combat effectiveness of a 3 legged warmachine, you should be advocating for treads or grav systems, not legs. Walkers, whilst they look cool, are terrible warmachines and are fairly unreliable if you were to actually examine them. As design sins go, a tripod design isn't bad. Its better than putting a big gaping hole that's screaming "please shoot me in my weak spot" like they did on some of the 5th ed vehicles.
Do we need this? I mean, if they restructured the entire stratagem mechanic so that stratagems are ONLY played during the command phase than thats great.
Absolutely need this. GW finally adding specific ability timing and pre-battle/pre-turn resolution space is something the game has needed for years. 8th edition in particular had a lot of unnecessarily fuzzy timing issues
There are other aspects of those pics that are just as important as well (like a dedicated 'reinforcements' part of the movement phase, and specific rules for out of phase exceptions.
torblind wrote:And stratagem authors who took care to write in the "beginning of movement phase" in lack of something better (not saying that all are lacking), now have a phase reserved for them if needed.
Exactly that (or worse, 'before the movement phase'). 'before the battle begins' rules can now also just be 'during your first command phase'
I'm starting to suspect that we won't start with massive amounts of points (say maybe 10 tops for 2k, but more likely something like 5), and the CP generation will be important in order to sustain CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And GW has mentioned that phases now have steps like the "Reinforcement Step" so all those before/after phase rules will have instep in which we use them.
Crimson wrote: Getting the CP during the game instead of getting it all at once is excellent. It reduces the alpha-strikeyness and keeps the latter turns more interesting.
It is odd that so many abilities that they've added late in the edition "Designed for 9th ed" seem to be based around having a pool of command points available before the game to spend on innumerable relics, WL traits, special upgrades, etc....
I wonder if we'll have kind of a "Quasi-Kill Team" setup where you've got a pool of CP available at the start to spend on army upgrades, allies, etc, and then you generate CP to use on stratagems throughout the game.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.
Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.
Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP
Start game with X amount for buying detachments, putting units in reserve, buy more relics etc.
At the start of each command phase generate x command points for each HQ remaining in your army if your army is battle forged.
It seems logical (and is quite common in miniature wargames) for things like command points to be tied to your leader(s). Plus it gives an incentive to actually hunt down HQ models on the board.
Battleforged might just indicate you have a single codex army or something else. Doesn't have to be bound to battalions as many people like to think.
Otherwise I think they are probably going to do something to Kill Team except you have a CP pool at the beginning to burn if needed. I've played a lot of KT and AoS and tend to like CP generation throughout the battle so this is promising.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.
Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.
Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP
.. or just.. Troops not from your warlod's codex don't generate CP.
Anyway, is it clear that we are getting CPs per turn, Kill Team style, or could it be reserved for the old ways of generating CPs, via relics and abilities? Of course that would mean silly book keeping
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
Feel free to check the poll results on whether Apocalypse is better at being 40k than 40k is.
How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?
I did a similar journey, picked up bolt action after a couple of years with 40k. The random alternate activation felt awesome. Then I moved on to "Battlegroup", a different ww2 rule set that was IGO/UGO, and more focused on authenticity perhaps, yet it feels way superior to bolt action. Activation matters less than I thought as long as rules are good.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.
You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?
Crimson wrote: Getting the CP during the game instead of getting it all at once is excellent. It reduces the alpha-strikeyness and keeps the latter turns more interesting.
It is odd that so many abilities that they've added late in the edition "Designed for 9th ed" seem to be based around having a pool of command points available before the game to spend on innumerable relics, WL traits, special upgrades, etc....
I wonder if we'll have kind of a "Quasi-Kill Team" setup where you've got a pool of CP available at the start to spend on army upgrades, allies, etc, and then you generate CP to use on stratagems throughout the game.
I guess we're all trying to glean as much as we can from the words of the various Q&A. In the Q&A last week they implied that you start with the same number of CPs and that you could spend them on things like allies or use them in game for Stratagems. The PA for my two main armies certainly had plenty of in-game Stratagems added along with the pre-game ones. Having additional ones generate during the game is a nice touch, perhaps, to make the later turns more meaningful.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation.
I do really like the HQ idea, I'm just spitballing but it might reduce the prevalence of one-dimensional HQ's like Smash Captains if you're at risk of losing CP if they die.
Or you just plan for that. Either way it's an interesting addition to the slot that a lot of the times has struggled to find it's niche.
Crimson wrote: Getting the CP during the game instead of getting it all at once is excellent. It reduces the alpha-strikeyness and keeps the latter turns more interesting.
It is odd that so many abilities that they've added late in the edition "Designed for 9th ed" seem to be based around having a pool of command points available before the game to spend on innumerable relics, WL traits, special upgrades, etc....
I wonder if we'll have kind of a "Quasi-Kill Team" setup where you've got a pool of CP available at the start to spend on army upgrades, allies, etc, and then you generate CP to use on stratagems throughout the game.
I guess we're all trying to glean as much as we can from the words of the various Q&A. In the Q&A last week they implied that you start with the same number of CPs and that you could spend them on things like allies or use them in game for Stratagems. The PA for my two main armies certainly had plenty of in-game Stratagems added along with the pre-game ones. Having additional ones generate during the game is a nice touch, perhaps, to make the later turns more meaningful.
Where things might get REALLY wacky is all the in-turn stratagems that don't have the new structured step declaration they discussed in today's Q and A. That's going to be a lot of bookkeeping until that given army's 9th ed codex arrives.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
Feel free to check the poll results on whether Apocalypse is better at being 40k than 40k is.
How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?
Apoc has more than AA working in its favor. For one you pull casualties at the end of the turn meaning alpha strikes are nerfed by default. You're comparing apples to oranges and declaring the pear the winner and none of this has to do with 9th ed.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.
You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?
You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Where things might get REALLY wacky is all the in-turn stratagems that don't have the new structured step declaration they discussed in today's Q and A. That's going to be a lot of bookkeeping until that given army's 9th ed codex arrives.
Well most will likely play same as before. Play when you select unit to shoot is unlikely to change. The ones that will are likely easy enough to remember and day 1 faq will sort that out.
torblind wrote: I did a similar journey, picked up bolt action after a couple of years with 40k. The random alternate activation felt awesome. Then I moved on to "Battlegroup", a different ww2 rule set that was IGO/UGO, and more focused on authenticity perhaps, yet it feels way superior to bolt action. Activation matters less than I thought as long as rules are good.
It really depends what the game wants to be
a game that is about units and strategy, alternating player turns are fine, Kings of War, Warmachine, Battlegroup etc
if it is a skirmish game were model interaction is important and tactics matter, alternating activation is the better choice, Bolt Action, Deadzone, Warpath, ASoIaF
for 40k they would need to decide what they want design the game around it
adding dice rules for the illusion of player interaction instead of getting proper rules is no solution
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?
this is more about that no matter what GW uses, Alternating Player Turn, Alternating Phases , or Alternating Unit Activation, they are going to screw it up anyway
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
Feel free to check the poll results on whether Apocalypse is better at being 40k than 40k is.
How many more years of unlimited turn one command points to lose half your army before you start playing do you really want?
One. Haven't had that yet though because I'm not gak. And yes, I'm sure both people who play Apoc and the several hundred people who talk about how much they want to play apoc but just haven't gotten around to it yet. love it very much.
ziggurattt wrote: I don't mind IGOUGO that much, but it does give me pause when trying to play a footslogging guard army. It just takes forever to move the models.
AA wouldn't solve that though. You move same number of models anyway. What it does though you can't move in one go but have to pause periodically as you swap activations.
torblind wrote: I did a similar journey, picked up bolt action after a couple of years with 40k. The random alternate activation felt awesome. Then I moved on to "Battlegroup", a different ww2 rule set that was IGO/UGO, and more focused on authenticity perhaps, yet it feels way superior to bolt action. Activation matters less than I thought as long as rules are good.
It really depends what the game wants to be
a game that is about units and strategy, alternating player turns are fine, Kings of War, Warmachine, Battlegroup etc
if it is a skirmish game were model interaction is important and tactics matter, alternating activation is the better choice, Bolt Action, Deadzone, Warpath, ASoIaF
for 40k they would need to decide what they want design the game around it
adding dice rules for the illusion of player interaction instead of getting proper rules is no solution
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?
this is more about that no matter what GW uses, Alternating Player Turn, Alternating Phases , or Alternating Unit Activation, they are going to screw it up anyway
They probably would screw it up, but the least they could do is try so the game is actually interactive.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.
You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?
You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it
Alternating activations can take way longer, alternating activations heavily emphasize extraordinarily impactful single units while making things like small troop units actively detrimental, while the overall level of first turn advantage is reduced, it's certainly still there, there's less room for 'tech' style units due to economy of activation. Etc.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.
You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?
You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it
Alternating activations can take way longer, alternating activations heavily emphasize extraordinarily impactful single units while making things like small troop units actively detrimental, while the overall level of first turn advantage is reduced, it's certainly still there, there's less room for 'tech' style units due to economy of activation. Etc.
1. The game is already long. If you want a short game, play a smaller point level
2. IGOUGO already did that especially with the invention of Strats to throw on those units!
3. You say "less incentive to run MSU" like that's a bad thing somehow.
4. Tech style units die on the first or second turn. Good job taking them and not going first!
Honestly your only real point is #1 about game length, and if an additional half hour is that bad for you in order to actually do something instead of WAITING said half an hour to actually do something, why wouldn't you consider that a win?
What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!
Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water.
You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right?
There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.
If you really want to critique the combat effectiveness of a 3 legged warmachine, you should be advocating for treads or grav systems, not legs.
Walkers, whilst they look cool, are terrible warmachines and are fairly unreliable if you were to actually examine them.
As design sins go, a tripod design isn't bad. Its better than putting a big gaping hole that's screaming "please shoot me in my weak spot" like they did on some of the 5th ed vehicles.
I can see something with three legged and a large blade as a line holder like Viking housecarls with a danish axes. Three legs would provide a strong support against being rushed and being knocked to the ground, but unless they very unique form of movement l don’t think they will be faster. The Droidekas in Star Wars don’t move around that much after they are on their feet. I wonder if the number of legs is going to be a way of showing rank, warriors have two, skorpekh destroyers three, and some Crypteks four (Illuminor Szeras). If so will the Silent King have an infinite number, a la our number is legion?
We known it is not gonna be AA, it is pointless to argue about it and Slayer hopefully can finally give up and find a game they like better and take their endless whining elsewhere.
What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!
Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water.
You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right?
There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.
If you really want to critique the combat effectiveness of a 3 legged warmachine, you should be advocating for treads or grav systems, not legs.
Walkers, whilst they look cool, are terrible warmachines and are fairly unreliable if you were to actually examine them.
As design sins go, a tripod design isn't bad. Its better than putting a big gaping hole that's screaming "please shoot me in my weak spot" like they did on some of the 5th ed vehicles.
I can see something with three legged and a large blade as a line holder like Viking housecarls with a danish axes. Three legs would provide a strong support against being rushed and being knocked to the ground, but unless they very unique form of movement l don’t think they will be faster. The Droidekas in Star Wars don’t move around that much after they are on their feet. I wonder if the number of legs is going to be a way of showing rank, warriors have two, skorpekh destroyers three, and some Crypteks four (Illuminor Szeras). If so will the Silent King have an infinite number, a la our number is legion?
That wouldn't make sense since the CTan took their soles right?
What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!
Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water. You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right? There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.
If you really want to critique the combat effectiveness of a 3 legged warmachine, you should be advocating for treads or grav systems, not legs. Walkers, whilst they look cool, are terrible warmachines and are fairly unreliable if you were to actually examine them. As design sins go, a tripod design isn't bad. Its better than putting a big gaping hole that's screaming "please shoot me in my weak spot" like they did on some of the 5th ed vehicles.
I can see something with three legged and a large blade as a line holder like Viking housecarls with a danish axes. Three legs would provide a strong support against being rushed and being knocked to the ground, but unless they very unique form of movement l don’t think they will be faster. The Droidekas in Star Wars don’t move around that much after they are on their feet. I wonder if the number of legs is going to be a way of showing rank, warriors have two, skorpekh destroyers three, and some Crypteks four (Illuminor Szeras). If so will the Silent King have an infinite number, a la our number is legion?
Except in the trailer you see them being able to move really fast. Which is certainly weird, but I think that's the point; the three legged design is supposed to evoke War of the Worlds and something alien, something unnatural. Which is what Necrons are supposed to be, not a bunch of senile old robots floating around in their flimsy barges, as was portrayed in 5th ed.
Destroyers have no legs, Overlords (who are supposed to be near the top of the Necron Hierachy) are bipeds, and Canoptek Units, such as wraiths and Stalkers, tend to have at least 6 legs. So I think its safe to say that the number of legs have nothing to do with rank.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.
Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.
Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP
You don't need troops to be battleforged, that's a term used in 8th ed already to mean your army simply complies with matched play rules and the detachment structure.
Hell you get 3 cp bonus in 8th specifically for being battleforged, regardless what detachments you use.
leopard wrote: nick the activation system from Chain of Command - your HQs now actually do something - you use them to activate other units when they are activated.
in your "turn" you probably won't activate your entire army
How many? If 1 per hq some armies with expensive ineffective hp's would get shafted
Plus is deathstar playstyle that fun? 7th and 8th already are
Can we, like, not argue about Alternate Activation and IGO/UGO? The latter is in the game in 9th and that's not going to change anytime soon. It's a moot point to argue about it in the News and Rumors section about 9th.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.
Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.
Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP
You don't need troops to be battleforged, that's a term used in 8th ed already to mean your army simply complies with matched play rules and the detachment structure.
Hell you get 3 cp bonus in 8th specifically for being battleforged, regardless what detachments you use.
Note the part i quoted. See "if we've got still motivation to take battalion"? What you think he was refering if not taking bat's help gaining cp?
The "grass is greener" comment is directed at people assuming that something different is automatically better.
AA can arguably slow the game down, and while it can ensure that you get a chance to react to your opponent's actions, it can lead to a lot of people's armies chasing east other in circles as the army who wants to get into melee has to deal with a shooting army that will react to move away in direct response to every attempt to close the gap.
Basically it buffs shooting and nerfs melee without very specific considerations.
It also makes melee useless when you can just react to them making it into melee by moving away meaning, something that happens in Kill Team.
And no "get good" is not a defense for the shortcomings of a game mechanic. Nor is "well they could do X, Y or Z to fix that."
Further more it pushes a strong order of operations style of play, even more so than 8th edition does, meaning that even the slightest wrong order of acgivation can spiral into a heavy loss early, not something that lends well to getting new players into the game while they're trying to juggle so many mechanics.
Like it or not 8th has been the most accessible edition for new players and the growth of the player base over the last three years supports that very well. 9th is building on 8th to make it even more accessible while cutting down on the gamey "gotchas" that plagued parts of 8th.
And if you don't like that despite knowing the game has been the most successful it's ever been despite not moving to AA then Kill Team, and Apoc both meet your AA needs.
What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!
Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water.
You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right?
There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.
Haha, I've seen numerous three legged cats and dogs and many of them were plenty capable and fast as f***.
More on topic though, I'm excited to hear more about the new terrain rules. They were 8ths biggest failing, imo.
Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.
Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.
Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP
You don't need troops to be battleforged, that's a term used in 8th ed already to mean your army simply complies with matched play rules and the detachment structure.
Hell you get 3 cp bonus in 8th specifically for being battleforged, regardless what detachments you use.
Note the part i quoted. See "if we've got still motivation to take battalion"? What you think he was refering if not taking bat's help gaining cp?
That there is a clear lack of understanding that battleforged exists and isn't tied to troops?
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
This would seem to fly in the face of what they have said so far about Troops and CPs in the Q&A. Admittedly, I might be hearing what I want to hear. Still, they made several points about there no longer being the compulsion to get Troops to have CPs.
Full disclosure - I didn't like the FOC when it came in with 3rd. Units should stand on their own merits. Let each player determine what a "proper" army is.
Tying CP regen to having HQs or your Warlord alive could be interesting (like KT), but then it further incentivizes early assassination of characters. Not sure that would be a fun mechanic.
The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
This would seem to fly in the face of what they have said so far about Troops and CPs in the Q&A. Admittedly, I might be hearing what I want to hear. Still, they made several points about there no longer being the compulsion to get Troops to have CPs.
Full disclosure - I didn't like the FOC when it came in with 3rd. Units should stand on their own merits. Let each player determine what a "proper" army is.
Tying CP regen to having HQs or your Warlord alive could be interesting (like KT), but then it further incentivizes early assassination of characters. Not sure that would be a fun mechanic.
No it doesn't as they said armies would -start- the game with roughly the same amount of CP (depending on what you spend. CP generation post game start can be tied to a number of things (like 1 for the turn, 1 for your warlord, 1 if you have troops, ect, ect). Some of it might even vary by mission.
Starting everyone on the same footing but rewarding the use of troops later in the game is hardly a game breaker and it doesn't contradict what we know right now.
We'll know for sure later this week though since they said more info on CP was coming.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Yep, this is a good thing.
Agreed. I discovered the TT Youtube channel just last year and I enjoy all their batreps. They always have good terrain density and layout, they take time to discuss in detail their lists and they test all kinds of lists from casual to competitive. Big fan of theirs.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.
You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?
You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it
Alternating activations can take way longer, alternating activations heavily emphasize extraordinarily impactful single units while making things like small troop units actively detrimental, while the overall level of first turn advantage is reduced, it's certainly still there, there's less room for 'tech' style units due to economy of activation. Etc.
1. The game is already long. If you want a short game, play a smaller point level
2. IGOUGO already did that especially with the invention of Strats to throw on those units!
3. You say "less incentive to run MSU" like that's a bad thing somehow.
4. Tech style units die on the first or second turn. Good job taking them and not going first!
Honestly your only real point is #1 about game length, and if an additional half hour is that bad for you in order to actually do something instead of WAITING said half an hour to actually do something, why wouldn't you consider that a win?
having played games with AA it can take a good deal longer as people think through EVERY unit they move. partly because AA allows for some intreasting tactics. such as deliberatly using one of your units to bait out another unit. in 40k this would be a case of moving a low cost squad into a position to get chopped by Khorne Bezerkers in an attempt to lure those Bezerkers into the open where you can kill em. AA is great for games that have it, but having played a few games with it, it simply won't work in 40k barring a major change of the system
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favorite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Yep, this is a good thing.
They're great, I just hope they provide actual critical feedback.
My main concern is that a lot of playtesters may not be open and critical with their feedback for concern over getting early releases or not getting invited back. The Tabletop Tactics are a great bunch though.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Yep, this is a good thing.
Oh, they're the ones playtesting now? Frontline is out?
I don't get why they just don't call it a Hyperphase Glaive. I mean, it looks kind of like a Glaive. Well, without the pole, anyway.
Reap-Blade sounds terrible. It sounds like something Penny Arcade would come up with to make fun of bad writing. It doesn't even feel good on the tongue; who would put a B sound after a P sound? If you say it at normal speed you get Reaplade, and that's even worse.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Yep, this is a good thing.
Oh, they're the ones playtesting now? Frontline is out?
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.
Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.
1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?
Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.
Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.
You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?
You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it
Alternating activations can take way longer, alternating activations heavily emphasize extraordinarily impactful single units while making things like small troop units actively detrimental, while the overall level of first turn advantage is reduced, it's certainly still there, there's less room for 'tech' style units due to economy of activation. Etc.
1. The game is already long. If you want a short game, play a smaller point level
2. IGOUGO already did that especially with the invention of Strats to throw on those units!
3. You say "less incentive to run MSU" like that's a bad thing somehow.
4. Tech style units die on the first or second turn. Good job taking them and not going first!
Honestly your only real point is #1 about game length, and if an additional half hour is that bad for you in order to actually do something instead of WAITING said half an hour to actually do something, why wouldn't you consider that a win?
having played games with AA it can take a good deal longer as people think through EVERY unit they move. partly because AA allows for some intreasting tactics. such as deliberatly using one of your units to bait out another unit. in 40k this would be a case of moving a low cost squad into a position to get chopped by Khorne Bezerkers in an attempt to lure those Bezerkers into the open where you can kill em. AA is great for games that have it, but having played a few games with it, it simply won't work in 40k barring a major change of the system
Well the system needs reworking anyway so why is that a bad thing?
The system got reworked to make 8th and that got improved to make 9th. It doesn't "need" a reworking. Stop presenting your taste as objective fact. This thread is for news, keep your AA system wishliting to the general 40k thread that's already open.
Both AA and IGOUGO are bad, the real fun happens when you do hidden orders simultaneous activation like X-Wing on a meth bender. Each unit gets a movement dial and actions pips, toss in a couple of command point strategies, and it should only take a few hours to finish the first turn.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
While I agree that taking troops should be incentivized, I think one of the biggest problems with that is that some factions have excellent troops who don't feel like a "tax" when taken, while others have more lackluster options that were generally only taken in 8th to fill out detachments. See intercessors vs csm for a good example. Hopefully 9th will address this by making those lackluster troops better options.
As for the best term for "grognards", I prefer Veterans of the Long War.
Pure speculation, but maybe troops will play a role in to how many command points are generated each turn? Get 1 extra command point for each troops unit on the board during your command phase? Would paint a massive target on each troops unit's head, but it would be incentive. How you'd balance that for horde armies is beyond me, but I'm just spitballing.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
While I agree that taking troops should be incentivized, I think one of the biggest problems with that is that some factions have excellent troops who don't feel like a "tax" when taken, while others have more lackluster options that were generally only taken in 8th to fill out detachments. See intercessors vs csm for a good example. Hopefully 9th will address this by making those lackluster troops better options.
As for the best term for "grognards", I prefer Veterans of the Long War.
Spikey Bit's VotLW podcast (also known as "The Long War") soured that one a bit for me.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
This would seem to fly in the face of what they have said so far about Troops and CPs in the Q&A. Admittedly, I might be hearing what I want to hear. Still, they made several points about there no longer being the compulsion to get Troops to have CPs.
Full disclosure - I didn't like the FOC when it came in with 3rd. Units should stand on their own merits. Let each player determine what a "proper" army is.
Tying CP regen to having HQs or your Warlord alive could be interesting (like KT), but then it further incentivizes early assassination of characters. Not sure that would be a fun mechanic.
No it doesn't as they said armies would -start- the game with roughly the same amount of CP (depending on what you spend. CP generation post game start can be tied to a number of things (like 1 for the turn, 1 for your warlord, 1 if you have troops, ect, ect). Some of it might even vary by mission.
Starting everyone on the same footing but rewarding the use of troops later in the game is hardly a game breaker and it doesn't contradict what we know right now.
We'll know for sure later this week though since they said more info on CP was coming.
Would mean loyal 32's wouldn't go anywhere though. Importance could even grow even more essential...
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
While I agree that taking troops should be incentivized, I think one of the biggest problems with that is that some factions have excellent troops who don't feel like a "tax" when taken, while others have more lackluster options that were generally only taken in 8th to fill out detachments. See intercessors vs csm for a good example. Hopefully 9th will address this by making those lackluster troops better options.
As for the best term for "grognards", I prefer Veterans of the Long War.
Spikey Bit's VotLW podcast (also known as "The Long War") soured that one a bit for me.
I find it's better to just pretend those guys don't exist myself.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
This would seem to fly in the face of what they have said so far about Troops and CPs in the Q&A. Admittedly, I might be hearing what I want to hear. Still, they made several points about there no longer being the compulsion to get Troops to have CPs.
Full disclosure - I didn't like the FOC when it came in with 3rd. Units should stand on their own merits. Let each player determine what a "proper" army is.
Tying CP regen to having HQs or your Warlord alive could be interesting (like KT), but then it further incentivizes early assassination of characters. Not sure that would be a fun mechanic.
No it doesn't as they said armies would -start- the game with roughly the same amount of CP (depending on what you spend. CP generation post game start can be tied to a number of things (like 1 for the turn, 1 for your warlord, 1 if you have troops, ect, ect). Some of it might even vary by mission.
Starting everyone on the same footing but rewarding the use of troops later in the game is hardly a game breaker and it doesn't contradict what we know right now.
We'll know for sure later this week though since they said more info on CP was coming.
Would mean loyal 32's wouldn't go anywhere though. Importance could even grow even more essential...
Not if you have to pay to have them or allies don't generate CP.
ClockworkZion wrote: Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.
And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.
While I agree that taking troops should be incentivized, I think one of the biggest problems with that is that some factions have excellent troops who don't feel like a "tax" when taken, while others have more lackluster options that were generally only taken in 8th to fill out detachments. See intercessors vs csm for a good example. Hopefully 9th will address this by making those lackluster troops better options.
As for the best term for "grognards", I prefer Veterans of the Long War.
Spikey Bit's VotLW podcast (also known as "The Long War") soured that one a bit for me.
I find it's better to just pretend those guys don't exist myself.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Yep, this is a good thing.
Oh, they're the ones playtesting now? Frontline is out?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Yep, this is a good thing.
Oh, they're the ones playtesting now? Frontline is out?
I sure hope Frontline is out. Good riddance.
Probably not. Reese was saying veteran ITC players would find the missions "very familiar" so he still has an inside track on the game.
But it looks like Frontline isn't getting most (or all) of the say anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Who the playtesters are is irrelevant if gw doesn't change their style of it. "here's premade armylists. Play and tell your opinion" doesn'" cut it
Do we have any evidence that they're still doing that?
is there any evidence that GW changend how they test?
ClockworkZion wrote:The system got reworked to make 8th and that got improved to make 9th. It doesn't "need" a reworking. Stop presenting your taste as objective fact. This thread is for news, keep your AA system wishliting to the general 40k thread that's already open.
H.B.M.C. wrote:It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?
I might have a strange point of view, but "the game" is not the core rules alone
Something were just the Core rules change but unit profiles stayed the same is not a complete re-work
people asked for GW change the unbalanced faction from 7th, the got a Streamlined core and the faction remained the same
therefore it is also pointless to ask for changing from D6 to D8 or D10, because as long as Humans are 3/3/3 and Marines 4/4/4 it does not matter how big the changes in the core rules are
So the big re-work of 40k that was promised got lost somewhere on the way and we got Copy&Paste instead
There is hope that GW learned from it that we get the changes to the factions that are needed (but as the core changes again, they will say that this is enough to balance the factions and in 2 years we are again at the point were people will call for a change as the problems we have since 3rd are still not solved)
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.
And crucially, like every player they have their favorite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.
Yep, this is a good thing.
They're great, I just hope they provide actual critical feedback.
My main concern is that a lot of playtesters may not be open and critical with their feedback for concern over getting early releases or not getting invited back. The Tabletop Tactics are a great bunch though.
I personally don't think that would be the case due to the nature of the guys. It's my opinion that they are very good at critiquing, which means shining a light on something that is not working, but also being positive about things that do.
Another important aspect of them being play test is they were asked to test it both competitively and more narratively also (They answered a few general questions on their FB and insta accounts last night, nothing given away rule wise though).
I am going to make a guesstimation that they have chosen specific play testers to do specific jobs, and I would have though TT are more general play testers, commenting on viability of units and changes that need to be made (even if its just a point change), whilst other play testers may have been asked to play the game and find the broken combos, so more bug testing than others. That's how I'd handle it anyway.
Let's hope all those playtesters aren't getting payed to say that 9th will be good. I'm still skeptical, GW said 9th will be the best edition ever, I remember they said the same about 8th.
Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.
During 8th edition Reece (founder of Fronline Gaming and the ITC) made a fair few bold predictions and was very wrong, even in spite of being a play-tester, claiming stompas would be great, white scars would be the best marine chapter etc. and they're still doing better than fine.
until now every Edition was the best Edition ever, and as changes are always made on a global level with the core, it takes some time for people to get around it to really see if it got better overall or just being different
comapring to 8th, first 6 months with Index only and regular FAQ's was better than late 7th by a lot, while early 7th was better than 6th.
Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.
So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)
I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.
During 8th edition Reece (founder of Fronline Gaming and the ITC) made a fair few bold predictions and was very wrong, even in spite of being a play-tester, claiming stompas would be great, white scars would be the best marine chapter etc. and they're still doing better than fine.
Which is why I am glad they are not predominant play testers in this edition, especially as they do not actually play 40k (IMO anyway).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.
Chef is interesting, as he is evidently very good at theory hammer, but his actual playing ability lacks at times, he miss deploys a lot, and will solely hone in on the objectives first round (even if that means advancing towards orks or gene stealers etc, which is a mistake I see many players make at times), so his advice I take with salt. Theory hammer he is spot on, but theory hammer does not tend to work on the table due to the variables in play during a game etc.
Bone and Lawrence are very good though, and very measured in their opinions and playing ability. If Bones dice did not betray him and Lawrence could just stop sacrificing small animals to the dice gods for ridiculously over the probability rolls they'd be much closer matched I imagine (no evidence that Lawrence actually does that, just an assumption because that dude is do damn lucky).
keas66 wrote: Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .
It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.
The box can be thick but I doubt there is much difference in plastic between all the options just some weapons there or not there between a couple of the variants. The cost of it is intense, we're not paying for " Thick box feels " It's just the ever bloating costs for moar profits while I am sure even at say, 80 which is still high, they'd have pretty good profit. Or, they could just sit back and pull in some of those extra profits from the extra expensive Cavalry units. Might as well claim it costs so much because once you buy it all your dreams will come true. Especially if your dream was to pay a mint for the Davinci Code.
Oh good, you understand how their business works. Could you explain to me what the cost breakdown vs profit of this model is in GW terms?
Eldenfirefly wrote: I feel a lot more reassured that TT is part of the playtesting group! I trust them. Let's hope GW listen's to their feedback.
Same here. It's the part of GW listening to feedback that worries me.
We've had the latest SM codex as an example. It was good (very good I'd say) for their bottom line, but not so much for the game.
keas66 wrote: Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .
It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.
The box can be thick but I doubt there is much difference in plastic between all the options just some weapons there or not there between a couple of the variants. The cost of it is intense, we're not paying for " Thick box feels " It's just the ever bloating costs for moar profits while I am sure even at say, 80 which is still high, they'd have pretty good profit. Or, they could just sit back and pull in some of those extra profits from the extra expensive Cavalry units. Might as well claim it costs so much because once you buy it all your dreams will come true. Especially if your dream was to pay a mint for the Davinci Code.
Oh good, you understand how their business works. Could you explain to me what the cost breakdown vs profit of this model is in GW terms?
GW explained it some time ago, the sales on the release weekend need to cover all the previous costs of the model (design, molds, casting, box art etc) otherwise it is considered "failed".
together with the expected sales on release they calculate the price of the box, so stuff GW expects to sell more on release are cheaper than those were they expect less
regarding kits like the flyer, it is a lot cheaper for GW to make one kit with an additional sprue for bits than to make 3 different kits, while they can still price it as 3 models
Gadzilla666 wrote: I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.
Chef is interesting, as he is evidently very good at theory hammer, but his actual playing ability lacks at times, he miss deploys a lot, and will solely hone in on the objectives first round (even if that means advancing towards orks or gene stealers etc, which is a mistake I see many players make at times), so his advice I take with salt. Theory hammer he is spot on, but theory hammer does not tend to work on the table due to the variables in play during a game etc.
Bone and Lawrence are very good though, and very measured in their opinions and playing ability. If Bones dice did not betray him and Lawrence could just stop sacrificing small animals to the dice gods for ridiculously over the probability rolls they'd be much closer matched I imagine (no evidence that Lawrence actually does that, just an assumption because that dude is do damn lucky).
I was referring to their opinions on what csm needs for the army to play better, especially in their review of Faith and Fury, not their play style or ability. Though agreed on Lawrence's rolling, it's pretty ridiculous . Would love to see a br where he played Winters SEO's Death Guard, just to see which is more ridiculous, Lawrence's general rolling, or Winter's dr rolling . But I fear we're wondering.
On topic, regarding the day one errata, we know we'll get points changes as well as a definition of what counts as a "blast weapon", but will there be other changes? Possibly changes to some units FOC slots? (*Cough* chosen as troops *cough*).
I would doubt that is likely, that is probably a new codex if ever change.
I really do think a lot of the errata on day one could be adding keywords to datasheets so we have some clarity of what is a what in relation to new rules and strategums, for hopefully less does or doesn't this rule affect that rule.
E.g. what is an aura, so relics of plus range and this new admech strategum have some clearly defined does and doesn't interactions.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.
Chef is interesting, as he is evidently very good at theory hammer, but his actual playing ability lacks at times, he miss deploys a lot, and will solely hone in on the objectives first round (even if that means advancing towards orks or gene stealers etc, which is a mistake I see many players make at times), so his advice I take with salt. Theory hammer he is spot on, but theory hammer does not tend to work on the table due to the variables in play during a game etc.
Bone and Lawrence are very good though, and very measured in their opinions and playing ability. If Bones dice did not betray him and Lawrence could just stop sacrificing small animals to the dice gods for ridiculously over the probability rolls they'd be much closer matched I imagine (no evidence that Lawrence actually does that, just an assumption because that dude is do damn lucky).
I was referring to their opinions on what csm needs for the army to play better, especially in their review of Faith and Fury, not their play style or ability. Though agreed on Lawrence's rolling, it's pretty ridiculous . Would love to see a br where he played Winters SEO's Death Guard, just to see which is more ridiculous, Lawrence's general rolling, or Winter's dr rolling . But I fear we're wondering.
Hahaha, glad to know I am not alone in these musings on a Lawrence vs Winters DR rolling.
In the B-Bone, Chef and Spider I trust for play testing though (assuming they're listened to). Lawrence has been playing as CSM a bit recently (at least in OD and FV combined) so he may have a good input into some feedback for them too (which is also heartening).
I was going to post similar to Ice_can has said really, that regardless of what the core rules do add to the game, every faction is going to need extensive FAQs/erreta in the opening salvo.
I did hear them say that they're already working on the new codexs but it's unlikely we'll get a whole new fresh wave day dot so I can just speculate that we'll have a the FAQs etc immeidately after launch to make up new 'indexes' so to speak and then the usual steady stream of codexs meaning months of imbalance and new power lists. Worth it for better core mechanics though.
Ice_can wrote: I would doubt that is likely, that is probably a new codex if ever change.
I really do think a lot of the errata on day one could be adding keywords to datasheets so we have some clarity of what is a what in relation to new rules and strategums, for hopefully less does or doesn't this rule affect that rule.
E.g. what is an aura, so relics of plus range and this new admech strategum have some clearly defined does and doesn't interactions.
A clear definition of what constitutes an aura ability would be nice, as it would clear up what could or could not be vox screamed, at least from my perspective.
As Semper points out if this errata is as extensive as they say it could function as an "index" for factions until we get new codexes, and you're right, a keyword cleanup would definitely be in order.
Ice_can wrote: I would doubt that is likely, that is probably a new codex if ever change.
I really do think a lot of the errata on day one could be adding keywords to datasheets so we have some clarity of what is a what in relation to new rules and strategums, for hopefully less does or doesn't this rule affect that rule.
E.g. what is an aura, so relics of plus range and this new admech strategum have some clearly defined does and doesn't interactions.
A clear definition of what constitutes an aura ability would be nice, as it would clear up what could or could not be vox screamed, at least from my perspective.
As Semper points out if this errata is as extensive as they say it could function as an "index" for factions until we get new codexes, and you're right, a keyword cleanup would definitely be in order.
Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.
So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)
Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)
8th got so many people back into the hobby (including me) which shows how good it was and how well GW has evolved as a company to accommodate the modern market.
I have great faith in them nowadays and i think they will deliver another good edition of the game.
Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.
So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)
Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)
Hard to beat the glorious days of index book rules beginning of 8th. Easy and balanced for everyone. Now 9th is of to a very bad start considering the double bloat of myriad bonus rules and a handfull of rulebooks/sources for each army.
I understand that some people wanted more radical changes, but I am pretty optimistic. Every change they have announced seems to be a clear improvement. I think they know what they're doing.
Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.
So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)
Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)
our play group absolutely exploded when 8th released, and has been steadily petering out basically ever since the marine release, which is probably the single biggest drop-off we saw since Gladius in 7th.
Eldar were undoubtedly more broken, but at the time we had one single eldar player who had a wraith army and no bikes, so it basically didn't affect anybody. When Gladius dropped, we had 8 marine players who could all fit their army into a gladius and take 5+ free transport vehicles, and suddenly they could only play good games with each other or with the tournament players. It isn't really "fair" and that's understandable, but just because about 1/3 of the group plays marines, when marines are broken our entire meta breaks.
New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.
I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.
People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.
Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.
Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.
So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)
Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)
Hard to beat the glorious days of index book rules beginning of 8th. Easy and balanced for everyone. Now 9th is of to a very bad start considering the double bloat of myriad bonus rules and a handfull of rulebooks/sources for each army.
Arbitrator wrote: New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.
I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.
People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.
Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.
I sense lots of optimism or this 9th ed, and rule bloat will diminish with every knoew codex so... And the "marine problem" will persist only for early 9th IMO. And who knows, harlequins, ad mech or necrons might actually become more problematic than marines, who knows really.
Wargamers cut GW se much slack because 40k is the only game that is "still there" after a few years. Ant other game will see its community dissapear after a few years. 40k groups do not. So GW must be doing at least something right, I think. I thought about selling all my armies during 6th ed and 7th, but at the end of the day what other wargame was I going to play ? Not enough people to play with, no matter what other wargame (warmachine was big at the time, but I knew it wouldn't last, and it didn't, not where i played...)
Arbitrator wrote: New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.
I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.
People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.
Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.
When Eldar or Necrons or Knights or Tau become OP, a typical (in my experience anyway) 40k playgroup ends up with 1-2 players who may have broken armies.
When marines become OP, a typical 40k playgroup ends up with 7-8 players who may have broken armies. When roughly half the players in the group play marines, and everybody else vanishes, then after a while the marine players who dislike playing other marines all the time, also grow disinterested.
One of the universal constants of 40k is people who want to play as the marines, and want to only play against the not-marines, so that their army can feel elite and have cool special rules in comparison to the other army. When non-marine armies are broken, marine players can still have a good time by avoiding the one person who plays that army in particular and complain about them, but when m arines are broken, marine players who don't enjoy imperium vs imperium end up with no opponents right quick and get bored.
So, hopefully 9th ed provides some kind of balancing factor that reduces or mitigates the current situation of "marines have tons of unique extra bonus stuff that nobody else gets to have" and GW does not choose to drip-feed out the monofaction bonuses through a new, tiring round of codex re-buying that everyone has to do. I'm not filled with a whole lot of confidence on that front. I really do hope that they lean into this "Crusade Mode is going to be the big selling point of the new 'dexes" angle, though, because enthusiasm level for that mode among my group is basically zero.
One of the best things about quarantine is that we had what feels like a seconds-long pause in the endless Rules Churn that allowed people to breathe for a second, and the first thing a lot of them did was kick off a new army project. If we go back to having to spend money every month on books, this new interest in branching out to new factions might die off. As it stands though, we have a player starting eldar, a player starting orks, two players starting drukhari, a player starting sisters, and a player starting chaos marines with chaos knights which I'm really excited about.
Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.
So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)
Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)
Hard to beat the glorious days of index book rules beginning of 8th. Easy and balanced for everyone. Now 9th is of to a very bad start considering the double bloat of myriad bonus rules and a handfull of rulebooks/sources for each army.
I hope thats a joke, those indexes were aweful.
Why? Because they were more balanced than codexes? Because there wasn't free rules with chapter/regiment/etc to shoehorn you into set units and discouraging fluffy armies?
Arbitrator wrote: New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.
I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.
People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.
Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.
I sense lots of optimism or this 9th ed, and rule bloat will diminish with every knoew codex so... And the "marine problem" will persist only for early 9th IMO. And who knows, harlequins, ad mech or necrons might actually become more problematic than marines, who knows really.
Wargamers cut GW se much slack because 40k is the only game that is "still there" after a few years. Ant other game will see its community dissapear after a few years. 40k groups do not. So GW must be doing at least something right, I think. I thought about selling all my armies during 6th ed and 7th, but at the end of the day what other wargame was I going to play ? Not enough people to play with, no matter what other wargame (warmachine was big at the time, but I knew it wouldn't last, and it didn't, not where i played...)
I don't see why rule bloat would diminish. It might do for SOME armies temporarily since they mentioned any new codex will bake in the PA rules, but there's nothing to suggest that won't be anymore than a compilation. If PA books are still valid and the new 'dex doesn't include things like Tank Aces or certain Strategems, because those books are - by their own words - still legal then at best, the amount of rules remains exactly the same for that army (under one volume) and at worst you're still carting the Codex + PA + Vigilus with you. What's more is they've already confirmed that more campaigns like PA are coming with 9th and since everybody knows rules are what shift books and not lore (that being Black Library's purview) chances are it's going to get worse before it gets better.
You answered your own question. Wargaming is very expensive and almost everybody starts with 40k (or at least a GW product) due to it's market saturation, hell, a lot of people don't actually know other wargames exist. Wargamers like big communities, sothey're nervous of investing into other games, but 40k will always be there. So when GW pulls the curtain on their new Malibu Stacy (with a hat) everybody rushes back to it for no other major reason beyond... well, everybody else is going it. That has the effect of temporarily killing off most other games regardless of how good the quality of their rules or sculpts may be. GW is probably consciously aware of that since they uncharacteristically pulled the veil off The Old World literal years in advance of seeing much, coincidentally around the same time Kings of War 3E was launching and ASOI&F was picking up steam. Even those Kings of War is widely accepted to be a far better ruleset than anything GW was/is(?) producing, all the hype is surrounding Warhammer because... well, people know about it and they know people will play it largely because it's Games Workshop/Warhammer and has the highest chance of garnering bigger playerbase for that reason.
Also, not every game's community disappears so much as they wax and wane. Even Warmahordes still has a decent sized playerbase comparable to what it was prior to the big surge around when GW was actively trying to blow it's own feet off.
addnid wrote: Wargamers cut GW se much slack because 40k is the only game that is "still there" after a few years. Ant other game will see its community dissapear after a few years. 40k groups do not. So GW must be doing at least something right, I think. I thought about selling all my armies during 6th ed and 7th, but at the end of the day what other wargame was I going to play ? Not enough people to play with, no matter what other wargame (warmachine was big at the time, but I knew it wouldn't last, and it didn't, not where i played...)
Well, I don't know... I play Battletech. I haven't had much of a problem finding games in thirty years
tneva82 wrote: Why? Because they were more balanced than codexes? Because there wasn't free rules with chapter/regiment/etc to shoehorn you into set units and discouraging fluffy armies?
Because orks were so little fun to play, I started another army.
Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.
I concur. I wish they’d communicate more between the writers and kept things more consistent across the board.
Darsath wrote: Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.
The problem is, it is far more profitable for GW to drip-feed advantages and fixes for disadvantages in the codexes as a selling point than it is to create new rules uniformly and give everyone a piece at once.
Imbalance makes much, much more money than balance. Get your codex now and you can have the good strong flavorful rules!
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.
During 8th edition Reece (founder of Fronline Gaming and the ITC) made a fair few bold predictions and was very wrong, even in spite of being a play-tester, claiming stompas would be great, white scars would be the best marine chapter etc. and they're still doing better than fine.
Exactly. Personally, I refuse to have anything to do with the douchebags at frontline because of everything that happened involving them in 8th. I'm the minority in that sentiment though. It doesn't seem like their business was affected at all.
tneva82 wrote: Why? Because they were more balanced than codexes? Because there wasn't free rules with chapter/regiment/etc to shoehorn you into set units and discouraging fluffy armies?
Because orks were so little fun to play, I started another army.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?
They are like those asking to go back to RT when 3rd released. In 2-3 editions they will fade in obscurity as they become the new old-hammers.
I'd not want the game to go back to 7th, but I wouldn't mind them taking lessons from KT, apoc, and LotR to make their flagship game better. There are things introduced in apoc that really would benefit 40k, AA is one, casualties at the end is another, consolidating dice is a third (look, no one enjoys sitting there watching someone roll 200 dice).
They could also take hints from killteam and lotr to commit to alternating phases. One side moves (and charges), the other side does, alternate shooting, and then the standard modern alternate combat. Heck I have played a couple games cribbing killteam's set up and it works.
keas66 wrote: Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .
It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.
The box can be thick but I doubt there is much difference in plastic between all the options just some weapons there or not there between a couple of the variants. The cost of it is intense, we're not paying for " Thick box feels " It's just the ever bloating costs for moar profits while I am sure even at say, 80 which is still high, they'd have pretty good profit. Or, they could just sit back and pull in some of those extra profits from the extra expensive Cavalry units. Might as well claim it costs so much because once you buy it all your dreams will come true. Especially if your dream was to pay a mint for the Davinci Code.
Oh good, you understand how their business works. Could you explain to me what the cost breakdown vs profit of this model is in GW terms?
GW explained it some time ago, the sales on the release weekend need to cover all the previous costs of the model (design, molds, casting, box art etc) otherwise it is considered "failed".
together with the expected sales on release they calculate the price of the box, so stuff GW expects to sell more on release are cheaper than those were they expect less
regarding kits like the flyer, it is a lot cheaper for GW to make one kit with an additional sprue for bits than to make 3 different kits, while they can still price it as 3 models
This is a very concerning approach to profit that focuses on front-loading and then abandoning products to show a quick injection of cash to shareholders. Too many companies focus on two days immediately after release and drop all marketing and support for a product afterwards, helping fulfill the belief that only the first few days matter.
Darsath wrote: Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.
The problem is, it is far more profitable for GW to drip-feed advantages and fixes for disadvantages in the codexes as a selling point than it is to create new rules uniformly and give everyone a piece at once.
Imbalance makes much, much more money than balance. Get your codex now and you can have the good strong flavorful rules!
It's also what most people want, to have their army be the unbalanced OP one. There's a rush winning games. Even if, ultimately, that rush wears off and you start to feel embarrassed at the dirty looks you're getting when you set up you iron hands. It's especially strong if your army used to be gak and suddenly it is the new hotness and it feels good beating the pants off the last old hotness after that army steam rolled you the last 20 times you played it.
Well there might exist a middle ground between the bland, stripped to the core indexes, on one hand, or on the other hand, the bloat we already have seen of codices, + supplement N#1 + supplement N#2 etc...
The perilous rules bloat we got through in 7th edition has already returned. It is just less obviously OTT.
I really wish we could have a gaming environment where we had to just grab our codices, annual readjustments (Chapter Approved) and go away with no more than that.
Even though I like the TT guys a lot, we don't know how much they were given to playtest and the boundaries they have to follow while doing so. And even then, will the feedback be heeded, not sure?
I am really looking forward to 9th as I've enjoyed 8th considerably, and feel that it does need a few tweaks. I don't generally play horde type armies, so CPs have always been an issue which I'm glad to see changing.
Ravajaxe wrote: Well there might exist a middle ground between the bland, stripped to the core indexes, on one hand, or on the other hand, the bloat we already have seen of codices, + supplement N#1 + supplement N#2 etc...
The perilous rules bloat we got through in 7th edition has already returned. It is just less obviously OTT.
I really wish we could have a gaming environment where we had to just grab our codices, annual readjustments (Chapter Approved) and go away with no more than that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.
You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?
It's good we left the index phase behind. I felt the vast balance problems were solved with the first codizes and their FaQs, also playing with indizes felt like playing a Demo-version of the game. It was okay for some first test games, but for a longer involvement the faction-specific rules were too simple (or... non existant).
Gadzilla666 wrote: Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.
You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?
But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.
Darsath wrote: Indexes were far from a great time in 8th. For most, it felt like a long waiting time to get your actual codex, while other players got to have fun with theirs. Most Index armies were pretty boring and stale. Ontop of that, some Indexes were crazy strong while others were pitifully weak. Especially in the era of free allies, before they changed it to requiring each detachment to share a keyword.
The problem is, it is far more profitable for GW to drip-feed advantages and fixes for disadvantages in the codexes as a selling point than it is to create new rules uniformly and give everyone a piece at once.
Imbalance makes much, much more money than balance. Get your codex now and you can have the good strong flavorful rules!
Exactly. Literally every faction complained back then that they had the worst index army. They can't all be the worst. The real culprit was the fact that 1 month in they dropped Chaos, DG, and Marines which made those armies with a codex incredibly powerful by comparison because they had all the stuff that slows the game down and cheats the rules. Strats, WLT, free Relics and Extended psychic power lists.
While I'll agree certain armies in the index were better off then others, that was an incredibly easy fix had GW bothered doing the right thing and making the indexes a living downloadable document online. Instead they waited for yearly chapter approved updates lol.
I honestly hope Chapter Approved no longer juggles points and is just missions and campaign fodder. The AP announcement has me hopeful.
Regarding 8th and it's hickups, sure codex creep reared it's ugly head but honestly I think that's unavoidable at the current release pace. And despite folks complaints, I still hear folks getting irate about waiting their turn. Overall 8th was very fun and playable, although again, real time online patches would have minimized the power swings. It's the last year that really got out of hand with marines, and because it was the last thing really, that is what everyone tends to focus on. But with the lock downs and the announcement of another marine book not even a year later, at least the silver lining is they might tone that problem down while everyone waits to get back into playing.
The video of the playtesters was mostly just their impressions, but one of them referred to the improvement to vehicles. He said vehicles and not tanks. This indicates that the hints given in the first reveal regarding firing out of melee etc will likely apply to all Vehicles and they are not making a new Keyword for Tanks.
Of course, I could be totally wrong! I've been wrong before...
Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.
"We'll make a campaign system whereby the winners get stronger and the losers get weaker!"
*That One Guy everyone hates who is a huge power gamer is able to leverage these advantages and quickly becomes unstoppable*
*The guy everyone loves to play because he plays weak fluffy armies quickly can't play anymore because of the crushing disadvantages*
*Everyone quits except that one guy everybody hates*
"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."
Crusade is definitely sounding interesting to my ears.
If nothing else, starting at a low CP means I can get games in whilst building and painting, rather than having to match my club’s preferred level, which is in turn informed by tournament standard point levels.
Amusingly, they just talked about some of those. I'm not transcribing stuff as it happens but the mention about the "winners get stronger and losers get weaker"? That got addressed in a way I'm a fan of.
Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.
"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."
Yep, but it is kind of "baby seal cute" that they actually went through the hoops to deliver such an unwanted product. I played capaigns a lot around 5th ed, when the game was real fast to play, so campaign book keeping was lessa problem. They nearly all died before being finished anyway, because humans have "real live problems" hah hah. And people weren't even as flaky as they are today...
I wonder who at GW thought: "ok, people have enough time in their lives for this, no question."
Whereas really, people are happy if they can get a"simple" pick up game once a week. Maaaaaan
Gadzilla666 wrote: Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.
You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?
But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.
Team. Singular, not teams. There is one 40k rules team and they work as a group. There is one AoS team and they work as a group. The only splitting off these teams do is someone is likely responsible for doing all the typing of each book, but they work together to come up with rules and the like.
What the 40k team is to adopt AoS's terminology bible approach so they have premade templates to write rules off of that keep the language clear and consistent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The video of the playtesters was mostly just their impressions, but one of them referred to the improvement to vehicles. He said vehicles and not tanks. This indicates that the hints given in the first reveal regarding firing out of melee etc will likely apply to all Vehicles and they are not making a new Keyword for Tanks.
Of course, I could be totally wrong! I've been wrong before...
I'd rather love to see an Ironclad open up with a Hurrican Bolter befor mashing someone's face in in melee to be honest.
And Crusader Land Raiders getting to open up their Hurrican Bolters into melee? Tasty.
Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.
"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."
Yep, but it is kind of "baby seal cute" that they actually went through the hoops to deliver such an unwanted product. I played capaigns a lot around 5th ed, when the game was real fast to play, so campaign book keeping was lessa problem. They nearly all died before being finished anyway, because humans have "real live problems" hah hah. And people weren't even as flaky as they are today...
I wonder who at GW thought: "ok, people have enough time in their lives for this, no question."
Whereas really, people are happy if they can get a"simple" pick up game once a week. Maaaaaan
Honestly the fact you can even run it solo so you can keep telling a story about your army just means that it's more likely to get used, even if its not tied to big narrative events.
