The purpose of this thread is to take a survey about plans to purchase the new edition that was announced on May 23rd.
Then, I would like to post a follow-up poll after 3 months or so and see who actually did purchase this new edition.
I think that it will be interesting to see if anyone changes plans, and also I hope to see in comments for instance how many people may come in and buy into this edition while having avoided prior editions, and why.
For me, the aesthetic, the narrative supporting an interest in the Necron faction, the allusions to perhaps some positive changes to actual game rules all contribute to a "Yes - I plan to purchase!" vote.
No. It'll depend on whether the rules are any better or not. I'll probably look in a few weeks in and decide whether to give it a go or stick where I am now.
The narrative stuff seems very newcron heavy so I'm out on that front and I don't trust GW to successfully make the rules better.
It depends on my opponents.
If the entire ruleset is free, there''s no real reason not to.
If the missions and such are in the paid-for rulebook, only one of us has to buy it.
The (current) lack of flayed ones continues to hinder my on again/off again dream of building the Bone Kingdom of Drazak - but yeah, new Necrons certainly tempt a purchase.
Will depends a lot on the rules, and what they do with my army in the future.
From the sounds maybe they have changed up internally so maybe they will try and fix the mess they have.
But i still feel its probably held back a lot by a lot of 8th choices they cannot change without New Codex or Huge Updates.
I would be fine with, but i can understand why people would not be. But eh, Not that excited as a whole.
I suspect I’ll pick up the box. Whatever it contains. No interest in Necrons, but generally the starters are a solid value even if you just want half. And call me old fashioned, but I like a hard copy of the rules.
Now if the marine half looks like hot garbage, I might pass and just grab the rulebook separate. But looking at the previews and the leaks, I doubt that I’ll be unhappy with what I get.
Well, as usual they announced tanks can shoot in combat, and made vague information about what benefits close combat, so its probably gonna be an even more shootier edition than last. So i dont expect to pay a dime for their lackluster rules.
Book yes. Starter maybe. I have no interest in sisters at all so if the box is part marine part sisters against necrons then no. If it’s marines vs necrons then yes.
There really should be a option for "undecided" or "wait and see". I hated 7th. It was a special kind of bad that basically killed the game in my area. Killed it DEAD. Most of us quit fairly early on in that edition. 8th brought most of us back. Particularly with the promise of "there will be no 9th edition - this will be a living rule set that we want to last for a very long time". So now I'm looking at "9th edition" and my first instinct is to tell GW to go feth themselves.
I don't play Necrons or loyalist Marines so I'm not interested in the box, but I got Necron and Space Marine players in my gaming group that will get it so we have a new rulebook. It also sounds like it will mostly just be an update to 8th, which is okay for me.
These are the things that would have to be done for me to consider returning to 40k... all of which are things that I know will never happen:
1) Removal of magic the gathering style list building wombo combo as the center piece of the game.
2) Remove CP farming from the game.
3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
6) Make it so all armies are viable and not just a handful that get rotated every year forcing me to buy new armies regularly. Thats about as pay to win as it gets.
Going to hold fire on this edition until the rules drop. Need to know if it's something that will lure the local players back to the game or if I should get back to work on my 5e re-write.
From the video - maximum damage artillery, units deploying from any table edge, strafing runs, more command points and more stacking bonuses... has me worried.
I stopped playing 8th a while ago, and I don't see 9th suddenly changing my mind. However I hated 3rd/4th and thought I'd never play 40K again until 8th came out (and was good, for a short time). So, stranger things have happened.
I never believed that 8th would be the last, but 3 years is pretty short.
I didn't believe it either, but I figured what they would do is collect up all the FAQs at a certain, regular point in time (say - every 18 months), and release a updated battle primer or something like that. Because THAT is a "living rule system". Patching your BS mistakes several times a year and then ending the edition is just business as usual. We were promised this would not be business as usual.
My fault really. I knew the stove was hot. I touched it anyway. No sense in complaining about my burns now.
Add an option for don't know enough yet.
No one really has enough information to make an informed decision. No sense in asking a yes / no question.
The 9 Things trailer had things I liked and didn't like. But I don't know enough to even think about it yet.
Agree, although with what we do know based on that teaser, it's probably safe to say that a lot of games will be over even quicker now, unless the background system has had a major rewrite - which it can't have had since they said the 8th ed codexes will be compatible ...
But yeah, I'm still in the "wait and see" mode. If the books truly are compatible and 9th is a good edition, I'll buy in. Probably...
I'm under, "Wait and see." if it looks like things have actually improved (beyond the Usual Suspects shrieking about how it's the bestist game ever and GW literally can't produce anything but perfection) then I might go ahead and pick it up in the future.
I will most likely buy the starter barring that it will cost gazillion dollars or something. If it has Space Marines and Necrons it will contain something for two factions I collect, and the rulebook will be a welcome addition.
Otherwise I am generally very excited about 9th edition. I love when things are shaken up a bit and with the rule changes they hinted at in the online reveal I am looking forward to the new rules.
Also, if the app is going to be like the Azyr App for AoS, but better, I am going to have a lot of fun in the near future.
auticus wrote: These are the things that would have to be done for me to consider returning to 40k... all of which are things that I know will never happen:
1) Removal of magic the gathering style list building wombo combo as the center piece of the game.
--No mention.
2) Remove CP farming from the game.
--Changed to remove that.
3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
--?
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
--Changed to remove that.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
--Changed to remove that.
6) Make it so all armies are viable and not just a handful that get rotated every year forcing me to buy new armies regularly. That's about as pay to win as it gets.
--No mention.
Do those things and I'd consider playing again.
I'm really looking forward to either of these two things:
Either A: 9th ed goes back to needing a rulebook, codex, and FAQ
Or B: 8th has finally slowed to halted with its constant rules updates meaning I can game perfectly fine with the codex, PA, CA, and final FAQs for the edition with out having to worry about a new rulesbook popping up or an FAQ changing things every 2 weeks.
Karol wrote: those new necron and marine units look really nice. Wonder if any of them are going to end up in the starter big box.
If both those pics are combined into one box, I think it would be a packed box, but doable. The question is the price point. You want to keep the starter set at least vaguely affordable.
We can dream of mono-faction starters. Basically a megaforce with rules. But GW has not really done that in the past.
The thing is, even if they charge $200+ for the box, compared to buying everything separate, it’s still a bargain. Even if you only want one half. Although that mostly just speaks poorly of GW’s pricing.
auticus wrote: These are the things that would have to be done for me to consider returning to 40k... all of which are things that I know will never happen:
1) Removal of magic the gathering style list building wombo combo as the center piece of the game.
2) Remove CP farming from the game.
3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
6) Make it so all armies are viable and not just a handful that get rotated every year forcing me to buy new armies regularly. Thats about as pay to win as it gets.
Do those things and I'd consider playing again.
might be useful to look at what they've teased by now.
1-5 are addressed. 6 is nothing they can fix for you, metachasing happens even for minor gains. All they can do is tighten the balance up, but it's not possible to create a perfectly balanced 40k.
* when I say "addressed", I mean that they claim that 9th addresses these issues. We'll have to wait for the actual changes, obviously.
Almost certainly. My son's just started a Necron army, so we're at least 50% covered by the starter box - I think Necrons being in it is a given at this point. I'm hoping it's Sisters against Necrons. I'll jump at that. SMs are less appealing to me, if my youngest son doesn't fancy them I'll consider selling them on....
Not a chance right now. I’m not enabling GW by buying stuff after their latest price gouging. Plus neither army interests me...
Besides, fool me once with 8th. Got roughly a dozen or so games of that in as people are far too flaky. They’re all talk and bluster. They say they’ll buy into the new edition then they all dry up quicker than a puddle in the Sahara. 40k, GW’s premier game made by the premier wargaming company out there and there is naff all people to play against here. I won’t be fooled again into wasting money.
The box? I doubt it'll contain anything model-wise I need/want, and I don't have anyone on the Christmas list that this'd apply to. So most likely not.
Even if it has some way cool exclusive figure in it, picking that single piece up eventually on Ebay will still be the cheaper route.
looking at the pictures the space marine side of the box looks to contain:
1 squad of assault intercessors (likely a troop choice)
1 Bike Squad (fast attack, almost certainly)
1 powersword and stormshield unit (these are elites and are almost certainly a vetern unit, possiably generic Honor guard?)
1 Captain, 1 Chaplain an ancient and... possiablt a Lt.
and 1 unit of what looks like Gravis with Meltas
I'll be buying it, heck, depending on the price I might buy 2. 1 for my marines 1 for my space wolves.
No plans on purchasing when it is released. I might consider it if I feel that the desire to be around the group that I'll build another 40K army, if one of the armies are one I want to play, and my budget can support it again. Odds are about equal that I'll just buy the other half of someone's at that point. We have a few days a year in the market where a shop will open up the play space for selling old stuff.
harlokin wrote: The poll is asking about the box set, but the intent seems to be 9th edition as a whole.
I have no interest in the box, but will buy anything 9th edition related that I need for my Drukhari.
Yeah, maybe I should have been more specific.
That said, I had zero interest in ever owning Necrons, and less in restartes weenies.
But, with the rules as promised - unless GW screws the pooch on this after the details come out - now I do.
So, the box will be a must for me. If these changes weren't forthcoming, I would be moving on.
Asmodai wrote: I'll be picking up the starter box. The new units will be nice additions to my existing Primaris army.
I'm not sure if I'll sell the Necrons or do them up as a mini-force for antagonists when running 40KRPGs.
Yeah, this is where I am on the cron side too.
Might see about trading them, but they paint up soooo fast.
Why not keep them in the box for a mauseleum crusade run with the new crusde rules using the old sigmarite mauseleum stuff and the new terrain rules, small points... halloween? looking forward to the chance.
Poll results are running about 2:1 in favor of purchasing the new box upon release... interesting.
I will be interested to see if this holds after three months or so.
Won't be buying either. They already said that current codexes will still be valid. So, elite units still won't feel elite and horde units, despite this buff to blast weapons will probably still be top dog. So, why bother getting the new edition at all?
Assuming the price is decent, probably. I play marines and necrons, so it's basically a big box of new models for me. That could change if some of them are garbage, or there is some soul wars style fractional unit strength.
Not touching this edition unless they do a major overhaul of the core game system to not be pants. 8th is such a fundamentally lacking and flawed foundation for a game and it seems extremely unlikely that GW has the skill to fix this bare bones mess of a core ruleset. They need to take 8th behind the proverbial shed with a melta gun put it down full stop and create a new proper core game system with a solid foundation to support deeper gameplay. 8th is rife with literal 1 up power creep, stack all the buffs, hero hammer nightmare of abusing the d6 system until it bursts.
Ill keep an eye on how 9th pans out but if they chain themselves to 8th's design then I have zero hope for anything other than more of the same and the continuation of power creep due to limit design and gameplay space. I don't think GW has ever learned the right lessons from their mistakes and they will continue to fail into success due to the strength of 40k's IP.
5th ed Necron redesign got me on a buying frenzy back in the day. I like the look of the new Necrons that are coming, but I refuse to replace my new Codexes.
There will be free rules, so I'll take a look at them. I have no intention of buying the BRB or any codex, but I may grab some models, but not the starter set.
TheCrazyCryptek wrote: Won't be buying either. They already said that current codexes will still be valid. So, elite units still won't feel elite and horde units, despite this buff to blast weapons will probably still be top dog. So, why bother getting the new edition at all?
Like knights, eldar flyers, marines, ynarri reapers and shining spears? Yeah, I wouldn't say hordes dominated 8th much at all.
TheCrazyCryptek wrote: Won't be buying either. They already said that current codexes will still be valid. So, elite units still won't feel elite and horde units, despite this buff to blast weapons will probably still be top dog. So, why bother getting the new edition at all?
Like knights, eldar flyers, marines, ynarri reapers and shining spears? Yeah, I wouldn't say hordes dominated 8th much at all.
yeah hoards haven't dominated 8th edition for ages. they where top dog back in the early days, but once stratigiums etc came out, guard where mostly relgated to CP batteries and with 9th edition apparently even that role is gonna be gone
The heavily implied replacement for Dark Imperium? Nope. No need for either a Marine nor Necron army, let alone both.
I will however be interested in the replacement for First Strike, should they do it. Love Kill Team so if it would be great to build on the previous box's primaris models and to have an excuse to give Necrons a try. A printed copy of the 9th edition download rules would be handy.
auticus wrote: These are the things that would have to be done for me to consider returning to 40k... all of which are things that I know will never happen:
1) Removal of magic the gathering style list building wombo combo as the center piece of the game.
2) Remove CP farming from the game.
3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
6) Make it so all armies are viable and not just a handful that get rotated every year forcing me to buy new armies regularly. Thats about as pay to win as it gets.
Do those things and I'd consider playing again.
1) There are always going to be unit combos. They could make them less wombo but support character+support character+good unit is always going to be good.
2) Define CP farming. If you mean infinite CP loops, they already got rid of those. If you mean stuff like the loyal 32...meh. It's whatever.
3) No. TLS has problems but imaginary LoS has ir's own issues while also being incredibly unintuitive.
4) I agree that cover needs to matter more, I'm less concerned about infantry though. Vehicles are the bigger losers in the cover system.
5) That's just 4 again.
6) All armies are viable for 90% of players at 90% of play. The problem is people not being able to accept the part of their losses that's due to them sucking. Playing Nids is not the main reason you didn't win NOVA last year, not being good enough to win NOVA is.
TheCrazyCryptek wrote: Won't be buying either. They already said that current codexes will still be valid. So, elite units still won't feel elite and horde units, despite this buff to blast weapons will probably still be top dog. So, why bother getting the new edition at all?
Like knights, eldar flyers, marines, ynarri reapers and shining spears? Yeah, I wouldn't say hordes dominated 8th much at all.
yeah hoards haven't dominated 8th edition for ages. they where top dog back in the early days, but once stratigiums etc came out, guard where mostly relgated to CP batteries and with 9th edition apparently even that role is gonna be gone
I think the bigger problem with Hordes in 40k is that they suck to play against because they take FOREVER to do anything.
Also, anyone who says 'elite unit suck' is full of gak. Elite units don't suck, your personal favorite elite units do. Quit trying to turn a datasheet issue into a systemic one.
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
I don't buy it. My bet is that all the codexes will be redone, with the exception of stuff that released since the CSM Book II. Obviously Necrons is getting a new codex, we've seen the pictures. The fact that they're saying "If you buy the physical, you'll get the digital" just screams they're going to remove the older books as much as possible in the coming months.
I don’t really think of this as a new edition. It’s rule updates and expansion on certain things like CP. mainly I think it’s an excuse to push the new sisters harder and launch new Necromunda models.
I don’t feel like GW finished what they stared with dark imperium and was still waiting for more chaos expansion. I don’t know why but I think nids will be next
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
I don't buy it. My bet is that all the codexes will be redone, with the exception of stuff that released since the CSM Book II. Obviously Necrons is getting a new codex, we've seen the pictures. The fact that they're saying "If you buy the physical, you'll get the digital" just screams they're going to remove the older books as much as possible in the coming months.
hh of course we'll eventually get new codices, but I'd not be too suprised to see PA mostly work with it, although some stratigiums may be replaced be being brought into the new 'dex. for example blood angels will likely get a death company assault intercessor option when they finally get their new dex
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
I don't buy it. My bet is that all the codexes will be redone, with the exception of stuff that released since the CSM Book II. Obviously Necrons is getting a new codex, we've seen the pictures. The fact that they're saying "If you buy the physical, you'll get the digital" just screams they're going to remove the older books as much as possible in the coming months.
hh of course we'll eventually get new codices, but I'd not be too suprised to see PA mostly work with it, although some stratigiums may be replaced be being brought into the new 'dex. for example blood angels will likely get a death company assault intercessor option when they finally get their new dex
The problem that I have with that is that I never see anyone playing with their PA books in my area. I bought one of them (CSM was in it) and have never used anything from it. I have the same issue with Vigilus. I feel like all those books were very, very underwhelming in the rules department.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrFickle wrote: I don’t really think of this as a new edition. It’s rule updates and expansion on certain things like CP. mainly I think it’s an excuse to push the new sisters harder and launch new Necromunda models.
I don’t feel like GW finished what they stared with dark imperium and was still waiting for more chaos expansion. I don’t know why but I think nids will be next
auticus wrote: These are the things that would have to be done for me to consider returning to 40k... all of which are things that I know will never happen:
1) Removal of magic the gathering style list building wombo combo as the center piece of the game.
2) Remove CP farming from the game.
3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
6) Make it so all armies are viable and not just a handful that get rotated every year forcing me to buy new armies regularly. Thats about as pay to win as it gets.
Do those things and I'd consider playing again.
1) There are always going to be unit combos. They could make them less wombo but support character+support character+good unit is always going to be good.
2) Define CP farming. If you mean infinite CP loops, they already got rid of those. If you mean stuff like the loyal 32...meh. It's whatever.
3) No. TLS has problems but imaginary LoS has ir's own issues while also being incredibly unintuitive.
4) I agree that cover needs to matter more, I'm less concerned about infantry though. Vehicles are the bigger losers in the cover system.
5) That's just 4 again.
6) All armies are viable for 90% of players at 90% of play. The problem is people not being able to accept the part of their losses that's due to them sucking. Playing Nids is not the main reason you didn't win NOVA last year, not being good enough to win NOVA is.
TheCrazyCryptek wrote: Won't be buying either. They already said that current codexes will still be valid. So, elite units still won't feel elite and horde units, despite this buff to blast weapons will probably still be top dog. So, why bother getting the new edition at all?
Like knights, eldar flyers, marines, ynarri reapers and shining spears? Yeah, I wouldn't say hordes dominated 8th much at all.
yeah hoards haven't dominated 8th edition for ages. they where top dog back in the early days, but once stratigiums etc came out, guard where mostly relgated to CP batteries and with 9th edition apparently even that role is gonna be gone
I think the bigger problem with Hordes in 40k is that they suck to play against because they take FOREVER to do anything.
Also, anyone who says 'elite unit suck' is full of gak. Elite units don't suck, your personal favorite elite units do. Quit trying to turn a datasheet issue into a systemic one.
They have already called out the 32 and 17 as nolonger being necessary and infact hinder your list the brief description of the New CP system works, it's XCP per game size you get you first detachment free additional detachments cost CP additional codex's cost CP so you pay CP twice for a second detachment from another codex. So they better be bringing alot to the table.
I suspect Assasins etc could well be a lot more viable now though as their rules certainly seem way more inline with this system.
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
I don't buy it. My bet is that all the codexes will be redone, with the exception of stuff that released since the CSM Book II. Obviously Necrons is getting a new codex, we've seen the pictures. The fact that they're saying "If you buy the physical, you'll get the digital" just screams they're going to remove the older books as much as possible in the coming months.
hh of course we'll eventually get new codices, but I'd not be too suprised to see PA mostly work with it, although some stratigiums may be replaced be being brought into the new 'dex. for example blood angels will likely get a death company assault intercessor option when they finally get their new dex
The problem that I have with that is that I never see anyone playing with their PA books in my area. I bought one of them (CSM was in it) and have never used anything from it. I have the same issue with Vigilus. I feel like all those books were very, very underwhelming in the rules department.
.
depends on what your playing, some armies came out of it better then others, I, for example, would likely have little use for the Space Marine PA, but a black templar player proably finds it nesscary.
mrFickle wrote: If we’re talking about building XP over time this feel like another move toward hero hammer. Interesting to see how someone like RG fits in
If your talking about the crusade system that's once again GW trying to sell the idea thag a lot of people play narative campaigns, I'm sure it's good for those that do but I suspect most of the players will read it and never actually use it in a game.
Vankraken wrote: Not touching this edition unless they do a major overhaul of the core game system to not be pants. 8th is such a fundamentally lacking and flawed foundation for a game and it seems extremely unlikely that GW has the skill to fix this bare bones mess of a core ruleset. They need to take 8th behind the proverbial shed with a melta gun put it down full stop and create a new proper core game system with a solid foundation to support deeper gameplay. 8th is rife with literal 1 up power creep, stack all the buffs, hero hammer nightmare of abusing the d6 system until it bursts.
Ill keep an eye on how 9th pans out but if they chain themselves to 8th's design then I have zero hope for anything other than more of the same and the continuation of power creep due to limit design and gameplay space. I don't think GW has ever learned the right lessons from their mistakes and they will continue to fail into success due to the strength of 40k's IP.
Yeah, I think love their horrible 8th too much, and GW wants people to have fast games so why not make every units average wound output 85
Besides the world is crammed with airport hipsters needing a game 10min before their flight.
Voted yes, but am not 100% committed on following through until the boxed set contents is confirmed.
If we get the Primaris & Necron minis shown in the 9th ed leaks, then probably will buy for the models alone. I dont collect Necrons but those would make for a good Kill Team no doubt. Assault Primaris are my main concern as my main army is BA.
I don't really care for the physical rulebook, would prefer epub copy but I'm guessing the boxed set will be priced so aggressively that it will be a neglible cost considering how many minis are coming with the box.
Now then, if the minis arent what were shown in the leaks, I might skip the boxed set and just grab the rulebook in epub format. And then wait until the "Start collecting assault primaris" becomes available for those new minis to save some dough
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
you could use your old 4th edition codex in 5th edition, but people still expected you to adapt the 5E rules
Well yeah but until there is 9th ed codex for your faction there's no point selling 8th ed codex. In fact depending on faction you are looking at couple year wait easily before you could then play game...
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
I don't buy it. My bet is that all the codexes will be redone, with the exception of stuff that released since the CSM Book II. Obviously Necrons is getting a new codex, we've seen the pictures. The fact that they're saying "If you buy the physical, you'll get the digital" just screams they're going to remove the older books as much as possible in the coming months.
Well yeah. GW flat out says they wil redo. They aren't being dishonest there. They ADMIT they will redo codexes.
But those won't pop in release. It took 1.5 years for orks to get 8th ed codex. Sisters got about 2.5 years.
And in 9th ed there's less rush to get codex out as they still have codex so don't expect the 1-2 codex per month rate they had.
So there's very little reason to sell 8th ed codexes right now UNLESS you plan to put 40k on hold until codex comes out and depending on your faction(note we won't have any idea on order except fairly safe bet for necrons and marines to get one soon) you could be on couple year pause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: The problem that I have with that is that I never see anyone playing with their PA books in my area. I bought one of them (CSM was in it) and have never used anything from it. I have the same issue with Vigilus. I feel like all those books were very, very underwhelming in the rules department.
Here it's "don't bother playing without them". Too many free power boosts to ignore them.
1. Necron models don't do anything for me, don't dislike them just not in the least interested
2. not interested in a rulebook you can kill people with a handful of pages of rules, will wait for an easier to carry version of it
3. have more than enough marines unpainted to be going on with
4. don't have the cash in the near future
nothing against it as a new edition, I just want a rulebook thats the rules only and cheap enough not to care when all but one page is invalidated within a year, don't need the models as I have tons to be going on with - will probably pick up a few at some point
4. is probably the least important right now actually, its at the end because regardless of price the contents don't really interest me
I have absolutely zero intention of giving GW any more money for a crap product. I need an edition or 2 of free products that have some actual quality before I am willing to give them a single red cent again.
Yesterday I was furious about the announcement of 9th, and I cut a bitter streak across every online platform I use to let the world know exactly how angry I was. Today, I've put it in perspective. They call it 9th, but it's one of the soft reboots. Buying the new edition BRB will not "technically" be necessary, but it will be if you want to play all elements of the game.
The current battle primer contains no information about battle forged rules, and the new probably won't either. I like battle forged armies, and the rules around battle forging are one of the things that the new edition changes, so yeah, the new book is definitely something I'll get.
As for the box: I don't play marines, but because they come in every box, I have enough that I could definitely put together an army if I bought this box; I have Blood Angels from Spacehulk and Spacewolves from Tooth and Claw to add to the mix. I don't play Necrons either, though I like having many small forces available rather than having few large ones. Given all of that, the box is a possibility.
To repond to a few of the other posts in the thread:
Gw's release pace (in a Covid free discussion) isn't going to change. That means once PA is over, they either need another campaign to drive model releases or they need reprinted dexes.
Most of the people who have posted disapproval of 8th on Dakka have been very Anti-Campaign book. Either you get a campaign book grind or you get a codex grind. Choose your poison, because those are the options.
GW did not invest in the capacity to achieve this release schedule only to scale it back after releasing a new edition.
As for the Crusade and narrative folks; I think there are more of us than you think there are. I've played since 89 and I've never played against an opponent who hasn't played a 40k campaign. Many of them have played in stores, and even tournaments. But they don't define themselves as tournament players, and most prefer campaign play. Now that's my peer group, so it is in no way indicative of global trends.
But it looks like what will be happening is more campaign books that are linked to the Warhammer TV animations and the huge Black Library series. Those multi-media elements really have the capacity to drive campaign play. The new app factors into campaign play as well. If, in addition to list building features, it assists or automates the tracking of your Crusade... Well, why wouldn't you play Crusade style?
Because even when YOU are at a tournament playing what you perceive to be a series of unrelated one of missions, you might find that the people you're playing against are actually recording it as a Crusade game on their phone.
A while back, I watched my first Twitch battle report. It introduced me to the concept of celebrity players. There's some dude named Nick something, and the internet said he was a big deal, so I watched it, and it was kinda cool. I could see people talking to their friends after a tournament and bragging about "yeah, I played Nick what's his name in round three." Those war stories are cool.
I think what Crusade strives to do though, is create a situation where the players say, "Yeah, yesterday we fought against General X, Commander of the of the 5th company of the 625th Tallarn regiment." To which the tourney player says, "Oh, was that Nick what's his name's army."
And the Crusade player is like, "Who's Nick?"
And while I can see the appeal of following Nick what's his names career, I am all in to follow the life story of General X. No offense to Nick- I think most players would agree General X has a more interesting story. If the player was over the top about converting a model to represent General X, the story would be even cooler. So yeah, I'm all in for Crusade.
Mr Morden wrote: Marines is also almost certainly one of the first Codex's.
And then the huge pile of addiotnal Marine Codexs/Supplements - what is there 10-15 now?
codex space marines. Faith and Fury, Vigilus defiant, the UM, IF, IH, RG, Sally, WS supplements. so.. 9 books. not including the marine stuff outside the codex which given that GW will count it seperately It's silly to count as part of that.
but yeah it'll be intreasting to see how that handles. will the old marine stuff be rendered obselete, or will GW keep it? my gut feeling is the 9th marine codex will simply be along the lines of the 2.0 chaos codex, where they update it with the new units and don't even adjust for errata.
PenitentJake wrote: Yesterday I was furious about the announcement of 9th, and I cut a bitter streak across every online platform I use to let the world know exactly how angry I was. Today, I've put it in perspective. They call it 9th, but it's one of the soft reboots. Buying the new edition BRB will not "technically" be necessary, but it will be if you want to play all elements of the game.
The current battle primer contains no information about battle forged rules, and the new probably won't either. I like battle forged armies, and the rules around battle forging are one of the things that the new edition changes, so yeah, the new book is definitely something I'll get.
As for the box: I don't play marines, but because they come in every box, I have enough that I could definitely put together an army if I bought this box; I have Blood Angels from Spacehulk and Spacewolves from Tooth and Claw to add to the mix. I don't play Necrons either, though I like having many small forces available rather than having few large ones. Given all of that, the box is a possibility.
To repond to a few of the other posts in the thread:
Gw's release pace (in a Covid free discussion) isn't going to change. That means once PA is over, they either need another campaign to drive model releases or they need reprinted dexes.
Most of the people who have posted disapproval of 8th on Dakka have been very Anti-Campaign book. Either you get a campaign book grind or you get a codex grind. Choose your poison, because those are the options.
GW did not invest in the capacity to achieve this release schedule only to scale it back after releasing a new edition.
As for the Crusade and narrative folks; I think there are more of us than you think there are. I've played since 89 and I've never played against an opponent who hasn't played a 40k campaign. Many of them have played in stores, and even tournaments. But they don't define themselves as tournament players, and most prefer campaign play. Now that's my peer group, so it is in no way indicative of global trends.
But it looks like what will be happening is more campaign books that are linked to the Warhammer TV animations and the huge Black Library series. Those multi-media elements really have the capacity to drive campaign play. The new app factors into campaign play as well. If, in addition to list building features, it assists or automates the tracking of your Crusade... Well, why wouldn't you play Crusade style?
Because even when YOU are at a tournament playing what you perceive to be a series of unrelated one of missions, you might find that the people you're playing against are actually recording it as a Crusade game on their phone.
A while back, I watched my first Twitch battle report. It introduced me to the concept of celebrity players. There's some dude named Nick something, and the internet said he was a big deal, so I watched it, and it was kinda cool. I could see people talking to their friends after a tournament and bragging about "yeah, I played Nick what's his name in round three." Those war stories are cool.
I think what Crusade strives to do though, is create a situation where the players say, "Yeah, yesterday we fought against General X, Commander of the of the 5th company of the 625th Tallarn regiment." To which the tourney player says, "Oh, was that Nick what's his name's army."
And the Crusade player is like, "Who's Nick?"
And while I can see the appeal of following Nick what's his names career, I am all in to follow the life story of General X. No offense to Nick- I think most players would agree General X has a more interesting story. If the player was over the top about converting a model to represent General X, the story would be even cooler. So yeah, I'm all in for Crusade.
I got the impression from the way the designers were talking crusade is something altogether different and not compatible with matched play in any way, unfortunately it seems to be trying to bring back the old school RPG stule elements from necromunda and kill team into 40k where you get rec points per game and they allow you to buy skills and upgrades. What your describing sounds actually way better and much more useful that what GW have apparently decied to add to the BRB and the upcoming codex's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Marines is also almost certainly one of the first Codex's.
And then the huge pile of addiotnal Marine Codexs/Supplements - what is there 10-15 now?
They confirmed on the stream the new marine codex has already been written as the quoted some crusade upgrade thats in the spacemarine codex.
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
you could use your old 4th edition codex in 5th edition, but people still expected you to adapt the 5E rules
Well yeah but until there is 9th ed codex for your faction there's no point selling 8th ed codex. In fact depending on faction you are looking at couple year wait easily before you could then play game...
Togusa wrote: Both my local stores will fully convert, so I'll unload all my 8th edition books and buy into 9th.
considering it is no hard reboot, and that you can use for the forseable future both vigilus and PA there's no real need i think.
I don't buy it. My bet is that all the codexes will be redone, with the exception of stuff that released since the CSM Book II. Obviously Necrons is getting a new codex, we've seen the pictures. The fact that they're saying "If you buy the physical, you'll get the digital" just screams they're going to remove the older books as much as possible in the coming months.
Well yeah. GW flat out says they wil redo. They aren't being dishonest there. They ADMIT they will redo codexes.
But those won't pop in release. It took 1.5 years for orks to get 8th ed codex. Sisters got about 2.5 years.
And in 9th ed there's less rush to get codex out as they still have codex so don't expect the 1-2 codex per month rate they had.
So there's very little reason to sell 8th ed codexes right now UNLESS you plan to put 40k on hold until codex comes out and depending on your faction(note we won't have any idea on order except fairly safe bet for necrons and marines to get one soon) you could be on couple year pause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: The problem that I have with that is that I never see anyone playing with their PA books in my area. I bought one of them (CSM was in it) and have never used anything from it. I have the same issue with Vigilus. I feel like all those books were very, very underwhelming in the rules department.
Here it's "don't bother playing without them". Too many free power boosts to ignore them.
I suspect it varies. I play Black Legion, so 99% of my stuff comes from Vigilus, which I copied down onto a sheet of paper and stuck in my codex so I don't have to carry so much.
Ice_can wrote:I got the impression from the way the designers were talking crusade is something altogether different and not compatible with matched play in any way, unfortunately it seems to be trying to bring back the old school RPG stule elements from necromunda and kill team into 40k where you get rec points per game and they allow you to buy skills and upgrades. What your describing sounds actually way better and much more useful that what GW have apparently decied to add to the BRB and the upcoming codex's.
No way to tell at this point. It may be perfectly compatible with Matched Play, or at least, compatible with minimal adjustment.
It would be rather interesting to see TC's look at doing Crusade-style tournaments where those at the top have come crazy powerful units by the end. A devil to keep track of, maybe, but one heck of a ride if you can.
Mr Morden wrote:Marines is also almost certainly one of the first Codex's.
And then the huge pile of addiotnal Marine Codexs/Supplements - what is there 10-15 now?
No guarantee on that. We thought that for 6th Edition, and Codex Marines didn't come out for a year. Admittedly the first two were Chaos Marines and Dark Angels (the ones in the box, and they were way behind, too).
Adeptus Doritos wrote: The only people who aren't buying this edition are the people who don't play anyway.
Right. I voted "yes" because I love the setting and game despite what personal problems I have with any given edition and wish to continue playing. This makes the seventh edition I've played. Not my first rodeo.
Glad to see the necrons. But...
there's the main rules issues, the codex rules issues and the actually-playing-physical-games-in-public-spaces in the current world state issue.
I have a Necron army that I haven't played much in 8th, and this has really reinvigorated my interest. I'll probably pick up two Necron Halves, though this depends on how the warriors loadout is and squad size. Soul Wars did a really bad job about model/unit sizes, and I don't plan to get burned there again.
It sounds like they are fixing a lot of the issues in 8th. AoS did this with 2nd edition, which was closer to a 1.5, and it became immensely popular.
Voss wrote: there's the main rules issues, the codex rules issues and the actually-playing-physical-games-in-public-spaces in the current world state issue.
Yeah. Warhammer TV stated something like it was the most refined ruleset ever. I made a scoffing sound almost right away.
I almost wonder how much the FAQs will screw up current codex balancing. It was pretty interesting for 6th and 7th Edition's transitions.
Voss wrote: there's the main rules issues, the codex rules issues and the actually-playing-physical-games-in-public-spaces in the current world state issue.
Yeah. Warhammer TV stated something like it was the most refined ruleset ever. I made a scoffing sound almost right away.
I almost wonder how much the FAQs will screw up current codex balancing. It was pretty interesting for 6th and 7th Edition's transitions.
Hopefully the rules chat on Tuesday will help shed some light. I'm particularly interested in the terrain rules and cp generation.
Honestly, it has everything to do with whether or not the new edition fills enough gaps for me. If they nail terrain and CP like they promised (admittedly by my own standards) and overhaul blast/template weapons, and as long as the new edition doesn’t make tanks (I’m looking at you Leman russes) overpowered as all hell, then most likely I’ll be in. I mean that is what I am looking for in the new edition.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: The only people who aren't buying this edition are the people who don't play anyway.
Ah but the poll isn't about edition but the box. Plenty of people to whom the box isn't neccessary. For me this time it looks like it is but I didn't need to buy 4th, 6th, 7th or 8th ed boxes. If you have zero interest on either forces it's irrelevant.
So plenty of people who have very good reason to vote no.
Dang. Didn't realize the question was about the starter box. Can I change my answer to "no"? I'll definitely buy the rulebook, but I have no interest in Necrons or *gag* loyalist marines.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: The only people who aren't buying this edition are the people who don't play anyway.
Ah but the poll isn't about edition but the box. Plenty of people to whom the box isn't neccessary. For me this time it looks like it is but I didn't need to buy 4th, 6th, 7th or 8th ed boxes. If you have zero interest on either forces it's irrelevant.
So plenty of people who have very good reason to vote no.
Maybe on the other hand you see a poll like this every time a new starter box is released, and realisticly the answer is always the same. you could get the exact same results by posting a poll that asks "do you play necrons and or space marines?"
I'm not interested in any of the big marines or Necrons at all, but I'll prob buy the new starter and part it out on Ebay – will almost certainly work out cheaper than buying the core rulebook separately, and the 8th main book was a complete waste of time, so I don't wanna fork out full whack for this one.
I'm a definite maybe. I haven't played since 8th dropped, though I bought the starter set. I haven't gone goo goo over Primaris, but I do kinda like the characters in the leaked photo.
Since I have the Dark Imperium box (untouched) I could start a Primaris army pretty easily, but I still have so many Oldmarines in my Pile of Shame.
I guess it will depend on how much it grabs my attention and motivates me to paint and start playing again.
The models and hardcopy of the pointless mini-rules will be available on ebay dirt cheap so I might pick those up sometime later.
The inevitable hardback complete rulebook will be 'available' as soon as the digital version is released.
Dark Imperium contained the full, hardback rulebook though.
Did it? Got my copy cheap off ebay so I wouldn't know.
Doesn't change the fact that I'll be getting it from a non-direct source. If 8th is anything to go by, it will be basically invalid by the first major FAQ/CA anyway.
I’m definitely consider it but I’m waiting for the final announcement. I‘be always wanted to start a necron army, plus I can see the SM’s fitting into my Black Templar’s very easily. But it depends on cost and what the final content is.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: The only people who aren't buying this edition are the people who don't play anyway.
Ah but the poll isn't about edition but the box. Plenty of people to whom the box isn't neccessary. For me this time it looks like it is but I didn't need to buy 4th, 6th, 7th or 8th ed boxes. If you have zero interest on either forces it's irrelevant.
So plenty of people who have very good reason to vote no.
Maybe on the other hand you see a poll like this every time a new starter box is released, and realisticly the answer is always the same. you could get the exact same results by posting a poll that asks "do you play necrons and or space marines?"
Nono, as a Space Marine player I probably haven't bought a starter box since 3rd Ed.
I'm genuinely looking forward to a new edition, and will absolutely play it.
I have no plans to buy the new box though. If I did so, it'd be for the models, and I'm just not interested in either of the factions likely to be featured.
I'll get a hold of the necessary rules in some format or another down the line.
I'm cautiously optimistic, and will most likely buy the box unless its priced similiar to that new necromunda set, in which case I'll probably pass on it.
I never finished painting up my shadowspear, and I sold half of it. 8th edition 40k just kinda lost me after Kill Team appeared. Its the scale I prefer. If combat patrol is well designed, I may switch to that. but I do love these newcrons.
There needs to be some pretty sweeping changes for me to be interested in regular 40k any more.
Apocalypse has shown that the scale that 40k is at just doesn't work as well with model to model or model to unit interactions. Apocs pure unit to unit interaction is better, faster, less fiddly, and more fun. AA of some kind is a must.
I won't be picking up the boxed set. I'll pick up the rulebook, but as I don't play Necrons (and the insane complication of the models making them an unholy nightmare to paint kills my interest in doing so despite otherwise being very cool scuplts) and I don't play loyalist Space Marines, I don't have much interest in the starter (assuming its Necrons & SM's as it appears to be).
Vaktathi wrote: I won't be picking up the boxed set. I'll pick up the rulebook, but as I don't play Necrons (and the insane complication of the models making them an unholy nightmare to paint kills my interest in doing so despite otherwise being very cool scuplts) and I don't play loyalist Space Marines, I don't have much interest in the starter (assuming its Necrons & SM's as it appears to be).
It really depends on the models. I would say most of the range is actually pretty easy to paint. Most of the vehicles are not bad, the flyers are especially easy to paint. Then you have the other side of the spectrum with the Arks....
If what we have seen is the box contents, absolutely sign me up. I don't know who I'd parcel the marines out to (I have Ravenguard, Dark Angels and Deathwatch), and I don't have any Necrons. However, they'd make an easy OPFOR for my other armies and will probably paint up easy with Contrast.
Regardless, will certainly be playing 9th, no reason not to.
tneva82 wrote: Ah but the poll isn't about edition but the box. Plenty of people to whom the box isn't neccessary. For me this time it looks like it is but I didn't need to buy 4th, 6th, 7th or 8th ed boxes. If you have zero interest on either forces it's irrelevant.
So plenty of people who have very good reason to vote no.
Ah, you didn't say the new boxed set in the title. You said the new edition, which I would assume is a rulebook (or a book that is 25% rules, the rest is artwork and fluff- and probably going for a cool $60.00).
As far as the box goes for me, I don't know. Not really prepared to go back to loyalists for a while. The Necrons are looking really good, so I might be interested- depending on how much comes in the box. I don't want another Shadowspear where I get a beta-test version of a unit and have to wait 6 months to get the actual models after a Codex redux.
Vaktathi wrote: I won't be picking up the boxed set. I'll pick up the rulebook, but as I don't play Necrons (and the insane complication of the models making them an unholy nightmare to paint kills my interest in doing so despite otherwise being very cool scuplts) and I don't play loyalist Space Marines, I don't have much interest in the starter (assuming its Necrons & SM's as it appears to be).
It really depends on the models. I would say most of the range is actually pretty easy to paint. Most of the vehicles are not bad, the flyers are especially easy to paint. Then you have the other side of the spectrum with the Arks....
Yeah, flyers aren't bad and the infantry and Destroyers are fine, it's the Arks, parts of the Barges, and the newer Gauss rods that just horrify me, and some of the newer models, while looking absolutely stunning, appear to be on something of the same path
I just got through dealing with a few dozen old metal GK Terminators with their extensive wraparound flowing scrolls, and that alone took more than the rest of the models did combined, increasingly I'm beginning to appreciate simplicity in models, it's also part of why I'm not a huge fan of the more ornate newer CSM models and the like.
I'll probably be getting it and selling the Necron half unless the new Primaris units are not usable by Dark Angels. I really like the look of the new Primaris stuff. I like how they are moving away from the "tacticool" look of the early Primaris stuff and back to the gothic look. A lot of the new units, especially the Bladeguard, remind me of Horus Heresy units. I'm cautiously optimistic that 9th will be an improvement, but I will be getting it regardless as I know everyone else in my group of friends and local club will be. I really do like the new Necron stuff, but I already have my fingers in too many pies to start a Necron army.
I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
stonehorse wrote: I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
GW still contains more than one person designing their rules and produces multiple gamesystems that are, in fact, very good. Like Middle-Earth, Adeptus Titanicus or Blood Bowl. This is often because they are smaller projects propelled by singular people with vision than the commitee designed behemoth their 40k studio is, but attributing that to GW as a whole is, as it has always been, simply false.
stonehorse wrote: I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
I am not sure I agree. It seems like Geedubs is trying to expand their fanbase (more diversity, kids novels, Conquest...) and make Warhammer a bit more mainstream rather than rely on the "rabid fanbase". I'd like to think that 7th and the start of AOS taught them they can't just do what they like and expect people to be ok with it. And while the effectiveness of the FAQs is debatable, it does seem like they are doing more than in previous editions to fix problems. The fact that close combat and cover, two things people have complained a lot about this edition, are quite prominent in what we have seen of 9th edition so far gives me a bit of optimism.
stonehorse wrote: I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
I am not sure I agree. It seems like Geedubs is trying to expand their fanbase (more diversity, kids novels, Conquest...) and make Warhammer a bit more mainstream rather than rely on the "rabid fanbase". I'd like to think that 7th and the start of AOS taught them they can't just do what they like and expect people to be ok with it. And while the effectiveness of the FAQs is debatable, it does seem like they are doing more than in previous editions to fix problems. The fact that close combat and cover, two things people have complained a lot about this edition, are quite prominent in what we have seen of 9th edition so far gives me a bit of optimism.
....I mean, in that close combat looks to be worse, if anything, from the changes....by quite a lot.
Vehicles get to shoot while in melee, and weapons that get random numbers of shots (which probably includes flamers) get max shots against "horde" units, whatever that turns out to mean.
Neither of those things particularly spell to me "melee will be improved". Also, since we know that rules will not be invalidated, it seems unlikely to me that the things that really make melee suck, like Overwatch, random charge distance, or having to charge 9" out of deep strike to do anything at all as a deep striking melee unit, will be changing. All those bad things are on unit datasheets.
the only thing that would help melee out from the currently previewed rules is a massively reworked, highly powerful cover system. I suppose they could also do something like allow you to disembark from a transport after it moves, or give you a new way to avoid overwatch somehow as a melee unit, or make it less of a nightmare to try and make melee attacks against a unit in cover or at a higher elevation, but that's definitely not what they previewed.
CatachanDevil wrote: I am not sure I agree. It seems like Geedubs is trying to expand their fanbase (more diversity, kids novels, Conquest...) and make Warhammer a bit more mainstream rather than rely on the "rabid fanbase". I'd like to think that 7th and the start of AOS taught them they can't just do what they like and expect people to be ok with it. And while the effectiveness of the FAQs is debatable, it does seem like they are doing more than in previous editions to fix problems. The fact that close combat and cover, two things people have complained a lot about this edition, are quite prominent in what we have seen of 9th edition so far gives me a bit of optimism.
Glad someone else is being optimistic about it.
The only thing I'd say is that a 'rabid fanbase' is still a confirmed fanbase, and a few people have gone wrong trying to appeal to a 'speculative fanbase' (some call it a 'phantom fanbase'). So far I've been all for everything they've done with female models and whatnot, but I don't think it's brought in a particularly new fanbase. Yeah, sure, it's anecdotal but I'm not seeing the Sisters go flying off the shelves. And honestly, most guard players could care less if the model is a man or a woman- they'd just like to have more than one or two models that are going for $200.00 on eBay.
Black, white, male, female- doesn't matter when they look at the price tags on some of these models and GW's new price hike might not be the best idea. A new edition is pointless if that new potential player comes in and the first thing he realizes is that a box of Marines is going for nearly $70.00.
Apparently, the part where you're wrong is that it's quite apparent that GW can do exactly what they want and get away with it- because the overall response to their decisions seems to be gleefully throwing money at them but complaining on the internet.
If you scratch your dog behind the ears when he pisses on the carpet, he's going to think it's a good thing to piss on the carpet even if you're complaining about it afterward.
CatachanDevil wrote: I am not sure I agree. It seems like Geedubs is trying to expand their fanbase (more diversity, kids novels, Conquest...) and make Warhammer a bit more mainstream rather than rely on the "rabid fanbase". I'd like to think that 7th and the start of AOS taught them they can't just do what they like and expect people to be ok with it. And while the effectiveness of the FAQs is debatable, it does seem like they are doing more than in previous editions to fix problems. The fact that close combat and cover, two things people have complained a lot about this edition, are quite prominent in what we have seen of 9th edition so far gives me a bit of optimism.
Glad someone else is being optimistic about it.
The only thing I'd say is that a 'rabid fanbase' is still a confirmed fanbase, and a few people have gone wrong trying to appeal to a 'speculative fanbase' (some call it a 'phantom fanbase'). So far I've been all for everything they've done with female models and whatnot, but I don't think it's brought in a particularly new fanbase. Yeah, sure, it's anecdotal but I'm not seeing the Sisters go flying off the shelves. And honestly, most guard players could care less if the model is a man or a woman- they'd just like to have more than one or two models that are going for $200.00 on eBay.
Black, white, male, female- doesn't matter when they look at the price tags on some of these models and GW's new price hike might not be the best idea. A new edition is pointless if that new potential player comes in and the first thing he realizes is that a box of Marines is going for nearly $70.00.
Apparently, the part where you're wrong is that it's quite apparent that GW can do exactly what they want and get away with it- because the overall response to their decisions seems to be gleefully throwing money at them but complaining on the internet.
If you scratch your dog behind the ears when he pisses on the carpet, he's going to think it's a good thing to piss on the carpet even if you're complaining about it afterward.
I mean, we don't have the actual stats to go off of from GW but pretty much anything SoB related sold out instantly the second they put it out, and didn't come back into stock until they restocked it.
Maybe they produced much less of it than, for example, the new primaris Phobos stuff that did not sell out, but we do know that GW knew that they were highly requested from the community poll, and then we know that they still sold out.
stonehorse wrote: I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
This patently isn't true. GW started seeing a massive decline during 7th and the initial AOS launch, to the point they replaced the CEO. They were having pretty serious financial issues, in large part because they were pushing the Model First above all else, with very terrible rules. They have literally already gone down the route of slapping a GW logo on poor rules and it nearly cost them the company.
GW is well aware at this point that their rules systems are just as important as their models. They've started taking steps like Chapter Approved and Fixing Warscrolls, and regularly updating FAQs and erratas to help balance the game better. Now.. could they be tested better? Absolutely.
GW is well aware at this point that their rules systems are just as important as their models. They've started taking steps like Chapter Approved and Fixing Warscrolls, and regularly updating FAQs and erratas to help balance the game better. Now.. could they be tested better? Absolutely.
The main problem with their rules is not the testing, or their Errata policy but just how they write rules in the first place
they go with a fixed core of rules, than they design factions and put every idea they have into the rules, no matter if it fits the core or the other factions and try to balance it afterwards
there is no plan what they want from the game or were the development for each faction is going
40k is just like the DCU, some good stuff, some bad stuff, but no overall plan/strategy but still making enough money to carry on.
stonehorse wrote: I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
This patently isn't true. GW started seeing a massive decline during 7th and the initial AOS launch, to the point they replaced the CEO. They were having pretty serious financial issues, in large part because they were pushing the Model First above all else, with very terrible rules. They have literally already gone down the route of slapping a GW logo on poor rules and it nearly cost them the company.
GW is well aware at this point that their rules systems are just as important as their models. They've started taking steps like Chapter Approved and Fixing Warscrolls, and regularly updating FAQs and erratas to help balance the game better. Now.. could they be tested better? Absolutely.
Yet the rules are still awful, while their tone and marketing pitch has changed.
As for 9th, starter box or other, I won't be spending anything because the minis will be even more overpriced and the game will not be something I enjoy playing.
Sasori wrote: GW is well aware at this point that their rules systems are just as important as their models. They've started taking steps like Chapter Approved and Fixing Warscrolls, and regularly updating FAQs and erratas to help balance the game better. Now.. could they be tested better? Absolutely.
The main problem with their rules is not the testing, or their Errata policy but just how they write rules in the first place
they go with a fixed core of rules, than they design factions and put every idea they have into the rules, no matter if it fits the core or the other factions and try to balance it afterwards
I'm not trying to be condescending or anything here, but if you knew how GW's 'playtesting' worked... it wouldn't shock you that the feedback they got from the playtesters is often overwhelmingly positive.
Besides, there's no real reason for them to improve the testing process as it is. They can just tidy up a draft set of rules, and if something is broken... they'll ride it out for a few months while people throw money at the 'good toys'. Then once that dwindles a bit, they'll make a correction online.
And then later, they'll sell you a book that fixes it. And you'll pay for it.
Honestly, I'm not shocked that every book has major errors. It's practically printing money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote: Yet the rules are still awful, while their tone and marketing pitch has changed.
As for 9th, starter box or other, I won't be spending anything because the minis will be even more overpriced and the game will not be something I enjoy playing.
And this 'problem' is well over 3 years old, and your account isn't.
I utterly loathe Marvel comics. I've loathed them for a long time. You know what I'm not doing? Posting on a Marvel comics forum.
GW doesn't deserve a cent of money for any printed material as they quickly stop their rules from being current. At minimum I know one guy will purchase the rules and I'll just read them that way. At maximum I'll take to the internet.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: GW doesn't deserve a cent of money for any printed material as they quickly stop their rules from being current. At minimum I know one guy will purchase the rules and I'll just read them that way. At maximum I'll take to the internet.
I'm honestly going to give it a month or two before I actually purchase anything-
...well, I can't even say that. I'm running a narrative thing and the new Necron models do look cool, and the guys do like facing off against different things.. so I can't even promise that.
But overall, I'm probably just going to buy the Necron models off of a friend and not concern myself with the actual game for a month or so until everything gets straightened out. Because chances are, it's going to be 8th edition with a few slight tweaks (I've been saying that for a while now, and the recent reveals pretty much validate what I said- must be my source being reliable).
the only thing that would help melee out from the currently previewed rules is a massively reworked, highly powerful cover system. I suppose they could also do something like allow you to disembark from a transport after it moves, or give you a new way to avoid overwatch somehow as a melee unit, or make it less of a nightmare to try and make melee attacks against a unit in cover or at a higher elevation, but that's definitely not what they previewed.
That's pretty much what I assume they are doing when I saw "big changes to cover + big emphasis on close combat" . Perhaps tanks now have the ability to shoot in combat to counteract the boost of melee armies? We'll just have to see. There's as much evidence it will be better as it will be worse at this point, but at least they appear to be addressing two issues rather keeping everything the same and static. If they didn't care about trying to make a better game, we'd probably be playing something akin to 7th with only minor modifications.
The models and hardcopy of the pointless mini-rules will be available on ebay dirt cheap so I might pick those up sometime later.
The inevitable hardback complete rulebook will be 'available' as soon as the digital version is released.
Dark Imperium contained the full, hardback rulebook though.
Did it? Got my copy cheap off ebay so I wouldn't know.
Yup. Over the course of 8th GW initially only released the A5 version of the full rulebook in the super special limited edition box that cost like £250, and then in typical GW fashion made it on general release around last year, after 90% of it had been errataed.
Hopefully the A5 rulebook will be available to all from day 1 this time around.
I'm very much going to wait and see. It's likely that if I do purchase it, it would be splitting it with someone else, since I'm only interested in the Necron half of the box. But I really do need to see if the rules changes are much of a boost for the army before I drop any cash atm. Their current codex doesn't really provide much, but it's likely that's the reason why they're updating them. Still, since we haven't seen anything yet, I can't also guarantee that the changes will be good or bad either.
This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
Citation needed please
To be fair
There's no shortage of people who just lurk on 40k pages to complain about every new release, claim they never played since the end of 3rd... but that's not what people do when they're done with a game, y'know.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
How odd that the poll is now different to the thread title...
Crispy78 wrote: Almost certainly. My son's just started a Necron army, so we're at least 50% covered by the starter box - I think Necrons being in it is a given at this point. I'm hoping it's Sisters against Necrons. I'll jump at that. SMs are less appealing to me, if my youngest son doesn't fancy them I'll consider selling them on....
I'll probably still buy it - not sure my son would forgive me if I don't...
But, if the pictures currently circulating are the back-of-the-box artwork showing the contents (which is certainly what they look like!), well I'm pretty disappointed. Having never been a collector of Space Marines - from the outside looking in, that's a pretty bloody nondescript generic collection of marines. Aside from the sword-character and the sword-and-shield marines, it could all be models I've been playing against for years. Nothing in there makes me say Wow.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
Why would softback annoy people? I’d much prefer all the books (rulebook, codex, CA, PA etc) were softback. Hardback just adds weight, bulk and cost with no upside AKAIK.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
Why would softback annoy people? I’d much prefer all the books (rulebook, codex, CA, PA etc) were softback. Hardback just adds weight, bulk and cost with no upside AKAIK.
Because in typical GW fashion you'll only get the soft back in the start collecting the hard back will only be available stand alone and no-one will get the A5 sized book with just the rules in it they actually want.
Nope. stopped giving GW my money years ago. the last GW item of any kind i bought new was the titanicus reaver titan when they released it so i could have one for epic scale play.
It's not like i need anything else between my DIY chapter, my dark angels, my admechwith a smattering of various items like superheavies and imperial assassins for 28mm play, then there is all my epic stuff and my BFG fleets. i pretty well have the 40K side of things covered with minis.
My enthusiasm for 9th is about as high as it was for 6th.....so not there. there are a few aeronautica models i might get for epic play but thats about all i would be interested in.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
Why would softback annoy people? I’d much prefer all the books (rulebook, codex, CA, PA etc) were softback. Hardback just adds weight, bulk and cost with no upside AKAIK.
Because in typical GW fashion you'll only get the soft back in the start collecting the hard back will only be available stand alone and no-one will get the A5 sized book with just the rules in it they actually want.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
they said, if you buy a paper codex, you get access to the units in the app
so don't expect to have a full digital codex in the app or get one for free if you buy the paper one. You will just get the datasheets of the units in the app and get access to them for free that you already paid for
(because GW still wants to sell books and gives you the gift of not paying twice)
It really depends on how badly GW feth up the 9th rules.
Beyond that I have a Necron army, so more Necrons is good, and I've been looking into getting a small Primaris army that isn't Ultramarines, and these more gothic-y Primaris Marines are far more interesting than all the Tacti-Cool stuff we've received so far.
Plus, unlike seemingly everyone at Dakka, I really like the new bikes. Go figure!
auticus wrote: 3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
These three things won't matter as long as you can still shoot an entire unit because the top of a banner pole or sword is sticking out from behind a piece of terrain.
Ishagu wrote: From what I've seen it looks like the best starter set in the history of 40k.
It doesn't come with a stand up cardboard Ork Dreadnought, so that means it can't be the best starter in the history of 40K.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
Citation needed please
To be fair
There's no shortage of people who just lurk on 40k pages to complain about every new release, claim they never played since the end of 3rd... but that's not what people do when they're done with a game, y'know.
I mean, of the "That guys" I know in real life a lot of them are That "If everyone would only play the superior game that I want to play instead of this STOOPID game that everyone ELSE wants to play it'd be so much better and balanced and more gooder..."
Typically, if you start up a new game that's not played in the area (or not publicized at least) 1-2 of those flavor of That Guy's will show up, really hyped that FINALLY there's a group to play their superior, highly balanced, thousand times folded nippon steel game.... and they last for approximately "until the first time they lose" before picking a new game and trying to poach your playgroup to switch to that.
Despite not playing Marines or Necrons I'll be buying it. Once I've sold the models I should pretty much break even and get the rule book for free. Although that being said I am rather keen on Chaosifying that fella with the veil Assuming of course the leaks are correct and that is what we're getting.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It really depends on how badly GW feth up the 9th rules.
...
auticus wrote: 3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
These three things won't matter as long as you can still shoot an entire unit because the top of a banner pole or sword is sticking out from behind a piece of terrain.
I never understood why true line o sight doesn't imply exactly that... meaning, if one unit can target the top of a banner pole of another unit, then this is what can be targeted and shot at.
The abstractions including dynamic battlefields shooting through units, and 360degree LoS and jet aircraft hit by flamers, all of this decidely untrue LoS seems to me to be more of a problem.
So, target a banner pole. Hit a banner pole.
This is also how we fix the baneblade behind the rock problem, in both directions.
If one can target the front track, then one can hit the front track. Roll to hit. If a hit, roll on a damage table (as in the old days) and if one were to roll "immobilized" or "track" then count that as a hit. The point here is that realism affords a means to negotiate interactions according to relatively uncontroversial expectations.
Or, divide the tank in half, roll a d6. If result is on the targeted side of the tank, divide that half into halves, and roll again. Do this until an area is isolated corresponding with the targeted area. If one can see 25% of the side of the tank or less, do this 3 times. If the shooting player manages to roll as necessary, then declare a hit. Else the rock gets a chunk taken out of itI don't expect that the new edition will do this, exactly, but I am hoping that prior learned and everyday expectations are confirmed on the tabletop, with none so directly contradicted as the dumpster fire that was 8th ed imho.
BaconCatBug wrote: And then we get arguments over whether I can see the scalp of your Captain and should get to headshot him. or go back to the days of Rhino Sniping.
Please see common sense solutions in the post above.
No?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for this poll, it is interesting that the proportion of yeay v nay has remained pretty constant.
Now, we have 400 votes, a fairly large sample.
I hope to run another poll after the release of the new box, to see how things actually turn out after we see what's coming.
My starting position is that it is GW's interest to lose, because right now, I am interested.
BaconCatBug wrote: Or, just abstract it so when I hit a model, I wound a model. Needless complexity is not depth.
How does this make sense, at all? What needless complexity?
rolling on tables to randomly get results that might line up with the subjective parts of non standard models.
What you are suggesting is incredibly complex and full of opportunities for human error and subjectivity.
KISS. I shot your model. it took damage.
Why use terrain with interactions at all then?
With your approach, the error is all assumed and front loaded into a cardgame.
Why did I spend 20 years painting models and building realistic terrian if none of it matters and the immersion is actively shattered by the presumtpion that players are too stupid to track terrain interactions?
BaconCatBug wrote: Or, just abstract it so when I hit a model, I wound a model. Needless complexity is not depth.
How does this make sense, at all? What needless complexity?
rolling on tables to randomly get results that might line up with the subjective parts of non standard models.
What you are suggesting is incredibly complex and full of opportunities for human error and subjectivity.
KISS. I shot your model. it took damage.
Why use terrain with interactions at all then?
With your approach, the error is all assumed and front loaded into a cardgame.
Why did I spend 20 years painting models and building realistic terrian if none of it matters and the immersion is actively shattered by the presumtpion that players are too stupid to track terrain interactions?
I see 25% of your model.
Therefore, I need to hit, wound, save, and then two more rolls to see if I actually hit.
What if I only see the head of your Captain? The head is clearly above a wall, but the rest of the body is obscured. Do I need to roll those two extra dice to see if I "hit" the body and therefore really missed? What if I succeed on those and hit the head? Do I get extra damage, since it's definitely a headshot?
BaconCatBug wrote: Or, just abstract it so when I hit a model, I wound a model. Needless complexity is not depth.
How does this make sense, at all? What needless complexity?
rolling on tables to randomly get results that might line up with the subjective parts of non standard models.
What you are suggesting is incredibly complex and full of opportunities for human error and subjectivity.
KISS. I shot your model. it took damage.
Why use terrain with interactions at all then?
With your approach, the error is all assumed and front loaded into a cardgame.
Why did I spend 20 years painting models and building realistic terrian if none of it matters and the immersion is actively shattered by the presumtpion that players are too stupid to track terrain interactions?
I see 25% of your model.
Therefore, I need to hit, wound, save, and then two more rolls to see if I actually hit.
What if I only see the head of your Captain? The head is clearly above a wall, but the rest of the body is obscured. Do I need to roll those two extra dice to see if I "hit" the body and therefore really missed? What if I succeed on those and hit the head? Do I get extra damage, since it's definitely a headshot?
Easy enough and can be answered intuitively and by taken advantage of everyday experience that we all share in common.
One way to represent interactions involves declared or assumed interactions, such as taking cover when in and near terrain.
Another way is to use a ready approximation, as we always had - if 25% or more is visible, then targetting is possible.
Here, the standard approach might be like using those d6s in the tank example, above.
Some models may be able to ignore these modifiers, like snipers for instance, thereby affording options for some units to distinguish themselves from others in realistic ways by way of the interaction.
Any of this is preferrable to jettisoning the realism that makes the time spent in painting and modeling tabletops so immersive.
JNAProductions wrote: So, instead of gaining cover, they're immune to 75% of all damage?
And what about doing extra damage with headshots? That's intuitive.
Maybe yes. Why not. Some units may get a critical shot ability, maybe with a more difficult roll, or requiring two rolls to execute.
One for the hit, one for the crit.
That in mind, this is actually another way to manage terain and cover interactions with targeting and hitting.
About half in cover, roll to hit 2x. 25%, roll to hit 3x. This represents the diffciulty of the shot, and reflects the relative skills of shooters.
Anyways, my point is that there a a lot of ways to do this.
GW has approached these sorts of dynamics in different ways through the editions. I had been hoping with this edition that they would simply print edits of the different approaches (that they already own) into a single universal book from which groups can simply select. So, want more realistic movement and cover interactions, use those levels of detail from the move and terrain sections. Want CP farming or no CPs at all, pick and choose the rules that you want to use. The upshot here is that we all have the same books setting out the same options, and are able to consult the same books, much easier than house ruling and talking things through with new people all the time.
As it is, the new edition does seem to want to afford different degrees of realism, and I am optimistic...
JNAProductions wrote: Ah, but if you're firing a Melta, shouldn't it ignore cover of anything less than the hull of a starship? It'll blow right through ordinary walls.
A Lascannon would do the same.
What cover works against Bolters? More than Meltas or Lascannons, but not everything-how do you determine what cover can be blown through by what?
A certain level of abstraction is NEEDED to make the game function.
Sure. We can draw lines with line of sight, which had been the way that things were done.
But, even here, we may open up to another sort of interactions if we want for these to play a role. Terrain might have a pen value and a weapon may penetrate and shoot through with loss of strength equal to pen value of intervening terrain, and with a hit modifier (maybe 2 rolls to hit being necessary, for instance) unless the shooter has a targeter of a special sort (some units might be distinguished in this way from others) or has an ability of a certain sort (like sniper, etc).
Anyways, I am not saying that this is what must be done, but it can be done. GW could offer rules representing these sorts of interatctions at different levels of realism in different ways (terrain, cover, movement, etc) and with some necessitated by the inclusion of certain units (like Knights might require certain sorts of interactions to represent them on the tabletop that are unnecessary with smaller units). And, people can choose to use them in their games or not. And besides all fo this, there are house rules just as there are now.
stonehorse wrote: I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
I am not sure I agree. It seems like Geedubs is trying to expand their fanbase (more diversity, kids novels, Conquest...) and make Warhammer a bit more mainstream rather than rely on the "rabid fanbase". I'd like to think that 7th and the start of AOS taught them they can't just do what they like and expect people to be ok with it. And while the effectiveness of the FAQs is debatable, it does seem like they are doing more than in previous editions to fix problems. The fact that close combat and cover, two things people have complained a lot about this edition, are quite prominent in what we have seen of 9th edition so far gives me a bit of optimism.
....I mean, in that close combat looks to be worse, if anything, from the changes....by quite a lot.
Vehicles get to shoot while in melee, and weapons that get random numbers of shots (which probably includes flamers) get max shots against "horde" units, whatever that turns out to mean.
Neither of those things particularly spell to me "melee will be improved". Also, since we know that rules will not be invalidated, it seems unlikely to me that the things that really make melee suck, like Overwatch, random charge distance, or having to charge 9" out of deep strike to do anything at all as a deep striking melee unit, will be changing. All those bad things are on unit datasheets.
the only thing that would help melee out from the currently previewed rules is a massively reworked, highly powerful cover system. I suppose they could also do something like allow you to disembark from a transport after it moves, or give you a new way to avoid overwatch somehow as a melee unit, or make it less of a nightmare to try and make melee attacks against a unit in cover or at a higher elevation, but that's definitely not what they previewed.
There was mention that they may be making a change to Overwatch. I suspect units who don't move or don't shoot, or both will get to do overwatch and those who do won't. Cover is the other thing- they've hyped that change more than any other.
BTW, how was overwatch doing you so much harm? For normal units, they only hit on 6's, and many of those hits won't wound, and even of the ones that do, fewer still will get through your armour. Just curious about your nightmare overwatch scenario, because it seemed like a speedbump more than anything else to me.
JNAProductions wrote: Ah, but if you're firing a Melta, shouldn't it ignore cover of anything less than the hull of a starship? It'll blow right through ordinary walls.
A Lascannon would do the same.
What cover works against Bolters? More than Meltas or Lascannons, but not everything-how do you determine what cover can be blown through by what?
A certain level of abstraction is NEEDED to make the game function.
Sure. We can draw lines with line of sight, which had been the way that things were done.
LBut, even here, we may open up to another sort of interactions if we want for these to play a role. Terrain might have a pen value and a weapon may penetrate and shoot through with loss of strength equal to pen value of intervening terrain, and with a hit modifier (maybe 2 rolls to hot being necessary, for instance) unless the shooter has a targeter of a special sort (some units might be distinguished in this way from others) or has an ability of a certain sort (like sniper, etc).
That sounds like a gakton of bloat.
Weren't people excited that 8th was gonna simplify things?
I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.
I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.
I think that the more the game reflects everyday expectations then the simpler it really is, even though it might appear more complex when printed on a paper in formal terms. the game will play more smoothly in practice because common expectations are confirmed in the flow of the approximated interactions.
For instance the interactions between grots and landraiders were supposed to be simpler, but they were not so easy to actually play according to on the table because they ran contrary to expectations, thereby not taking advantage of common expectations of real world interactions and so making the game actually more difficult to play for all its simplicity.
I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.
I think that the more the game reflects everyday expectations then the simpler it really is, even though it might appear more complex when printed on a paper in formal terms. the game will play more smoothly in practice because common expectations are confirmed in the flow of the approximated interactions.
Do I see 25% or 30% of the model?
I see 30%-I don't have a d10, how do I figure out what to roll to determine if I actually hit?
How do I determine how much extra damage I do with a headshot against your model?
What if the model doesn't have a helmet-clearly, I should do even more damage then!
What if I don't have professional terrain, and I'm literally using books and soda cans because I'm poor and new to the hobby?
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
Whatever. Not relevant to the other persons wish or reasons for the wish.
kodos wrote: lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Well, if they do? Then the A5 book will be available at the start of the edition now won't it? And then it'll soon be available cheap on EBay.
I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.
I think that the more the game reflects everyday expectations then the simpler it really is, even though it might appear more complex when printed on a paper in formal terms. the game will play more smoothly in practice because common expectations are confirmed in the flow of the approximated interactions.
Do I see 25% or 30% of the model?
I see 30%-I don't have a d10, how do I figure out what to roll to determine if I actually hit?
How do I determine how much extra damage I do with a headshot against your model?
What if the model doesn't have a helmet-clearly, I should do even more damage then!
What if I don't have professional terrain, and I'm literally using books and soda cans because I'm poor and new to the hobby?
Ummm... any and all of this can be easily resolved given some good will and clear intentions.
I suppose what is missing are some of both in many people, OK - I see your point.
Rough estimates, where some dispute, then throw a dice to resolve.
No pro terrain? The MRB should afford play at different levels of realism, from stripped down card game 8th ed to fine grained RPG -esque squad level games on 8x4 tables that we leave up semi-permanently and that might take as long to finish...
JNAProductions wrote:Okay. Good will and clear intentions.
How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.
jeff white wrote:Anyways, I am optimistic that we get closer to such a flexible foundation with the new edition.
You missed that.
Because to me, if the model being headshot is a Guard or Marine model, they should be out of action. Guard characters are probably dead, Marine characters might live (if you're running a campaign of battles) but certainly is not in fighting shape to continue this battle.
How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.
Again, what you are calling 'headshot' can be represented in different ways, for instance as I had been describing above. If 50% of the model is visible beyond a short wall, and barring any other interaction such a 'taking cover" or similar, then we may play at a level of detail where shooting is resolved according to the 50% cover rule (e.g. roll to hit 2x or using other modifiers). And, we may allow a general rule for targeting for critical hits that have associated with them some different ways to resolve damage. maybe bolter skills allow for attempts at critical hits with a certain modifier, maybe sniper with another modifier... anyways, all of this can be easily formalized, and players should be able to just plug and play rules at the level of realism that they wish to employ...
How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.
Again, what you are calling 'headshot' can be represented in different ways, for instance as I had been describing above. If 50% of the model is visible beyond a short wall, and barring any other interaction such a 'taking cover" or similar, then we may play at a level of detail where shooting is resolved according to the 50% cover rule (e.g. roll to hit 2x or using other modifiers). And, we may allow a general rule for targeting for critical hits that have associated with them some different ways to resolve damage. maybe bolter skills allow for attempts at critical hits with a certain modifier, maybe sniper with another modifier... anyways, all of this can be easily formalized, and players should be able to just plug and play rules at the level of realism that they wish to employ...
These are based off YOUR suggestions. You say that, if all you can see is the tank tread, you can only hit the tank's tread.
If all you can see is the head, the only hit you can get is a headshot. How much extra damage should it do?
JNAProductions wrote:Okay. Good will and clear intentions.
How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.
jeff white wrote:Anyways, I am optimistic that we get closer to such a flexible foundation with the new edition.
You missed that.
Because to me, if the model being headshot is a Guard or Marine model, they should be out of action. Guard characters are probably dead, Marine characters might live (if you're running a campaign of battles) but certainly is not in fighting shape to continue this battle.
Does that seem fair?
Yeah, why not? Wounds might be resolved for every model on the table if people want to take the time to track it... Whynot?
Power armor helmets might afford protection to critical hit damage, and guardsmen... not so much.
These sorts of interactions are not necessary, but they should be possible.
And closer to realisitic expectation, the easier and practically - imho - the simpler to learn and to actually play, because these interactions are relatively easy to imagine, whereas grots stopping tanks are impossible to imagine ... for me.
How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.
Again, what you are calling 'headshot' can be represented in different ways, for instance as I had been describing above. If 50% of the model is visible beyond a short wall, and barring any other interaction such a 'taking cover" or similar, then we may play at a level of detail where shooting is resolved according to the 50% cover rule (e.g. roll to hit 2x or using other modifiers). And, we may allow a general rule for targeting for critical hits that have associated with them some different ways to resolve damage. maybe bolter skills allow for attempts at critical hits with a certain modifier, maybe sniper with another modifier... anyways, all of this can be easily formalized, and players should be able to just plug and play rules at the level of realism that they wish to employ...
These are based off YOUR suggestions. You say that, if all you can see is the tank tread, you can only hit the tank's tread.
If all you can see is the head, the only hit you can get is a headshot. How much extra damage should it do?
Why are you so wound up about this? We might want to play at a level of detail wherein if you can only see a head, then a headshot is demanded and headshots are special sorts of things...
or we may simply see that it is more difficult to hit, and damage is as notmal,
and/or we might have units with special equip or abilities that make it easier to hit hidden targets and that might allow units to try to target heads for extra damage, and all of this could be resolved over time as expectations become stabilized...
one thing that will not help is for people to freak out because they don;t know how to resolve a headshot when such degree of realism is not strictly necessary... only why not make it possible?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, I am excited for the new edition, in part because of the promise of greater realism and an out of the box ability to play at different levels of realism...
In reality GW should make abstract charts of a model in what can be targeted. For example, Hasbro made a game a long time ago called Heroscape. Each unit had a card that showed what was could be targeted for a range attack. For example:
Pretty easy. Can't shoot the bow and thing of arrows to kill the dude, but the rest is fair game.
Just to follow on from the shoot what you can see, depends entirely upon what your shooting at what.
Nice brick wall your hiding behind be a shame if someone shot some 20mm+ at it, end result wall now equals additional shrapnel.
Not being able to hit what you can't see depends on
1 what your sending
2 what is between what you and whatever you would like to cease exsisting
3 if their is any reason that you might have to temper your over application of firepower ie hostages, civilians or friendlies.
Same with tanks and tree's the round's are designed to penetrate tank armour some branches or a bush are not going to stop such a weapon.
It's just going to penetrate the tree and probably still hit the target.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: In reality GW should make abstract charts of a model in what can be targeted. For example, Hasbro made a game a long time ago called Heroscape. Each unit had a card that showed what was could be targeted for a range attack. For example:
Pretty easy. Can't shoot the bow and thing of arrows to kill the dude, but the rest is fair game.
After cutting fire arcs because it was too hard to write rules explaining which direction your ranged weapons could shoot in? I find it exceedingly unlikely they'd actually do this.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: In reality GW should make abstract charts of a model in what can be targeted. For example, Hasbro made a game a long time ago called Heroscape. Each unit had a card that showed what was could be targeted for a range attack. For example:
Pretty easy. Can't shoot the bow and thing of arrows to kill the dude, but the rest is fair game.
After cutting fire arcs because it was too hard to write rules explaining which direction your ranged weapons could shoot in? I find it exceedingly unlikely they'd actually do this.
I vaguely remember reading that this game was mechanically solid but it never got anywhere if that helps.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you can see there's a super small green dot on that profile. It showed where he could draw LoS from too.
There is also the abstraction that the models on the table don't represent what the model is doing at the time of their shooting, or what their target is doing.
We have these static models representing moving, dodging, cover taking, shooting models. They're not all standing, brandishing weapons, or charging (as their pose might indicate).
The abstraction is that, the head you can see, means that at some point, you had a shot at the target, and took it. The model now being behind cover means its harder to hit (or wound, or has a better save). It is not that I'm shooting at this guy's sword tip and somehow killing him. At some point he offered enough for me to hit and knock him out of action.
If you want headshot criticals, or other non-wounding hits, you're playing the wrong game. Try Inquisitor 54mm, or the 40kRPGs.
The bottom line, is that every game has to handle abstraction to some degree. Is this game's level of abstraction ok, with you? Then buy away. If its not, then don't. Simple.
One of the greatest misconceptions about TLOS is that there is only one truth at play, the miniatures themselves.
But the miniatures are abstractly representing another 'real amimated' event, despite being static.
So the argument between TLOS and abstract LOS is between what truth you value: the static miniature's physical location as a game piece you can look at, or a game piece representing a dynamically moving living creature in an animated warzone.
In the first instance TLOS is the best sight system, but in the second, an abstract system ironically becomes most accurate in its depiction of 'real' people on a battlefield.
The extreme here being character dragging a5eound his rock to stand on or the modelled for advantage genestealer crawling along the ground.
Abstract LOS acknowledges the complexity of models moving representing dynamic motion and applies a method that averages all those moments.
For me, abstraction in LOS is far more 'cinematic' and 'true' than looking at static miniatures ever could be.
Hellebore wrote: One of the greatest misconceptions about TLOS is that there is only one truth at play, the miniatures themselves.
But the miniatures are abstractly representing another 'real amimated' event, despite being static.
So the argument between TLOS and abstract LOS is between what truth you value: the static miniature's physical location as a game piece you can look at, or a game piece representing a dynamically moving living creature in an animated warzone.
In the first instance TLOS is the best sight system, but in the second, an abstract system ironically becomes most accurate in its depiction of 'real' people on a battlefield.
The extreme here being character dragging a5eound his rock to stand on or the modelled for advantage genestealer crawling along the ground.
Abstract LOS acknowledges the complexity of models moving representing dynamic motion and applies a method that averages all those moments.
For me, abstraction in LOS is far more 'cinematic' and 'true' than looking at static miniatures ever could be.
^Agreed. 4th edition was really good at spelling this stuff out, too. Models gained cover if they were in base contact with things because it was presumed they were actively taking cover against the piece of terrain rather than hero-posing next to it. Forests were described as being not 'as modeled' and having a bunch of underbrush and complicated scenery that made it hard to see/shoot through. The wound allocation rules acknowledged that squads whose heavy weaponer got shot would just pick up the heavy weapon and carry on. There were a bunch of little descriptions that reasoned the abstraction very nicely.
5th blew all that away and started the "shoot at sword-tips through two trees" paradigm that's still with us.
I put no. As is I'm not sure when it'll be cool to get games in on the regular so until that is the case, no need to run out and grab this new edition. I'll wait and keep up on the info and see what shakes out.
Eventually I'll probably grab it, but not at first. Which will be a first for me since 4th edition.
Insectum7 wrote: ...5th blew all that away and started the "shoot at sword-tips through two trees" paradigm that's still with us.
5th-7th had a really nice "do not measure line of sight to or from protruding weapons, banners, or other decorative things" clause that 8e dropped for some reason in favour of "my antenna shoots your antenna!".
My hope with this new edition is that GW has been able to see that past editions and other systems afford different levels of realism that make interactions clear as more detail is desired. Want stripped down card game terrain doesn’t matter mechanics. Sure... try the free basic rules. Want simulation, realism, reactive terrain and proactive command mechanics. Incorporate optional plug and play rules modules for those aspects from the rules compendium.
My fav TLOS conundrum was when my friend could see my tank, but the part he was in range of was out of LOS, and he was out of range of the part that was in LOS.
We weren't sure whether he could shoot the tank or not.
In 8th Ed rules, he just shoots it, because seeing even a fraction of a nanometre of the mini means you can shoot it. That I hate.
ValentineGames wrote: TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...
Now 40k just needs to use TLOS
measuring LOS from weapons instead of "anywere" would be a good start to get back to "true" line of sight instead of calling it TLOS but using some strange artificial LOS rules that make more problems than TLOS would ever do
In order to measure from weapon wysiwyg has to return with extreme strictness. Which means start modeling grenades. It also means if you don't have enough bits in the box then you're sol. Relics, which don't have bits, become unusable. And a host of other issues.
This would totally improve the game ::rolls eyes::
ValentineGames wrote: TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...
Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans (or that the players' problem is that they're Americans trying to play rules written by Brits). It feels to me like people writing British wargame rules are assuming some kind of hive-mind level agreement and understanding among the playerbase about what everything's supposed to mean and how it's supposed to work regardless of what it actually says, while people writing American wargame rules spend more time chasing and plugging loopholes.
It's a bit different to that, but your core concept isn't wrong.
It's less about UK vs US, and more about GW vs literally everyone else. They don't play the same game as everyone does. Their scattered approach to writing rules has always demonstrated that. There doesn't seem to be a grasp of how their rules interact with one another, which is why they always appear to write Codices (and sometimes units within Codices) in a vaccum. Any time you've gone "But didn't they realise..." or "How did they not see..." it's because of this phenomena.
This would totally improve the game ::rolls eyes::
than people should stop asking for TLOS and/or stop calling it TLOS
people want abstract line of sight that uses some common sense but call it TLOS because GW named it that way to have an excuse for bad rules writing (we cannot change it or make it better because it won't be "true" any more)
I want positioning and manoeuvre to matter. Part of that is terrain, and part of that is accepting that some of the extravagance of modelling (banner poles, the tips of swords, the spines on the edge of the tip of a wing) should be ignored.
Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans
it is GW writing rules for people who have designed the game
They know what they want from the rule and therefore write it in a way that they understand what it mean and give it a cool name for marketing
the whole thing of "read as written" VS "read as intended" as GW-style of game design thing that does not happen outside that bubble (no matter if a Brit, American, German or Russian writes the rules)
Insectum7 wrote: ...5th blew all that away and started the "shoot at sword-tips through two trees" paradigm that's still with us.
5th-7th had a really nice "do not measure line of sight to or from protruding weapons, banners, or other decorative things" clause that 8e dropped for some reason in favour of "my antenna shoots your antenna!".
That is fine when things are clearly defined but it caused massive issues when it came to some armies and models, Tyrnid monsters which have massive weapons or wings etc but actually very tiny and difficukt to distinguish between weapon and body.
Dark eldar and oll their extra spiky bits that are or arn't weapons or part of the hull?
Defiler though that thing has just never really qorked well with the rules even in 8th
If everything us a marine guardsmen etc it tends to cause minimal arguments but with some of the more out there models it caused a lot of arguments if someone wanted it to.
ValentineGames wrote: TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...
Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans (or that the players' problem is that they're Americans trying to play rules written by Brits). It feels to me like people writing British wargame rules are assuming some kind of hive-mind level agreement and understanding among the playerbase about what everything's supposed to mean and how it's supposed to work regardless of what it actually says, while people writing American wargame rules spend more time chasing and plugging loopholes.
That would not surprise me in all honesty.
Its like when black powder came out from warlord. It was very clear it was a slap minis on table and roll dice like gentlemen with a glass of port and a digestive.
Where problems are solved with a gentlemens handshake... Or duel...
Where the rules were a guideline.
The amount of American players you'd notice on forums and groups flipping out over such a thing was hilarious.
But its not like GW hasn't in the past time and time again said their rules are a guide and not set in stone.
Even now you'll still see it pop up where they'll say change things, experiment, add, take etc.
But due to a very loud brash set of people these encouragements to be more flexible are shot down faster than a day trip past the grassy knoll.
Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans
it is GW writing rules for people who have designed the game
They know what they want from the rule and therefore write it in a way that they understand what it mean and give it a cool name for marketing
the whole thing of "read as written" VS "read as intended" as GW-style of game design thing that does not happen outside that bubble (no matter if a Brit, American, German or Russian writes the rules)
Most of it is as you say writing it and checking it by people who already know what it's supposed to do (aka waste of time), them really still not getting how you dismantle rules for your own advantage.
But Americans to tend to complain more about rules, but we are talking about the country that is why we now have warning labels on nut packets saying they contain nuts, microwaves are not for drying pets or children and the cruise control won't steer the vehical.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My fav TLOS conundrum was when my friend could see my tank, but the part he was in range of was out of LOS, and he was out of range of the part that was in LOS.
We weren't sure whether he could shoot the tank or not.
.
This might be resolved with some sort of intervening terrain mechanic as with armor pen substracted from original weapon strngth or some other way, perhaps with a modifier for being obscured. Anywyas, it will be up to the players to decide how to apply the rules when they are offered as a resource.
The most redeeming aspect of wargames like these imho is that is helps young people learn how to regulate their own actions through discourse over text, requiring the interpretation of said text and application of common sense realism in the interpretation. It is this meta-level view on rules and how we arrive at them, through reasoned discourse, and thereafter choose to adhere to them, or perhaps to lobby for their revision - this is the view that is so important, in my opinion.
Games like 40K are a rare opportunity to be able to practice and to develop these skills, and these are skills that this world needs, very much, right now.
But its not like GW hasn't in the past time and time again said their rules are a guide and not set in stone.
Even now you'll still see it pop up where they'll say change things, experiment, add, take etc.
But due to a very loud brash set of people these encouragements to be more flexible are shot down faster than a day trip past the grassy knoll.
Problem is that GW wants much more money for their guidelines were the major work need to be done by the players than Warlord.
And the main argument for 40k is that it is played everywhere and you can easily find a game without needing to introduce others first.
Now if the rules are just guidelines and people adjust the game to their liking, pick up games are not as easy any more because you have to find someone who uses the same house rules and/or talk them into using yours.
in countries were the scene is run by clubs and those have their local rules and adjustmants, it works differently were everything is done by stores
kodos wrote: Now if the rules are just guidelines and people adjust the game to their liking, pick up games are not as easy any more because you have to find someone who uses the same house rules and/or talk them into using yours.
This seems to always be a very common yet completely unproven excuse.
Though that may be because pick up games are a complete work of fiction. I highly doubt a worthwhile number of people to make a basis on walk into any random GW or game store with their figures for a "pick up game".
The mass majority will of probably gone into a store, looked around and chatted, and organised a game from that point.
That game would likely be a "standard" game and if the player goes regularly would pick up on the store or clubs house rulings as time goes by.
While I'm sure there are TINY numbers of people who carry their miniatures around quite literally everywhere they go just in case. They are worthless in terms of drawing any data from.
Pick up games do not exist. There is always some form of pre planning ahead of time.
Especially now with Internet being so much more common than back in the day.
I have quite literally done the "pickup game" myself many times. I have played games with many people who came into the store randomly just looking for a game because they're in town that day. Lots of people show up on a day they know other players will be there because the store website said Wednesdays were 40k night and look for a game without any sort of pre-arrangement. In my experience, that's not at all unheard of.
Vaktathi wrote: I have quite literally done the "pickup game" myself many times. I have played games with many people who came into the store randomly just looking for a game because they're in town that day. Lots of people show up on a day they know other players will be there because the store website said Wednesdays were 40k night and look for a game without any sort of pre-arrangement. In my experience, that's not at all unheard of.
Seconding. I play at a GW, and I usually just show up and hope to get a game.
There's some pre-game talk, usually just "2,000 points good? Cool, what army you fielding?" but not any massive pre-arrangements.
kodos wrote: Now if the rules are just guidelines and people adjust the game to their liking, pick up games are not as easy any more because you have to find someone who uses the same house rules and/or talk them into using yours.
This seems to always be a very common yet completely unproven excuse.
Though that may be because pick up games are a complete work of fiction. I highly doubt a worthwhile number of people to make a basis on walk into any random GW or game store with their figures for a "pick up game".
The mass majority will of probably gone into a store, looked around and chatted, and organised a game from that point.
That game would likely be a "standard" game and if the player goes regularly would pick up on the store or clubs house rulings as time goes by.
While I'm sure there are TINY numbers of people who carry their miniatures around quite literally everywhere they go just in case. They are worthless in terms of drawing any data from.
Pick up games do not exist. There is always some form of pre planning ahead of time.
Especially now with Internet being so much more common than back in the day.
Maybe that's true across the pond, but I have been on both sides of the pickup games before.
Pick up games do not exist. There is always some form of pre planning ahead of time.
Especially now with Internet being so much more common than back in the day.
I guess than that all of my none Tournament games of any GW game have never been played than
you just go to the store or club with your minis because for 99% chance there will be someone else doing the same and you can play
with the Internet much more common, it is now much easier to get other non-GW games done but for those that everyone playes, you just show up and play
kodos wrote: but for those that everyone playes, you just show up and play
I MASSIVELY doubt this.
You turn up at a store with box of toy soldiers and nobody is there... You ain't playing anything.
And empty stores is very common. It's a rare store to find with more than 1 person inside.
kodos wrote: but for those that everyone playes, you just show up and play
I MASSIVELY doubt this.
You turn up at a store with box of toy soldiers and nobody is there... You ain't playing anything.
And empty stores is very common. It's a rare store to find with more than 1 person inside.
than I guess your store has a problem
every store with place to play and no one inside using it is wasting its space and money
so either it will change this into storage/shelf space or close/move to a smaller room
kodos wrote: but for those that everyone playes, you just show up and play
I MASSIVELY doubt this. You turn up at a store with box of toy soldiers and nobody is there... You ain't playing anything. And empty stores is very common. It's a rare store to find with more than 1 person inside.
In all of the four GW stores that have been in my area (one closed down four years ago), plus in the two in the city I went to college at, the most common problem was getting an empty table, not the lack of players there. In a FLGS, it's a bit more difficult to get games in, but they have gaming nights where you are also sure to find opponents. Usually those game nights have set points levels to ensure you find someone to play.
The main reason why I stopped playing this kind of games was a lack of a properly defined format and ruleset where you knew what to expect from a game, like you did in MtG. MtG is a game you are much more likely to enjoy when playing against a random, unknown person than WH40k.
kodos wrote: but for those that everyone playes, you just show up and play
I MASSIVELY doubt this.
You turn up at a store with box of toy soldiers and nobody is there... You ain't playing anything.
And empty stores is very common. It's a rare store to find with more than 1 person inside.
than I guess your store has a problem
every store with place to play and no one inside using it is wasting its space and money
so either it will change this into storage/shelf space or close/move to a smaller room
Stores*
But if it was a problem they'd not exist.
That's my point on prearranged games.
In 26 years I don't think I've ever seen a situation where you'd just walk in and expect an opponent to magically appear to play any game. Not just 40k.
It doesn't happen.
And this isn't including GW stores obviously as they have no tables for even demo games anymore. Unless it's a 4x2.
Jidmah wrote: In all of the four GW stores that have been in my area (one closed down four years ago), plus in the two in the city I went to college at, the most common problem was getting an empty table, not the lack of players there.
I would be genuinely surprised to find a GW store you have space to game in these days.
And I am being very serious.
1 only ever see a 4x4 table divided in half for Age and 40k demos and space usually for 4 people to paint.
Occasionally an extra 4x4 which you can't use because there is no terrain or not enough staff to allow gaming.
ValentineGames wrote: TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...
Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans (or that the players' problem is that they're Americans trying to play rules written by Brits). It feels to me like people writing British wargame rules are assuming some kind of hive-mind level agreement and understanding among the playerbase about what everything's supposed to mean and how it's supposed to work regardless of what it actually says, while people writing American wargame rules spend more time chasing and plugging loopholes.
Insightful and interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bit different to that, but your core concept isn't wrong.
It's less about UK vs US, and more about GW vs literally everyone else. They don't play the same game as everyone does. Their scattered approach to writing rules has always demonstrated that. There doesn't seem to be a grasp of how their rules interact with one another, which is why they always appear to write Codices (and sometimes units within Codices) in a vaccum. Any time you've gone "But didn't they realise..." or "How did they not see..." it's because of this phenomena.
I suppose that my experience is limited, but I liked the loophole seeking opportunism vs a collective effort mentality as being the key observation, though I might have missed the point there.
maybe part of the problem is keeping everyone on the same page. GW has grown, fast, become corporatized, publically traded. A desired stock. Imagine how many Matt Wards must work at GW now. That might help to explain some of the variance.
kodos wrote: but for those that everyone playes, you just show up and play
I MASSIVELY doubt this.
You turn up at a store with box of toy soldiers and nobody is there... You ain't playing anything.
And empty stores is very common. It's a rare store to find with more than 1 person inside.
Well, empty stores are common right now. The LGS in my metropolis won't allow more than 5 people in the store and the gaming tables are closed for use.
A year ago. If I showed up with 40K miniatures or X-Wing miniatures, I could get a game unless the store just opened. My only problem is I have neither, and the models I do have require pre-arranged times to get a game in. There are about 4-6 regulars for WMH at my LGS, and I have to cross town for Battletech. Don't even get me started on Dropzone or Firestorm.
The nearest GW to me only has two tables, but had about 5-6 people come through right after it opened. The only reason I dropped in was to get some paint and it is easier to reach than my LGS that has over a dozen tables.
kodos wrote: but for those that everyone playes, you just show up and play
I MASSIVELY doubt this.
You turn up at a store with box of toy soldiers and nobody is there... You ain't playing anything.
And empty stores is very common. It's a rare store to find with more than 1 person inside.
than I guess your store has a problem
every store with place to play and no one inside using it is wasting its space and money
so either it will change this into storage/shelf space or close/move to a smaller room
Stores*
But if it was a problem they'd not exist.
That's my point on prearranged games.
In 26 years I don't think I've ever seen a situation where you'd just walk in and expect an opponent to magically appear to play any game. Not just 40k.
It doesn't happen.
And this isn't including GW stores obviously as they have no tables for even demo games anymore. Unless it's a 4x2.
Jidmah wrote: In all of the four GW stores that have been in my area (one closed down four years ago), plus in the two in the city I went to college at, the most common problem was getting an empty table, not the lack of players there.
I would be genuinely surprised to find a GW store you have space to game in these days.
And I am being very serious.
1 only ever see a 4x4 table divided in half for Age and 40k demos and space usually for 4 people to paint.
Occasionally an extra 4x4 which you can't use because there is no terrain or not enough staff to allow gaming.
Again, just because that may be the way things have worked for you, does not mean that experience applies to everyone, much less to people in different countries. Like several people have chimed in here, it is not at all uncommon for pick up games to happen, at least in the US.
Hey all, I think we've gotten a bit distracted over this topic, myself included, lets try and get it back on the discussion of picking up the new edition, thanks!
The GW store in Enschede has two tables, well... pre Covid.
Tournaments.
The whole sha-bang!
I have been in both sorts of situations.
I was in a store in Seoul, and was told to come back at a special time on a special day and maybe someone might be open but typically people met after pre-arranging.
I have been at other shops (admittedly, 30 years ago) where we would hang out, read comics, paint and wait until someone came in or...
The most common situation, however, has been the game club night at the shop, in which case games were either arranged or we knew that other players would be there.
So... my experience leans towards the need for an arrangment.
Plus, there are the necessary house rules, the restrictions (no superheavies, no named characters being big ones) and for me I would rather play smaller games better than bigger games faster. All of this requires coordination beforehand to be successful...
That said, Valentine spoke a bit over forcefully there, maybe...
The new edition SHOULD (and I am opimistic about this) allow a variety of ways to play at different levels of detail all fromt he same rule book (optimistically!).
So, one might more easily be able to go to a (post-Covid?) gameshop and get a pick up game with clear rules iof the sort that one enjoys and has time for and so on...
How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.
If you can read I don't know why it'd be a question. Look at the stat line of a bolter. It tells you how much damage it does.
Yes, and the JANProductions has a point if s/he is genuinely interested in headshots being a thing.
Sure, make helmets more valuable! Guardsmen may get a save for a headshot, helmets might cost an extra point ... why not?
40K now doesn't allow for this level of detail, but why not?
I like the idea of an 8x4 table with 750 or 1000 points played at sub-Necromunda levels of detail.
If the new edition affords this type of play, and/or if GW produces a module that does and that plugs into the 40k MRB, then I would be pretty happy about that.
GW is probably the worst gaming company out there, so giving them money is really the last thing I want to do. I heavily invested in 8th, which was a huge mistake as most my models now are useless plastic thanks to rules changes and power creep. I'm sure I'll be suckered in to playing 9th, but, I'll be avoiding paying for it as much as possible.
Useless plastic?
I can send you my address, and pay postage, if you are sure about that.
And besides, with the new edition, you might enjoy a different way to play without concern for power creep and chasing the meta and so on.
I hope so... but, I might end up disappointed.
jeff white wrote: We are adding maybe 50 votes per day, and percentages are staying the same at about 64/36 for the new kit.
But, what are people voting for? The title still does not mention the box, just the version.
I didn't read the poll title, just the thread title, so my vote is invalid.
Yeah, I voted "yes" because I thought the question was whether or not I'd buy the rulebook, which I will, but I have no interest in Necrons or loyalist marines. Especially not loyalist marines.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, I voted "yes" because I thought the question was whether or not I'd buy the rulebook, which I will, but I have no interest in Necrons or loyalist marines. Especially not loyalist marines.
Exactly the same for me.
While the poll asks about buying the box, the Op says in the first post that "the purpose of this thread is to take a survey about plans to purchase the new edition that was announced on May 23rd."
OK, so we will have to interpret the results to be a bit more ambiguous than intended, meaning either rulebook or new edition boxset.
Next time, I will do try to word things more exactly.
My fault. Anyways, I am still happy for the participation and results.
2/3 favorable for the new release, either way - I am interested in comparing with how people seem to feel after the release and all of the changes are explicit.
Day one purchase for me on the back of the models.
How interesting the missions, secondary objectives and Crusade format are will determine whether or not I sell the book and keep playing 3rd Edition. It'll have to be pretty impressive to get me playing "current" again.
But on second thoughts I might buy a box or two if I can make a profit from it selling to Necron and marine players to buy some High elves/eldar stuff I actually want.
Calling out you being unable to create a reasonable poll isn't "aggression".
You constantly are making posts with polls. They're always this kind of skewed nonsense, despite people frequently pointing out how weird or the answers to the poll have no real applicability to what you're asking.
Take this thread: "Will you purchase the new edition?"...and the poll is about the boxed set only?
I plan on it, because I play both Necrons and Blood Angels. So assuming that it has some long, long awaited CC primaris marines, it's a no brainer for me!
If I only played one of the factions though, I probably wouldn't, unless I had a friend that was actively interested in the other half.
They will make good bases for more aggressively posed intercessors with autobolt rifles. I’ll probably pick up a full box (once it comes out) just for conversion work. Sometimes, you just need running marines.
The HQs are probably just buff bots, unless they change things. But cool looking with new gear options. SS’s are very welcome to the primaris line.
Unless things change drastically with the rules, basic guys with chainswords are very “Meh” mechanically. But who knows. if enough things break in their favor, they might be worth fielding.
(I’m not holding my breath, but will enjoy building/painting them)
They will make good bases for more aggressively posed intercessors with autobolt rifles. I’ll probably pick up a full box (once it comes out) just for conversion work. Sometimes, you just need running marines.
The HQs are probably just buff bots, unless they change things. But cool looking with new gear options. SS’s are very welcome to the primaris line.
Unless things change drastically with the rules, basic guys with chainswords are very “Meh” mechanically. But who knows. if enough things break in their favor, they might be worth fielding.
(I’m not holding my breath, but will enjoy building/painting them)
We already know that Astartes are getting their own classification of Chainswords. I'm sure someone might have the stats kicking around, but I want to say they were +1S with AP-1 or something like that?
They will make good bases for more aggressively posed intercessors with autobolt rifles. I’ll probably pick up a full box (once it comes out) just for conversion work. Sometimes, you just need running marines.
The HQs are probably just buff bots, unless they change things. But cool looking with new gear options. SS’s are very welcome to the primaris line.
Unless things change drastically with the rules, basic guys with chainswords are very “Meh” mechanically. But who knows. if enough things break in their favor, they might be worth fielding.
(I’m not holding my breath, but will enjoy building/painting them)
We already know that Astartes are getting their own classification of Chainswords. I'm sure someone might have the stats kicking around, but I want to say they were +1S with AP-1 or something like that?
I’ve seen a bunch of wishlisting, but nothing solid. I could see either the S or the AP, but asking for both is a bit much for a chainsword IMHO Unless the pendulum shifts drastically, shooting is still the better option. And giving up the rifle is a big ask for these guys. How much can they pile on a basic guy to make up for that?
They need 2-4 things to break their way to make them viable. And there are a lot of things out there that are just unknowns at this point, so there is space for that to happen. But being footslogging infantry with nothing suggesting movement or deployment options make it a very steep uphill battle
Now they might pull a full kit with options not on the monopose guys. All it would take would be grav chutes or graple guns to give them some deployment options. Starting 9” away is a lot better then 24”
As I said, there are a lot of things that could happen to make these guys playable. I suspect they will get one or two. The question is will it be enough.
I’ve decided to work up a primaris battle company, so will have a place for these guys and they will see the table. But I’m a fluffy, more casual guy. So having a little slack in my list is not the end of the world.
All I know is they took great pains to call it out as "Astartes Chainsword" rather than simply "Chainsword". I could have sworn there was a bit in the Potato Cam stream or the Studio Q&A that week which had it.
Kanluwen wrote: All I know is they took great pains to call it out as "Astartes Chainsword" rather than simply "Chainsword". I could have sworn there was a bit in the Potato Cam stream or the Studio Q&A that week which had it.
I recall the nod for it being bigger and better then normal chainswords, but no crunch to go with the fluff. I suspect it will be a +1 to S or AP, or a proc on a 6. If we get lucky, 2 of those. If the stars align, all 3. But not holding my breath on that.
Kanluwen wrote: All I know is they took great pains to call it out as "Astartes Chainsword" rather than simply "Chainsword". I could have sworn there was a bit in the Potato Cam stream or the Studio Q&A that week which had it.
I recall the nod for it being bigger and better then normal chainswords, but no crunch to go with the fluff. I suspect it will be a +1 to S or AP, or a proc on a 6. If we get lucky, 2 of those. If the stars align, all 3. But not holding my breath on that.
I’ve a similar dim recollection of them being described as Astartes Chainsword.
I'd like to think the whole Astartes pre-fix to a nod to Allo Allo where all of one characters gadgets had a certain prefix (skirting around naming names in case the comedically challenged wilfully misunderstand)
Turnip Jedi wrote: I'd like to think the whole Astartes pre-fix to a nod to Allo Allo where all of one characters gadgets had a certain prefix (skirting around naming names in case the comedically challenged wilfully misunderstand)
kreigsmarine admiral von sinkenkwiken?
or air marshal flockenstofen?
or perhaps you refer to von smallhausen of the gestapo
or are you directly talking about equipment ?
One of the best british comedies, right up there with black adder, red dwarf and faulty towers in my book.
The chainswords were described as Astartes chainswords on the original reveal stream. I'd bet on them getting -1AP to match the Heavy Bolt Pistol stats.
