Simple question:
Are you more or less excited for the release of 9th given the slow drip of details?
More excited (or at least not less exctied); the details indicate promise that GW is making the right kinds of changes in the right ways.
Less excited (or growing anxious with suspicion that GW is going to screw things up); the details indicate that 9th will be flawed, perhaps in avoidable ways.
In discussion, please indicate why you voted one way or the other.
More excited so far. They seem to be fixing a lot of the issues I had with the 8th edition like Soup, CP, and terrain.
I am also hoping the missions in the book become the standard everywhere, and we don't have the divide with the ITC like we do now. I'm guessing Mike Brandts new role may have something to do with that?
Overall, I'm pretty optimistic and becoming more so as time goes on. Seems like GW is tightening up the stuff and I like what I've seen so far.
I'm excited. TBH most of the people whom are negitive are the ones whom have been more or less relentlessly negative. and thus where always going to be inclined to see the worst possiablt outcome. so far the changes we've seen are good and indicate that GW at least miay be trying to reduce the (tabletop) bloat.
Neutral. 8th was a series of massive steps forward and yet the game fell into a lot of the same pit falls. Until 9th is seen on full there is no reason to think it will be any different.
8th is a horrible mess that I've had an immense amount of fun playing.
GW is a company that fixes small problems by making wide-sweeping changes, and I'm worried that the stupid fun of 8th is just going to be stupid in the end.
Eh, the rules are more or less irrelevant to me as they've driven me away with the pricing schemes for everything new and upcoming.
9th could be the best wargame ever written...and I won't pay $55 for five Howling Banshees. While I have two large armies, I simply am not following GW forward.
mrFickle wrote: What are they doing with soup? Better or worse for soup armies?
In essence, you get a starting amount of CP and detachments cost CP now. So there is a cost to souping. There is also a max number of detachments depending on the points level.
Insectum7 wrote: Generally more exited, but I'm really waiting on how terrain is going to shape up.
Same, many of the rules seem changes seem good but the big intrinsic interaction that is going to change will revolve around the changes to terrain and cover. That is what's going to set the tone for how much movement strategy is going to play in.
100% in the "At least not less excited" category. Probably because after 30 years of edition changes for WHFB/40k/D&D/FoW/etc etc etc I'm just jaded.
And I have plenty of games (and editions of them) to play & people to play them with if the new edition isn't to my liking.
So if they create the next best thing? Great!
If they feth it all up? Eh, that's their problem, not mine.
I voted "less" at the moment, but subject to change depending on what we see in the near future. While I'm happy that certain rules are getting looked at, there are others that are raising eyebrows for me. I'm an ork player, and it's hard to not think that the sky is falling when it looks like GW are stacking the deck against us poor greenskins with individual models getting more expensive, having CP levels gutted (comparative to now, where I need as much CP as physically possible on turns one and two), etc. And when I've just assembled and painted 90 Ork boys and 40 gretchin that may be next to useless depending on where the rules go.
But I'm hoping that when it actually drops I'm pleasantly surprised by all of the wonderful rules and how balanced and great the core rules are, and it is just me over-worrying.
I am excited. I've played since Rogue Trader and enjoy the game and genre. I did not like 6th and 7th, but have enjoyed 8th. 9th appears to be improving upon 8th. To me, it is similar to how 2nd edition improved upon Rogue Trader and how 4th edition improved upon 3rd.
It will take some getting used to a different tabletop size, as I anticipate my area will mirror ITC. However, I played on 8x4 and had to adjust when it went to 6x4. If armies are a bit smaller and the game does not appear to be a scrum in the middle of the table, I'll be fine with the size difference.
I like a lot of what I'm seeing in regards to the core rules. There seems to be a lot of neat stuff in the pipeline.
My issues increasingly are with the army books themselves, primarily the increasingly intense levels of lethality, in addition to the fact that seemingly half the material in each codex is going to be invalid and likely require an extensive Update/Errata/FAQ document (we already know all points values are changing, we don't know what changes may impact army rules or unit abilities that may require re-writes/updates, etc) and they probably won't get around to updating all the armies quick enough to avoid having to pile at least one if not two future Chapter Approved's on top of that, with of course the same applying to Psychic Awakening too.
Vaktathi wrote: I like a lot of what I'm seeing in regards to the core rules. There seems to be a lot of neat stuff in the pipeline.
My issues increasingly are with the army books themselves, primarily the increasingly intense levels of lethality, in addition to the fact that seemingly half the material in each codex is going to be invalid and likely require an extensive Update/Errata/FAQ document (we already know all points values are changing, we don't know what changes may impact army rules or unit abilities that may require re-writes/updates, etc) and they probably won't get around to updating all the armies quick enough to avoid having to pile at least one if not two future Chapter Approved's on top of that, with of course the same applying to Psychic Awakening too.
I'm thinking this is part of why GW is going in so deep on the app. The fact that they are making the digital codex's free with a hardcover means you should get all of those updates automatically.
The AoS app is pretty handy for all that and you can get stats and points for units without the book. I'm curious if GW is going to shift to that model as well.
I'm really stoked about Crusade. Love that there are missions for games of every size. I want to hear more about the app. Not 100% convinced that the detachment caps and changes work for all factions, but they certainly could have been worse.
Table changes are only relevant at tournaments or stores; some will adopt the minimum sizes, others will likely choose not to; I tend to play with friends at my place or theirs, so our table sizes aren't changing.
I think orks will be okay, but I know little about the army. What makes me think they'll be okay is that you'll probably get 12 CP to start + 1 per turn in a Strike Force sized game (2k points) because you'll probably be able to fit all of your units into a single brigade or battalion. Plus cover is getting a redo and modifiers are capped at +1/-1. Points increase could effect the horde, it's true. Blast weapons could be an issue for large mobs.
I was initially furious with the announcement of a new edition, but what has leaked so far has turned me around a bit and I'm actually looking forward to it now.
Less, or growing increasingly anxious that GW will screw things up
With GW decideing to reveal 'Cut em down' stratagem i belive it gives a sneak peek at exactly how little they are gonna do to fix melee, and I personally belive the next 3 years+ are gonna be a gunline edition 8.1, with elite melee constantly playing catchup game thinking 2 turns ahead with pile in gimmicks to have a sliver of a chance.
Point reduction for new edition so they can Cancer Approve units with useless points drop is not great either, nstead of fixing their fundamental issues in the rules. (Im looking at you 5++ invul bloodthirster.)
I haven't seen any rules that would give big buffs to my army, so I wouldn't call myself exited. On the other hand I don't think 9th is going to be a bad edition, at least for me. They would really have to butcher the PA books and the stratagem system for that to happen, or mess up points real bad.
While they may have pointed to fixes to 8th that are literally nothing more than going back to a version of better rules in previous editions (that i see as a positive), the idea of adding more turn phases, a more complex scoring system and a reduced play area (rather for marketing GW terrain or not) all make me less and less interested in playing 9th(i was just OK with 8th once CP farming/strat spamming became the game, but it works really well for epic). it may turn out to be good, but as it stands from what i have seen so far- i have already made re-purposed army lists for my DIY chapter to run them in 30K and 5th edition respectively.
At least i know GW can't go and screw them up anymore, and the games will still be fun to play.
Lots or hype by GW, but I bet gunlines will still rule the game.
The only unknown is if they'll power creep xenos to catch up with marines, or leave overall faction balance the same until 10th.
Overall I think GW goes in the wrong direction with all stratagems/abilities allowing to bypass rules (rerolls, army wide invulnerable saves , no LOS long range weapons being the main culprits).
They need to remove gamey/arcade stuff and put back some strategy in the game.
A lot of the design choices for 8th's core rule set created an unfulfilling game experience for me and so far little has been shown to make me believe my issues with the edition will be addressed. I've basically given up on playing current edition 40k and will stick to 7th where I can actually have fun with the hobby.
I've seen nothing that gives me much hope for 9e and a few things I dislike. The fallback stratagem in particular gives me the distinct impression that GW still really doesn't understand how stratagems work and are going to continue pushing more and more and more pointless stratagems into the game.
I voted negative but in reality I'm more neutral. GW has not given me much confidence since roughly 6th ed. that they won't feth this up. 8th had so much promise (and things "promised" that got left by the wayside PDQ...) but GW's bloating of the game (again) and the "all tournament all the time" mindset and ego stroking that infects games like WMH came to 40k, a game far far less suited for such things; making it far too much a minefield to even play games vs strangers and I don't see much changing in that respect.
mrFickle wrote: What are they doing with soup? Better or worse for soup armies?
In essence, you get a starting amount of CP and detachments cost CP now. So there is a cost to souping. There is also a max number of detachments depending on the points level.
Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?
What about black legion plus noise marine and plague marines? 3 detachments? Or does a detachment start with the HQ
mrFickle wrote: What are they doing with soup? Better or worse for soup armies?
In essence, you get a starting amount of CP and detachments cost CP now. So there is a cost to souping. There is also a max number of detachments depending on the points level.
Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?
What about black legion plus noise marine and plague marines? 3 detachments? Or does a detachment start with the HQ
Presuming the same rules as 8th for keywords and their functions for battleforged.
You pick 1 detachment. If your warlord is in that detachment then that detachment is free. You pick a keyword that defines that detachment (lets say it's khorne). Every unit in that detachment needs to have that keyword in order to be battleforged. It also defines which strategems and such you can use or whatever.
If instead you wanted 1 detachment that was black legion and 1 detachment that was khorne deamons then you will pay CP for the second detachment.
Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?
There is no CSM khorne detachment, i guess you mean world eaters ? Anyway, it would cost you 3CP to add a second detachment. The first detachment is free, when it includes your warlord, which is usually the case.
Overall quite positive. The stuff they mention wanting to change is all stuff that 8th needed improving so it's good that they recognize where the problem areas are and have listened to that feedback. My worries come in when I consider that while they may have the best intentions, they may not fully understand how to fix those problems. I'm not fully convinced by the new CP systems and needing to pay CP to gain any sort of detachment is a negative for me. That new fall back stratagem is conceptually fine, but in terms of applicability its a complete joke and will never be used.
From what we've seen so far though, it looks far better than 9th already. Even with the stuff I mentioned above I don't think there will be any actual negative changes. Rather I think the worst that could happen is that they'll solve 1 problem but cause another one in its place, that CP-detachment change being the best example shown.
Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?
There is no CSM khorne detachment, i guess you mean world eaters ? Anyway, it would cost you 3CP to add a second detachment. The first detachment is free, when it includes your warlord, which is usually the case.
Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?
There is no CSM khorne detachment, i guess you mean world eaters ? Anyway, it would cost you 3CP to add a second detachment. The first detachment is free, when it includes your warlord, which is usually the case.
Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?
There is no CSM khorne detachment, i guess you mean world eaters ? Anyway, it would cost you 3CP to add a second detachment. The first detachment is free, when it includes your warlord, which is usually the case.
I'm a little curious / concerned about how the change in detachments and CP costs may impact on Dark Eldar, as currently their rules are very much geared around multiple small detachments and they generally need a lot of CPs.
But we'll see. I'm generally liking the announcements so far. The new Necrons look great, and I'm very much looking forward to helping my son add them to his budding army.
I'm even, as a staunch bad-guy player, vaguely looking forward to having a crack at the Primaris half of the starter box.
Kanluwen wrote: For someone who is constantly making polls, when will you ever learn to make less loaded options?
Given the unscientific sampling of his voting pool I suspect that's not the only problem with this data. I expect this poll demonstrates a bias towards the negative by sampling people on the Internet in a forum known for its vocal conversation-derailing pessimists, so the broader community is probably largely fine with 9e.
I thought the "9 things we like about the new 40k" was quite bad, and once the new model hype died down I was somewhat concerned.
Everything that's been shown since however has tended to be "we see this is a problem, here is our idea on fixing it".
Whether it works or not is unclear - but the problems identified are reasonable.
Detachments and CPs seem to be spiralling ever more into an absolute mess of design. Their function was questionable enough to begin with once the original FoC was dropped.
Even more Stratagems! Oh boy, that bloated atrocity of a mechanic will not only be sticking around but will now be expanded as well. And clearly we can look forward to yet more examples of "rules that should be core abilities being turned into stratagems instead".
New game sizes! Except not restricted in a way that would make a meaningful difference. Restricting based on number of detachments is ludicrous when a single detachment can contain anything from a single guardsman to 3 Imperial Knights.
IMO what we'll end up with is two steps forward, two steps back, and two steps to the side - possibly off a bridge.
Also, anyone want to place bets on what will be removed from the Dark Eldar codex this time?
My opinion on 9th is basically "meh." Looks to be the same ol' tinkering around the edges, without ever addressing the core problem- the core rules.
As long as GW relies on IGOUGO, and pasted-on special rules, it will remain largely the same game. Light on tactics and playing with/against your opponent, mental engagement- heavy on shuffling toys around while getting drunk.
Also, anyone want to place bets on what will be removed from the Dark Eldar codex this time?
I'm betting it will be...Court of the Archon.
Really flavourful concept, but definitely in the 'too hard box' for rules. The models are also all finecast, and will never sell enough to justify being redone in plastic.
This will leave Drukhari players with the hilarous decision as to which HQ they will pick to die when their Venom blows up, because 'airbag' is currently the main role and responsibility of The Court.
Helpful hint: Never delete/edit posts that appear to be duplicate posts. It is, as mentioned, Dakka being weird...but it usually self-corrects within a few moments. If it doesn't? Then just tag it as a double post using the 'Alert' button and a moderator can handle it for you.
Helpful hint:
Never delete/edit posts that appear to be duplicate posts. It is, as mentioned, Dakka being weird...but it usually self-corrects within a few moments. If it doesn't? Then just tag it as a double post using the 'Alert' button and a moderator can handle it for you.
As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.
Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable
7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable
8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....
Encouraging: promises of new terrain, new cp structure, new mission structure.
Worrying: table size reduction, cut them down presented as an exciting rule, space marine vs cultist price hike, statements that elites are the focus of the new edition when they're currently dominant, rules that seem to favor shooting over melee once again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.
Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable
7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable
8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....
There are more but you get the picture.
I saw somewhere that de and knights would retain their bonus CPs for particular detachments.
If I can take 3 patrols at 2k and have a net +2CP I am A-ok with de.
Encouraging: promises of new terrain, new cp structure, new mission structure.
Worrying: table size reduction, cut them down presented as an exciting rule, space marine vs cultist price hike, statements that elites are the focus of the new edition when they're currently dominant, rules that seem to favor shooting over melee once again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.
Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable
7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable
8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....
There are more but you get the picture.
I saw somewhere that de and knights would retain their bonus CPs for particular detachments.
If I can take 3 patrols at 2k and have a net +2CP I am A-ok with de.
Thats not what i'm talking about. But yes we "retain" it, tho that doesn't mean anything till i see the rules on it, will it count as 1 detachment or 3? will i be able to take 6 patrols or just 3? Are we going to refund all CP or some?
the_scotsman wrote: space marine vs cultist price hike, statements that elites are the focus of the new edition when they're currently dominant
It doesn't seem to have its own thread - but this is probably the most concerning element of what they have revealed.
Anything can be balanced - but its very difficult to imagine, in the current game state, how you conclude you should raise intercessors by 17% and cultists by 50%.
Especially when you then talk about how horde units are going to take more damage and lose the ability to tie up vehicles and monsters.
Much like how I think Nurgle Daemons+Thousand Sons got nerfed into oblivion because someone at GWHQ tried playing with it and went "this is taking too long", I am concerned they want their shorter games and the best way to do that is to throw hordes in the bin.
Amishprn86 wrote: As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.
Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable
7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable
8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....
There are more but you get the picture.
Oh i feel you there.
I loved how the 4th ed DA codex invalidated over half my fluffy full 3.5 ravenwing army making it illegal to field. or the fact it took them 2 years to FAQ address the changes to storm shields to older codexes.
When 6th hit i play tested my army for about 2 months or so getting my normal 3+ games in a week....then i shelved it and didn't play again until 7th (at far less frequency and until formation spam killed the fun) because the edition was so terrible. but hey i got alot of love from infinity, warmachine, B5 wars, battletech and other systems in replacement.
I don't ever expect GW to NOT screw things up with huge pendulum swings instead of smart fixes.
The addition of actions looks to me like they are trying to add more complex elements akin to infinity or DUST but without the mechanics needed to implement it, like models having more than 1 ability per activation, and justifying it with "less models" and a smaller table.
I think it is pretty clear that the " a global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’. "
will last about 20 minutes for a hardcore 40K player to break a codex army build wise once they get their hands on it.
A friend of mine prides himself on the ability to break any codex army build for the LOLs just so we can play test them and see how broken they are (and they usually are).
I also will not be surprised to see players pushing for a 2001+ point game both so they can get all of their previous army on the table as well as the extra 6CP being to much of a draw to ignore.
Amishprn86 wrote: As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.
Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable
7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable
8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....
There are more but you get the picture.
Hey at least your army eventually became playable My 4th edition Tau is still unplayable, and will remain so for any foreseeable future.
Helpful hint:
Never delete/edit posts that appear to be duplicate posts. It is, as mentioned, Dakka being weird...but it usually self-corrects within a few moments. If it doesn't? Then just tag it as a double post using the 'Alert' button and a moderator can handle it for you.
And it's always the unedited post that disappears, so Dakka is littered with posts that just say 'Duplicate Post' or somesuch.
Amishprn86 wrote: As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.
Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable
7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable
8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....
There are more but you get the picture.
Hey at least your army eventually became playable My 4th edition Tau is still unplayable, and will remain so for any foreseeable future.
No worries man find people who play 4th or 5th. i still have my old tau codex.. but i only have 2 minis left over i kept for that army as display pieces. one of our regulars at the FLGS is a tau fanatic(i mean literally the only minis i think he does not own at least one of are the manta, orca, and storm surge, not like he needs the latter since he has the titan). so he is more than willing to play pre-8th ed games with us.
Seems like 9th is more of what 8th was with some refinements.
Not great, not terrible. There were a lot of things I had issues with with 8th, but also quite a few things I liked.
The lack of alternating activations, or alternating sub phases means that the game will still be stuck in the past and IMO, won't reach it's full potential as a game. IGOUGO is archaic at this point, and there are more than enough reasons to abandon it.
I'm going to have to see how the rest shakes out before I can make a final decision on this new edition.
Mostly, I'm excited for the prospect of new models.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Seems like 9th is more of what 8th was with some refinements.
Not great, not terrible. There were a lot of things I had issues with with 8th, but also quite a few things I liked.
The lack of alternating activations, or alternating sub phases means that the game will still be stuck in the past and IMO, won't reach it's full potential as a game. IGOUGO is archaic at this point, and there are more than enough reasons to abandon it.
I'm going to have to see how the rest shakes out before I can make a final decision on this new edition.
Mostly, I'm excited for the prospect of new models.
how is it archaic? Alternating activation isn't some new idea. I've played games that use it that PREDATE 40k.
Have really loved 8th edition, it’s been much more fun and easy to get games going than 7th edition, which large numbers of our gaming group refused to touch with a barge pole.
Our group isn’t hugely competitive so we aren’t really affected by all the various cheese and balancing problems that crop up, and we aren’t influenced by what tournament organisers and players do with the game.
I’m excited to see what they do with ninth edition, and especially the Crusade system.
I haven’t seen anything in the previews that I think will negatively affect the way our group plays the game. We have a selection of game mats and realm of battle stuff that we aren’t going to suddenly discard because some tournament organiser in America has decided he is going to take the word “minimum” to mean “mandatory.” And we don’t have any players that are likely to game squad numbers to avoid hode/blast rules whatever they may be.
Generally most of our group are looking forward to the cool new models. So bring it on.
I dont currently 40k, but do keep up to date on my space elfses
My sticking point is inconsistancy of rules writing, the eldar PA book was a masterclass of this, CWE got a fair few perks, even if some of it will never see play
Then the Kabal and Ynnari stuff was the homework the dog ate scooped back up and smeared on the pages
Then another flip with the WD Harley stuff being good
Heck even outside my pointy ears bubble the DW half baked shambles is another example
I think 9th is at risk if the less able rules scribes get to meddle with core rules
Brutus_Apex wrote: Seems like 9th is more of what 8th was with some refinements.
Not great, not terrible. There were a lot of things I had issues with with 8th, but also quite a few things I liked.
The lack of alternating activations, or alternating sub phases means that the game will still be stuck in the past and IMO, won't reach it's full potential as a game. IGOUGO is archaic at this point, and there are more than enough reasons to abandon it.
I'm going to have to see how the rest shakes out before I can make a final decision on this new edition.
Mostly, I'm excited for the prospect of new models.
how is it archaic? Alternating activation isn't some new idea. I've played games that use it that PREDATE 40k.
I think he is trying to find a way to negate the alpha strike problem that 40K has become, or rather has become more glaring in 8th with the huge increase in DAKKA at the same time cover has become less interactive. people don't want to put their stuff on the table to just remove half of it before it gets to do anything. or sit around for 20 minutes waiting to do stuff other than some armor saves. while the other side of the table does all the things they need to do. AA has been around for a long time but every game system that uses it approaches it with different rules. Some could work really well in a 40K setting but it would require a reset like the switch from 2nd to 3rd or from 7th to 8th.
Obviously that is not the direction GW is taking 9th.
My big problems after looking at the previews is that stratagems have become a cancer comparable to formation bloat in 7th. and GW is pushing "even more stratagems" and extra phases, not a good design direction in my book.
Then they combine it with trying to force smaller games on smaller tables.via meaningless points increases along with an extra mechanic (activations) more suited for skirmish games.
how is it archaic? Alternating activation isn't some new idea. I've played games that use it that PREDATE 40k
I mean, isn't chess technically alternating activations? So, in that sense, so have I.
The concept of it is archaic in a game with such ranged lethality.
If the goal of 40K is be inclusive, immersive and enjoyable for all players involved. The least they could do would be to reduce downtime between actions for players and prevent entire swaths of your army being removed in a single turn before you've even had time to react.
This is why they need to move away from IGOUGO. It simply doesn't benefit the game anymore to be structured in this way.
Brutus has the right of it. IGOUGO does not serve the game. It creates vast swathes of downtime. Greatly imbalances first player vs second player. It removes tactical decision making (arguably one of the most important things in a miniature war game).
It's probably the single element that most greatly negatively impacts the game.
A lot of a problems, I think, in w40k come from the fact that when you drop 1000pts on stuff on top of someones head and wipe out a large chunk of opponents army with no ability to counter play, then it doesn't really matter that much, if the 1000pts drop down as one chunk or in 2-3 parts.
there is just too many models, too many guns and I think that every system of play would be overloaded to deal with it. But good luck to the people telling GW that the best size for w40k would be something like 20+ models for normal armies and around 50-60 for hordes. Specialy if they were to say that to the sells departament of the company.
Hate to be that guy, but as someone interested in the lower point games and hoping to return to 40K with 9th edition, so far its taking away more than its giving.
The CP change seems fair, but otherwise they are putting the model points up and restricting the number of detachments. Its less models and less options. Considering it was a hot topic last week, I fail to see how 9th edition 40K is going to make Kill Team redundant.
That said there maybe other rules and faction-changes that make all this worth while. I suppose we'll have to reserve judgement for the final thing.
Who knows, maybe the lower point missions are going to be better and more fun to play, then the normal points ones, and even going against what GW wants people suddenly start to play 1250pts games.
I'm more excited. I got to play all of one game of AoS 2nd right after it came out. this sounds a lot like that and I recall my reaction being very positive. If anything how I want to play and what the rules allow aren't the same thing so I am hoping for good core rules and a fair set of compromise with the group.
I'm open to playing it right out of the box but want something a bit different. Not really happy with the way GW has been dripping information, seems way to childish. Doesn't really effect anything on my end, just my opinion.
Mostly I am looking forward to finding time to actually pay a gain after having taken more than a year off from rolling dice.
Karol wrote: Who knows, maybe the lower point missions are going to be better and more fun to play, then the normal points ones, and even going against what GW wants people suddenly start to play 1250pts games.
That is a good point you make there. Being fair we've only had a sneak look at some of 9th edition's rules, so it might be alright on the night.
Getting less excited with each reveal. While they have verbally addressed some of the issues correctly (demonstrating that they DO know what the issues are), their solutions fix exactly none of those problems.
Of course all my concern could go away tomorrow if they released the full rules and they turn out great, but given GW's history (one I've been involved with since the later days of RT), what I'm seeing is more concerning than anything.For example, games currently take too long. 8th ed was pitched as as a really fast playing edition. It took only a few weeks to see that this wasn't going to be the case. We were still in index 40k when posts started appearing on Dakka talking about how games were taking longer than expected. As complicated a mess as 7th was, games of 7th often took about the same amount of timeas games of 8th currently do. So right off the bat, we can call BS on the claims of "most play tested edition" (allowing for the possibility that it was called out and ignored by GW). ANYONE would have seen that quickly. As the edition has gone on, games have only gotten longer.
GW's first solution to this? Well naturally, given that the two main reasons for games taking so long are re-roll auras and strategems, they are addressing those right? YE.......oh wait. No. They've doubled down on those mechanics. Instead they're ... increasing points values across the board. My DG who were already too expensive and my friend's Custodes who don't have the supposed problem of "too many models" both say "thanks". Unpopular opinion time, but if you don't understand how misguided (and generally just stupid) a "solution" this is, please DM me. I have a bridge for sale and you will probably be interested.
The problem is, it's the core mechanics of 8th that cause it to take longer. With the exception of the supplement bloat, I actually LIKED 8th (for the most part), but I see this new edition doubling down on a lot of the problems 8th has. I've said this before, but if the GW rules writers were a Dr. Office instead of a rules team, and you went to them with exercise induced vertigo, their "solution" would be to amputate your legs in an attempt to keep you from exercising.
I DO like the idea of adjusting table size according to game size, but since we haven't seen any rules yet that would minimize alpha strike power, even this new rule plays into a lot of what is "wrong". Additionally, with Alpha stike being a primary problem, we HAVE seen new rules coming that might actually HELP alpha striking armies.
I DO like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP, but given that there are armies like Orks who NEED CP to function at all, and that theytend to need a lot more than the 12 we've seen, they will have to do a lot of rewriting and FAQing to get those armies up to snuff. This tells me (as many have suspected) that while the codexes will not be wholly invalidated upon 9th launching, many will automatically become significantly worse than they already are. And a lot of those books sit at the back of the "Codex update line". Since GW decided to go ahead and release a new edition while there are still 8th ed books that have gone YEARS without rewrites or meaningful updates, we're likely looking at restarting the whole codex cycle again. So if you are one those "back-of-the-line"books like Orks, good luck to you. It will likely be some time and many marine updates before your army gets fixed.
I know people will say, in response to that - "But they're making that app and giving us the digital codex for free with the printed one, so problem solved!". And I say show me a time GW has ever successfully pulled off an app based approach like this. They don't have the infrastructure or understanding to do an appthe way WE as players would want so I'm not holding my breath. Besides, even IF they pull off the app the way we all hope they will, it will still be ages before a lot of armies get the actual update they deserved ....
I hate to be doom and gloom since I actually enjoyed 8th (it pretty much saved a community 7th had gone a long way towards killing), but I see this new edition as building on a lot of the problems of 8th rather than its successes. I can also see a healthy amount of bloat coming, so it will also likely damage a lot of good points of 8th. REALLY hope I'm embarrassingly wrong here, but I've been present for every edition of this game, and this updates is showing a lot of the hallmarks of bad decisions ahead ...
I have to search old forum posts about 7th ed. I can't imagine how bad it must have been for 8th to be considered good.
It's generally considered the worst edition ever if I'm not mistaken. Most mechanics were random (based on dice rolls), and you even had a psychic phase where you rolled dice to see how many dice you could roll. It was also one of the worst editions for needing multiple sources to play your army. There were formations that allowed certain armies to take hundreds to thousands of points of meaningful upgrades for free, I could go on all day. There's a reason it only lasted something like 18 months ... You know it's bad when even GW looks at it and says "Yeah - not working" lol
My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.
My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I see bad decisions ahead. It's almost like they realized that, while they initially had a good thing w/8th, they royally fethed it up as time went on, and it now requires an actual rewrite. But they've already gone back on "There will be no 9th edition", so they can't on top of breaking that promise, do the total rewrite we actually need. So instead, we're getting adjustments that will either require players of certain factions to have to have to be ok with their armies sucking for a very long time, OR we will receive so massive an amount of FAQs on day 1 that it will, for all intents and purposes, break the promise of not invalidating 8th ed books on launch. I just don't see how they are going to do what they need to do, AND keep all the promises they've made, while also delivering the rules we're all hoping for. Something has to give somewhere, and for GW, it's typically their word that breaks first. So we're likely going to see whole swaths of codexes essentially invalidated on day 1.
Wibe wrote: My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.
On the other hand there are things like Custodes' and Knights' 3CP stratagems that I think they made before they realized soup-CP-farm was going to be such a big thing; they were expecting these to be big turning-point stratagems you'd use once and shift the course of the game, but when you could show up with three Knights and 64 Guardsmen for 19CP and some regeneration abilities you could use them a lot. Cutting the soup-CP-farm forces down to 12CP or less like everyone else makes the expensive powerful stratagems harder to use.
It isn't "fair" that everyone's got the same amount of CP when the stratagems available may be better or worse, true, but it also cuts down the CP farms that were dominating the competitive game and lifts up the armies that had to stretch and twist and jump through hoops to field enough detachments to get enough CP to do anything. It may not solve all problems but I think this change is a step in the right direction.
My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I see bad decisions ahead. It's almost like they realized that, while they initially had a good thing w/8th, they royally fethed it up as time went on, and it now requires an actual rewrite. But they've already gone back on "There will be no 9th edition", so they can't on top of breaking that promise, do the total rewrite we actually need. So instead, we're getting adjustments that will either require players of certain factions to have to have to be ok with their armies sucking for a very long time, OR we will receive so massive an amount of FAQs on day 1 that it will, for all intents and purposes, break the promise of not invalidating 8th ed books on launch. I just don't see how they are going to do what they need to do, AND keep all the promises they've made, while also delivering the rules we're all hoping for. Something has to give somewhere, and for GW, it's typically their word that breaks first. So we're likely going to see whole swaths of codexes essentially invalidated on day 1.
Yeah the rework of CP system actually invalidates the "seamless transition" to 9th that they are thinking of promoting with their "but your books will still be usable!" mentality. Most books stratagems are not written with fixed and limited amount of CPs in the army, therefore shifting the entire balance to armies with strongest stratagems and greatest indepence from them; I'd rather have them have people pay 2 CP per "Additional armies" instead of this whole fake balance act.
Some armies are just not playable at all with their 8th codex and 9th CP system, hence the need to rewrite them (and they can't possibly be taking 2+ years like they did for 8th)
So far I just feel like everything revealed is the bee's knees.
Smaller table is good. Fewer models is good. More terrain rules is good. Vehicles getting their own autonomy is good. Standardized CP is good. I haven't been this excited since they revealed 8th edition.
The outdated rules for player turns and the bloated command and strategem system remain so nothing else matters. I am a Necron player who will by none of the new models until they fix these rules issues. In other words, my money goes elsewhere for at least the next three years. I am hoping the economic pyramid GW created collapses by then so I will be buying into the first Asmodee edition.
I'm fine with commanders being able to give a single unit within 6" or whatever a special ability. But to blanket half an army with re-rolls just slows the game down and shores up too many built in weaknesses that all armies should have.
I don't understand this talk of immersion. This isn't an atmospheric horror game or RPG, its a tabletop wargame with actual physical models and a human opponent. Immersion is a non-factor, rules take priority. Models and rules should make sense in context of the game's setting, but that's not really immersion, that's more consistency. The game already has so many abstractions given its medium that talking about immersion and realism in terms of gameplay is pointless.
My go to example: watching someone tripoint with DC renders every bit of fluff ever written about DC meaningless and even contradictory to the reality of the game.
Best part: community called scatbikes as a problem when 7th ed codex came out and there was a chorus of "we need to see it". Well, they fething saw it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't understand this talk of immersion.
This isn't an atmospheric horror game or RPG, its a tabletop wargame with actual physical models and a human opponent. Immersion is a non-factor, rules take priority.
Models and rules should make sense in context of the game's setting, but that's not really immersion, that's more consistency. The game already has so many abstractions given its medium that talking about immersion and realism in terms of gameplay is pointless.
I'm fine with commanders being able to give a single unit within 6" or whatever a special ability. But to blanket half an army with re-rolls just slows the game down and shores up too many built in weaknesses that all armies should have.
Karol wrote: Who knows, maybe the lower point missions are going to be better and more fun to play, then the normal points ones, and even going against what GW wants people suddenly start to play 1250pts games.
I am sure they will be. My brother and I were fed up with the bloating scale 8th took on, and started playing 1000pt games through this past winter largely ignoring supplements for our armies and we started to really enjoy the games, and they played much quicker and closer. As a thought experiment I made pour armies using the index and they would have been ~1500 points then.
I honestly think it's the biggest issue with the game. They make it pretty close to the mark initially and at a good scale, but then with constant creep and price cuts the scale reaches this point where there is no space for units to survive. It's just leaf blower 40k. So then the entire system boils down to an arms race of which unit is perfectly efficient and can guarantee the alpha strike, or survive one. That's just not fun. Ironically, it makes 40k more like checkers or chess. Only with expensive models that take ages to assemble and paint. And each side can somehow eat half the others chess pieces per turn.
With the new smaller table and hopefully better terrain system I am planing on playing smaller forces and trying the crusade system. Hopefully that system is a bit better then path to glory, which boils down to random tables that inform you of your next purchase.
Okay, many responses, but I suck at multiquote and it never works out for me- please forgive the dog's breakfast that is this post.
To the guy who said IGOUGO doesn't derve 40k: My opinion on the issue is well known, so I won't go too far, but here's the deal: Warhammer 40k is the most popular table-top game in the world, and it has been IGOUGO for 33 years. I'd say it's serving pretty well.
To the guy who didn't get immersion: when Crusade comes, play it. In another two years one you've got a Chapter Master that you've been playing since he was a scout, I suspect you'll get it.
I've got characters who have played in Spacehulk, Kill Team, Blackstone, 40k and Apocalypse, and I've tracked experience for them across all 5 game systems. I used to have to do it with house rules.
My current Cannoness Comander, Jahalla Athebraxis, joined my army as Dominion in 2008. She was promoted to a Superior after her squad gunned down a custom Ork Warlord on a Snowmobile! In 2009, she became a Palatine, and earned her title as the Cannoness of her Mission after recovering Alicia Domenica's Praesidium Proctiva from a hidden vault beneath the Altar of the Chapel of Saint Katherine's Aegis. Under her leadership, the mission has grown to become it's own Preceptory.
Immersion doesn't happen in one game. For Jahalla, it's been 12 years. As a video gamer though, I can see the semantics; with videogames, immersion is tied to the senses- the hi-def visuals on the screen and spatial sound. With pen and paper RPG's and tabletop strategy games, it's more about maintaining the truth of the fictional world within which the game occurs.
For all of you talking about 12CP: it's not 12 CP. It's 12 CP plus one per turn, plus any of your CP generating rules from your dex- and yes, I know not everyone has that good fortune and capability. So that's the first thing.
The second is even if you're right, the part of your argument I take exception to is the implication that it was more fair under the previous system. Because the codex imbalance that causes the problem existed before 9th came along, except in 8th, you also had to deal with wonky CP generation imbalances between armies ON TOP of the codex imbalance.
I don't play Orks, and I don't own their Codex, but I have had recent discussions with folks about how this edition will put Orks at a disadvantage because the new system helps them less than it helps a lot of other armies. I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist. But getting away from CP by detachment WAS a step in the right direction, even if it didn't solve every problem.
I also know it's created a lot of anxiety for Drukhari and Daemons, especially at lower scales of play, because we need multiple detachments in order to use all of our units, and at 500 points, we only get one detachment. Despite the fact I actually play both Drukhari and Daemons, I can say theat I think fixed CP is better for the game as a whole.
Popularity and sales does not equate to quality on any level. Again, every Michael bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. None of them are good movies on any level.
PenitentJake wrote: Okay, many responses, but I suck at multiquote and it never works out for me- please forgive the dog's breakfast that is this post. To the guy who didn't get immersion: when Crusade comes, play it. In another two years one you've got a Chapter Master that you've been playing since he was a scout, I suspect you'll get it.
I've got characters who have played in Spacehulk, Kill Team, Blackstone, 40k and Apocalypse, and I've tracked experience for them across all 5 game systems. I used to have to do it with house rules.
My current Cannoness Comander, Jahalla Athebraxis, joined my army as Dominion in 2008. She was promoted to a Superior after her squad gunned down a custom Ork Warlord on a Snowmobile! In 2009, she became a Palatine, and earned her title as the Cannoness of her Mission after recovering Alicia Domenica's Praesidium Proctiva from a hidden vault beneath the Altar of the Chapel of Saint Katherine's Aegis. Under her leadership, the mission has grown to become it's own Preceptory.
Immersion doesn't happen in one game. For Jahalla, it's been 12 years. As a video gamer though, I can see the semantics; with videogames, immersion is tied to the senses- the hi-def visuals on the screen and spatial sound. With pen and paper RPG's and tabletop strategy games, it's more about maintaining the truth of the fictional world within which the game occurs.
Yeah alright, that's fair. My idea of Immersion is more based on senses than story crafting. Either one is good for getting invested in the game, I suppose.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't understand this talk of immersion. This isn't an atmospheric horror game or RPG, its a tabletop wargame with actual physical models and a human opponent. Immersion is a non-factor, rules take priority. Models and rules should make sense in context of the game's setting, but that's not really immersion, that's more consistency. The game already has so many abstractions given its medium that talking about immersion and realism in terms of gameplay is pointless.
Let me guess... you started with CCGs?
Chess and Checkers, actually. Then RTS and TBS games, then miniature wargames.
In retrospect, this is probably why I never really bothered giving my army an elaborate backstory. Funnily enough, my first and primary army are necrons, who I started in 4th edition, back when they were a faceless and emotionless legion of killing machines, marching under the orders of their immortal masters. You know, like your armies in Total War or any given RTS. Or chess, if we are to go into abstractions.
Lance845 wrote: Popularity and sales does not equate to quality on any level. Again, every Michael bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. None of them are good movies on any level.
Bay's movies are crafted to appeal to a wide audience, provide momentary distraction, and be inoffensive. Compare them to equally inane but unsuccessful movies like Garfield and you'll see that there is a certain skill in execution as well thoughtfulness required. As far as corporations go, sales is the only measure of worthy of note, because quality is subjective, but monetary success is quantifiable. Also we are grown adults playing with plastic toy soldiers, set in a world were genetically modifed super soldiers fly across the galaxy to hit fantasy deniziens with pointy sticks, lets not put on airs here.
*edit* I'll defer to ERBs defense of Micheal Bays movies:
Dont really care until I see the rules in full and an FAQ that's sure to follow because there is like 0% they will get it right given their track record.
To the guy who said IGOUGO doesn't derve 40k: My opinion on the issue is well known, so I won't go too far, but here's the deal: Warhammer 40k is the most popular table-top game in the world, and it has been IGOUGO for 33 years. I'd say it's serving pretty well.
Do you have an actual good reason to keep IGOUGO beyond the fact that it's been part of the game for so long? Is there a functional reason to keep it?
40K is the most popular table top game in the world for quite a few reasons, IGOUGO is not one of them.
Boohoo, something doesn't use points. Get over it.
Pretty oddly aggressive statement given 95% of players use points instead of PL.
When you consider the fact that PL was never really properly balanced to begin with, and was never actually touched by GW in terms or re-balancing things, it was kind of a dead mechanic. It is a bit of a head-scratcher that they would shoehorn Crusade into using PL only. Especially since, in at least one of the live streams a GW person mentioned even being able to use PL in tournament settings. You know, tournaments ... those things that pretty much universally use points instead of PL ...
Playing in multiple stores across multiple states (this combines tournaments as well as just pick-up games), I think I managed to get three games using PL? So that averages to a little more than twice a year over the course of 8th's life. Not great.
I actually like using PL when I can as it makes army building faster, but GW has a long way to go if the idea is to get PL "ready for prime time".
For all of you talking about 12CP: it's not 12 CP. It's 12 CP plus one per turn, plus any of your CP generating rules from your dex- and yes, I know not everyone has that good fortune and capability. So that's the first thing.
The second is even if you're right, the part of your argument I take exception to is the implication that it was more fair under the previous system. Because the codex imbalance that causes the problem existed before 9th came along, except in 8th, you also had to deal with wonky CP generation imbalances between armies ON TOP of the codex imbalance.
I don't play Orks, and I don't own their Codex, but I have had recent discussions with folks about how this edition will put Orks at a disadvantage because the new system helps them less than it helps a lot of other armies. I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist. But getting away from CP by detachment WAS a step in the right direction, even if it didn't solve every problem.
From a semi-competitive to competitive standpoint, your average Ork army is currently starting with way more than 12, and no, getting "one point per turn" on top of that doesn't really help. Especially considering that, in order to function at a BASE level - Orks NEED those strats. It's not a "My army is ok, but when I CP farm, it becomes incredible" type situation. It's a "My army is generally too weak with several over-costed units and I need those strats just to get to OK" type situation. I haven't seen anyone say in this thread claim (or even imply) that it was "more fair" the other way. What most (myself included) are saying is that this probably wasn't the way to fix it. I agree that CP farming is a huge problem. That said, Orks are an army set up to be the poster children of CP farming and yet, all that extra CP just earns them a close-to-level foothold with the other middle tier armies. That's a problem. So here comes GW saying "Points go up across the board and you all start w/12cp". So Orks, who already have a handful of units that need to go DOWN in points are getting the nerfbat because "too many models", AND they won't get the CP they need (20+ in some cases) to function. Keep in mind that the strats are currently set up assuming a very different CP situation. So now we go back to, they can't do what they say they're doing, balance the game, AND maintain functionality of the 8th ed books. These three things don't work simultaneously. You can have any two, but not all three. So now you have to wonder - which line are the wrong(or outright lying) about?
And like I said earlier, my DG and my friend's Custodes didn't need points increases. His army already only has like 16 models in it. Since I insist on using Plague Marines, my DG army is also small and elite, and now likely unplayable at 2000pts. Other armies like Space Wolves are in the same boat. So how does an across-the-board increase help any of that? It doesn't. Unless they've also rewritten the rules to the point that the 8th ed books really aren't truly compatible.
I also know it's created a lot of anxiety for Drukhari and Daemons, especially at lower scales of play, because we need multiple detachments in order to use all of our units, and at 500 points, we only get one detachment. Despite the fact I actually play both Drukhari and Daemons, I can say theat I think fixed CP is better for the game as a whole.
There are a ton of examples like this where it's bad, and a bunch where it's good. I don't really think it's going to truly be a "fix". It's a classic GW solution - we fixed one thing and broke 9 others ... It will likely be the same but different if you get my meaning.
The other issue with the points increase is that fact that, as I said before, model count doesn't have nearly as much an effect on game length (at the current 2000 point scale) as people seem to think it does. Yeah, you get that guy who has that complaint about the time a ork player w/200 models slow played him, but do we want an across-the-board adjustment for fringe cases? I don't. But I digress - the real reason games are taking so long is the re-rolls and strategems. Take those out and play a 2000 point game using all the other rules (just don't use rerolls or strats) and watch how much faster the game goes. So you would think that's where GW is focusing their attention, and hey, MAYBE they will once we see the full rules, but with what we've seen right now - no. They are doubling down on those mechanics AND ADDING additional rules, phases and complexity. I'll happily make a sig-bet with anyone on Dakka about this, but my bet is, games of 9th will have 10-15% fewer models and still take nearly as long, or longer than 8th ed games. So points will have gone up, but will not have had the desired outcome of making the game shorter, and will subsequently start coming back down in the following CA.
40K is the most popular table top game in the world for quite a few reasons, IGOUGO is not one of them.
Agreed. I would make the argument that 40k is the most popular in spite of it's rules. Not because of them.
Boohoo, something doesn't use points. Get over it.
Pretty oddly aggressive statement given 95% of players use points instead of PL.
I'd love to see your data to back that up. I'm sure it would totally include sources and the like, and not a single one of that "95% of players" using points would simply be people who don't care enough to argue it in their local communities.
Not. A. Single. One.
Spoiler:
That was sarcasm. Your numbers of "95% of players" would probably include a good 40-45% that fall under "don't really care, just wanting to play a game".
People can get over it using Power instead of Points. It's there to allow for flexibility in lists that you cannot get when you have crap like weapons having 2 point variations because it's a different barrel or whatever.
When you consider the fact that PL was never really properly balanced to begin with, and was never actually touched by GW in terms or re-balancing things, it was kind of a dead mechanic. It is a bit of a head-scratcher that they would shoehorn Crusade into using PL only.
It was more balanced than points have ever been or probably will ever be. Until we set new 'basic' statlines to work from for infantry/vehicles, there will always be a "best in points" category. And that simply means balance cannot exist with points, as if balance were in fact to exist with points then everything should be...oh what's the word. Balanced? Also worth mentioning, since your next line is misinformation or wilful ignorance that I'll address separately, that GW has flatout committed to rebalancing Power in the coming edition. They had left it alone because they considered it to be a relatively balanced metric for pick-up games but apparently some people didn't "get" how it was supposed to work.
Especially since, in at least one of the live streams a GW person mentioned even being able to use PL in tournament settings. You know, tournaments ... those things that pretty much universally use points instead of PL ...
That isn't what was "mentioned". It was that someone who was using a tournament list could still play games with Crusade players for their "tournament prep". They just wouldn't have the same perks/downsides that the guy who had been playing Crusade would have--but otherwise nothing would be different.
Playing in multiple stores across multiple states (this combines tournaments as well as just pick-up games), I think I managed to get three games using PL? So that averages to a little more than twice a year over the course of 8th's life. Not great.
You included a game type that had people actively hostile to Power Levels for ridiculous reasons(many of which cited the dumpsterfire arguments of the AoS reject crowds) while hailing arbitrary numbers for wargear as perfection.
By your logic, matched play isn't great from my experience as I've played almost exclusively Power Level since 8th dropped. There were a few exceptions(one was me doing a teaching game with someone who insisted on points rather than Power because "I saw on reddit that Power was broken" and the others involved a short-lived Escalation League that died out when the organizer got a case of the "ooooh, shinies!" with Star Wars Legion), but yeah...not great for points!
I actually like using PL when I can as it makes army building faster, but GW has a long way to go if the idea is to get PL "ready for prime time".
Prior to the Covid shutdowns, I had gotten in 5 games using PL since January with another 10 in 2019. But I make a point of not playing with people who love to insist upon "eVeRyThInG mUsT bE pOiNtS!!1!!".
Only game I play using points at this juncture is Age of Sigmar, and that's because there is no Power equivalent sadly!
Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.
By your logic, matched play isn't great from my experience as I've played almost exclusively Power Level since 8th dropped. There were a few exceptions(one was me doing a teaching game with someone who insisted on points rather than Power because "I saw on reddit that Power was broken" and the others involved a short-lived Escalation League that died out when the organizer got a case of the "ooooh, shinies!" with Star Wars Legion), but yeah...not great for points!
the difference is that unlike PL or narrative play, people from all around the world, playing in different metas say that neither of those are played or used that often. Every poll made on dakka or other sites, showed narrative/open as being less played and less supported then match played.
Saying that people play points is like saying people eat bread. There maybe places where they don't, but comparing to the places where they do, we may as well say that they all do.
And as the balance thing goes, there is no way that a less precise tool is going to give better results, over multiple uses. Now does that doesn't mean that GW are master of balance and points are right , fixed and neeed no changes. We wouldn't be getting day 1 errata/faq and CA if that was true. But they sure are more precise the PL . What PL could try to achive is to be as close to points as possible. They would never reach the level and how close they would be depends on how someone views GWs ability to point stuff the right way. And in 8th where PL were never updated with each FAQ/CA that changed points and rules, they got less and less precise.
jeff white wrote: I wish crusade was set up for points... maybe a supplement can do that. Sort of bolt on rules ...
I'm pretty sure you could just decide on point values for campaigns if you want. That's probably what I'll do if my group runs a Crusade.
We don't know how the mechanics for crusade are set up. What if requisition points are linked to PL somehow. You can't just say that X PL is Y points, because the costs do not overlap between even units from the same army, not to mention units from different ones.
Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.
When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.
Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.
When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.
When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.
No. I'm saying what JNAProductions said - at this point, the point levels have been adjusted every year. PL has NEVER been adjusted. So at this point in the edition, a mechanic that was dubiously balanced to begin with, has gotten even less balanced as time has gone on. Are points perfect? No. But they are more precise, and have been actively addressed on a regular basis.
Also worth mentioning, since your next line is misinformation or wilful ignorance that I'll address separately, that GW has flatout committed to rebalancing Power in the coming edition. They had left it alone because they considered it to be a relatively balanced metric for pick-up games but apparently some people didn't "get" how it was supposed to work.
LOL No.
My next statement was phrased as it was specifically BECAUSE GW "committed to re-balancing PL, while also saying they considered it balanced". If you don't see the issue there .....
I mean, building using PL is absolutely faster and easier, so I'd be all for it, and if they can get it right then great. But I'm not holding my breath either.
When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.
No. I'm saying what JNAProductions said - at this point, the point levels have been adjusted every year. PL has NEVER been adjusted. So at this point in the edition, a mechanic that was dubiously balanced to begin with, has gotten even less balanced as time has gone on. Are points perfect? No. But they are more precise, and have been actively addressed on a regular basis.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they're "more precise".
That's why tournament lists all look so similar, right? Because they're "balanced", not because they're constantly shifting in response to a meta dictated from a closed environment that makes up its own stupid houserules.
Also worth mentioning, since your next line is misinformation or wilful ignorance that I'll address separately, that GW has flatout committed to rebalancing Power in the coming edition. They had left it alone because they considered it to be a relatively balanced metric for pick-up games but apparently some people didn't "get" how it was supposed to work.
LOL No.
My next statement was phrased as it was specifically BECAUSE GW "committed to re-balancing PL, while also saying they considered it balanced". If you don't see the issue there .....
I mean, building using PL is absolutely faster and easier, so I'd be all for it, and if they can get it right then great. But I'm not holding my breath either.
Your "next statement" was wrong because you used something that was never said.
Tycho wrote:Especially since, in at least one of the live streams a GW person mentioned even being able to use PL in tournament settings. You know, tournaments ... those things that pretty much universally use points instead of PL ...
The closest was a mention of someone using a tournament list for "practice" could still play games with Crusade players for their "tournament prep". There was a brief joke about "doing Power Level tournaments", which was a follow-on from the bit about committing to rebalancing Power Level "as necessary".
That's why tournament lists all look so similar, right? Because they're "balanced", not because they're constantly shifting in response to a meta dictated from a closed environment that makes up its own stupid houserules.
So I don't think I'd get too many arguments if I were to say that pre-nerf Iron Hands were the most OP thing in 8th (rediculously OP). Now, let's take that level of OP, but add it to a system that hasn't been balanced in ... ever actually, and see how much better it gets. Like everyone here has said, no, points are not perfect. But PL was less balanced even on launch, and hasn't been touched since. So it can actually amplify the problems that still exist in points. As I've said like 5 times now, I actually like PL because it is faster and easier to pull a quick list together, but I've stopped using it because it really isn't balanced correctly. You especially see this in units like Plague Marines where you could have pretty extreme fluctuations in how "good" a unit is based on which of the myriad of options that unit takes. These fluctuations are taken into account with points. They are not taken into account in PL, so out of the gate it's awkward. Now fast forward 3+years and PL hasn't been adjusted ever. The awkwardness just gets worse.
Are points perfect? No. Are they a significantly better measure than PL? Yes. For sure, that could change and maybe they fix it, but I don't think they can without also drastically altering the rules for certain units, so we're now back to the triangle I mentioned earlier where something has to give, and it's probably going to be 8th ed books being compatible w/9th.
Your "next statement" was wrong because you used something that was never said.
Yes. My bad. Typo. I said "PL" but I meant the "Crusade System". They mentioned using Crusade in tourneys, but Crusade is PL only soooooo .....
My next statement was phrased as it was specifically BECAUSE GW "committed to re-balancing PL, while also saying they considered it balanced". If you don't see the issue there .....
I mean, building using PL is absolutely faster and easier, so I'd be all for it, and if they can get it right then great. But I'm not holding my breath either.
By definition the only way to PL work in w40k is either to make all models and units pre build with no gear options or star making units pay PL for extra stuff they take, but then we just get a different type of point system.
You want to know why Crusade isn't flogging points?
Because points are a trash mechanic that encourages TFGs.
If you want to talk about the "RPGDM micromanager" in you, then you should damn well know that there will always be someone trying to squeeze every single last bit of cheek out of the system they can. Using Power rather than Points ensures that people don't really have to worry as much about TFGs, since they can swap in things on the fly.
Kanluwen wrote: You want to know why Crusade isn't flogging points?
Because points are a trash mechanic that encourages TFGs.
If you want to talk about the "RPGDM micromanager" in you, then you should damn well know that there will always be someone trying to squeeze every single last bit of cheek out of the system they can. Using Power rather than Points ensures that people don't really have to worry as much about TFGs, since they can swap in things on the fly.
I try to ignore those people.
Sorry for liking points...
That's cool and all, but the system isn't being built for it. It's seemingly being built specifically to discourage TFGs and munchkins from trying their stuff that can kill off escalation leagues basically overnight.
Just like with narrative games in 8th many people will simply use points for crusade as well, because why wouldn't you? With Battlescribe or the new App the main appeal of Power Level is gone. WarCom and WD featured several narrative players that use points. So if you're afraid of GW coming to your home and dreadsocking you because of using points in crusade - they probably won't, they'll rather write an article about how diverse the approaches to the Hobby are.
Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.
When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.
Just because a certain falcon is no longer around to pick apart your asinine "argument" you cannot have free reign with it...
PL is the drizzling gaks, that does not make pts good- however, it is a better fething system than PL, that is blatantly obvious and you're just playing internet contrarian again.
Personally I think PL and points are both useful and are there for different things.
Points is certainly more granular and is theoretically more balanced and is the only way to play competitively because of the max loadout ability of PL, but PL is useful for other reasons.
I'd actually say that PL is "better" in that it is better able to serve its use as intended.
Points are "supposed' to be balanced and provide players with a measure to determine if the lists facing each other are fairly matched. It fails at this much of the time.
PL is there to provide a quick and easy way to establish an approximate overall strength with no real aspirations to have things perfectly balanced. Its ideal for Open and Narrative play.
When I play in a local tournament or a more competitive matched play, I use points and try to be fairly savvy with my choices to get an effective list. at other times I use PL for Narrative games, or just more relaxed/friendly matched play games. When doing this I don't give every model the absolutely best loadout, I play WYSIWYG, I model based on what I like the look of and it gives me an opportunity to play with different wargear etc without worrying if a unit is under or over-performing.
TLDR PL and points serve different purposes and both have their place. Which is better? Arguably PL is "better" because it actually works as intended, whereas points often falls short.
From a semi-competitive to competitive standpoint, your average Ork army is currently starting with way more than 12, and no, getting "one point per turn" on top of that doesn't really help. Especially considering that, in order to function at a BASE level - Orks NEED those strats. It's not a "My army is ok, but when I CP farm, it becomes incredible" type situation. It's a "My army is generally too weak with several over-costed units and I need those strats just to get to OK" type situation. I haven't seen anyone say in this thread claim (or even imply) that it was "more fair" the other way. What most (myself included) are saying is that this probably wasn't the way to fix it. I agree that CP farming is a huge problem. That said, Orks are an army set up to be the poster children of CP farming and yet, all that extra CP just earns them a close-to-level foothold with the other middle tier armies. That's a problem. So here comes GW saying "Points go up across the board and you all start w/12cp". So Orks, who already have a handful of units that need to go DOWN in points are getting the nerfbat because "too many models", AND they won't get the CP they need (20+ in some cases) to function. Keep in mind that the strats are currently set up assuming a very different CP situation. So now we go back to, they can't do what they say they're doing, balance the game, AND maintain functionality of the 8th ed books. These three things don't work simultaneously. You can have any two, but not all three. So now you have to wonder - which line are the wrong(or outright lying) about?
My biggest fear as an ork player isn't the 12+6 CPs we could start with, is the fact that we must go mono-detachment in order to keep those 12+6 and not start with less. Tipycally only 3 HQs and only 3 HS are way too low for a 2000 points game, and it would be impossible to keep both the CPs and the needed units. Going brigade isn't a solution as it would force us to bring several expensive tax units, which is even worse. Last but not least only a couple of klans can really go mono-detachment at competitive levels, one of them implies the most boring way to play them (a pure gunline).
And like I said earlier, my DG and my friend's Custodes didn't need points increases. His army already only has like 16 models in it. Since I insist on using Plague Marines, my DG army is also small and elite, and now likely unplayable at 2000pts. Other armies like Space Wolves are in the same boat. So how does an across-the-board increase help any of that? It doesn't. Unless they've also rewritten the rules to the point that the 8th ed books really aren't truly compatible.
I also fear that with my SW, but at least avoiding primaris stuff I should get a fair number of models on the table anyway, even if they aren't the most competitive choices.
The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see
Lance845 wrote: Popularity and sales does not equate to quality on any level. Again, every Michael bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. None of them are good movies on any level.
Film is an art form and hence subjective in addition being popular is not a sign of lack of quality.
I think the first Transformers film is slick, funny, well crafted and great entertainment, they then decline in quality IMO
I get you don't like them - all good but neither of us are in any position to state definately that its a "good" or "bad" movie - just that we don;t think it is or do think it is.
Points are not perfect by any means but neither are PL or other systems such as Priority Levels or Stones or whatever.
However unless you are playing a narrative game with friends, you normally need something to work out sides as there are always soem who are happy to just stick a load of models down and others who have to have the best possible build with lots in between...
No you can absolutely definitively say what is a good or bad movie. Not wether you like it or not. But you can look at cinematography. Writing. Acting. Characterization. Theme and consistency. Sound quality. Etc...
The transformers live action movies all have severe plot holes that become exponesionally worse as they go. They all have inconsistent characterization or no characterization. The dialog is bad. The acting is bad. The cinematography is juvenile.
They are, not opinion, fact, bad movies.
And I never said being popular meant a lack of quality
I said being popular had nothing to do with quality. They are not related.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see
So the more things change the more they stay the same?
welcome back to the old FOC
We already had dedicate mono armies with limits on allies and superheavies. guess that big 8th ed experiment in soup was a failure afterall.
yeah barring some sort of restriction, a super heavy's going to cost CPs just to deploy (ditto a primarch, although we might see the primarchs errata'd to HQ choices)
Lance845 wrote: No you can absolutely definitively say what is a good or bad movie. Not wether you like it or not. But you can look at cinematography. Writing. Acting. Characterization. Theme and consistency. Sound quality. Etc...
The transformers live action movies all have severe plot holes that become exponesionally worse as they go. They all have inconsistent characterization or no characterization. The dialog is bad. The acting is bad. The cinematography is juvenile.
They are, not opinion, fact, bad movies.
I consider Trasformers movies among the worst films ever made in history, but the concepts of good and bad are entirely subjective. This is a fact. Even something that is widely accepted as good (or bad) isn't really good (or bad) for a fact. Giving people easy access to guns is considered extremely bad here, by almost everyone. But I can't say it's bad because it's a fact even if the majority shares the same feeling because in other places (USA?) common opinion is the exact opposite or at the very least there's much more debate about the matter.
Initially I was quite optimistic. The first reveals all talked about things that I think needed fixing and seemed to be heading in the right direction.
Some of the recent reveals have dampened that enthusiasm somewhat. The reduced size of the playing area seems like an odd choice, but not a major dealbreaker (I'll likely still use my 6'x4'). The Cut Them Down stratagem is worrying for a number of reasons but mainly because it's just so bad while also demonstrating a lack of understanding of the actual problems for close combat in 8th.
That said, this week is supposed to reveal a bit more about terrain and vehicles, among other topics, which could go some way to getting things back to a more positive position. At the moment I'm edging towards pessimism but we've had so little revealed so far that my position could change quite rapidly.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see
So the more things change the more they stay the same?
welcome back to the old FOC
We already had dedicate mono armies with limits on allies and superheavies. guess that big 8th ed experiment in soup was a failure afterall.
IMO40k has always worked better when the FOC/CAD/detachments were actually limiting list building choices, rather than creating an all-you-can-eat buffet like 8th or 7th edition's formations did.
9th looks promising in a way that it rewards having less detachments while still being able to add detachments when you want allies, more choices of a specific battlefield role or for fluff reasons.
I remain a bit iffy
THE IFFY:.
There's a lot of left over stuff. PA, Vigilus, Dexes all get taken over.
I don't quite get the pricehikes on cultist vs Intercissors.
I fail to see the Stratagem cut them down, beeing good for realistic melee scenarios.
THE GOOD:
The cp system change is much welcomed, batteries beeing a gripe of mine all through 8th.
Terrain getting looked at.
THE HOWEVER:
Yeah the CP system, with the baggage from the earlier point makes it a bit dubious.
Remember when they said that PA has been written with 9th in mind. Yeah? Remember F&F? more then -1 to hit is no more, yet how come that the AL options are full with that?
See they also need an extensive rewrite and rebalance of stratagem cost, Knights come to mind, CSM and orkz aswell, within the first FAQ else there will be alot of issues.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see
So the more things change the more they stay the same?
welcome back to the old FOC
We already had dedicate mono armies with limits on allies and superheavies. guess that big 8th ed experiment in soup was a failure afterall.
If it's one or the other (classic FOC or soup) I'd take the FOC, but the best system IMO would be one that incentivises a FOC list but still allows alternatives.
I'd like to see superheavies and flyers pointed to be slightly uncompetitive too, but that's just me. I'm probably stuck in the past.
I remain a bit iffy
THE IFFY:.
There's a lot of left over stuff. PA, Vigilus, Dexes all get taken over.
I don't quite get the pricehikes on cultist vs Intercissors.
I fail to see the Stratagem cut them down, beeing good for realistic melee scenarios.
THE GOOD:
The cp system change is much welcomed, batteries beeing a gripe of mine all through 8th.
Terrain getting looked at.
THE HOWEVER:
Yeah the CP system, with the baggage from the earlier point makes it a bit dubious.
Remember when they said that PA has been written with 9th in mind. Yeah? Remember F&F? more then -1 to hit is no more, yet how come that the AL options are full with that?
See they also need an extensive rewrite and rebalance of stratagem cost, Knights come to mind, CSM and orkz aswell, within the first FAQ else there will be alot of issues.
That's the big one. The flat cp system has the potential to hurt factions that are currently over reliant on strategems while buffing those designed to have very powerful strategems but a lower supply of cp. Hopefully this will be addressed in the day one errata.
Another thing will be the cost of soup. They mention a knight costing a couple cp. If it's that cheap would it really discourage taking such a good option? And shouldn't taking a super heavy from your own faction be less detrimental? This could very well be the case, but we will have to wait and see.
Karol wrote: I have to search old forum posts about 7th ed. I can't imagine how bad it must have been for 8th to be considered good.
Rules themselves were not bad (I liked the core ruleset much much more than 8th edition) but wacky Codex design and all the stupid detachments etc ruined it.In the end it was enormously confused mess.
No. They said that the point increases will be pretty moderate. It is more like taking things back to where they were in the beginning of 8th before all the point drops.
In any case, I'm pretty sure that using the Crusade with points will be trivially easy.
On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
BrianDavion wrote: yeah barring some sort of restriction, a super heavy's going to cost CPs just to deploy (ditto a primarch, although we might see the primarchs errata'd to HQ choices)
Ditto for Fortifications since we know they were left off the example Battalion detachment. A Sacristan Forgeshrine or Tectonic Fragdrill was already a dubious choice when all it cost was points and a detachment slot. Now if it burns CP too, I don't expect to see many on the field.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't understand this talk of immersion. This isn't an atmospheric horror game or RPG, its a tabletop wargame with actual physical models and a human opponent. Immersion is a non-factor, rules take priority. Models and rules should make sense in context of the game's setting, but that's not really immersion, that's more consistency.
Immersion was the appeal of 40k for me when I began playing. When you had stuff blowing up, leaving wrecks and craters, you could shoot tanks to weaker side armour, you had to be mindful of what kind of formation your models were lest they are all wiped out by blast templates (and those you had to shoot with care lest you blow your own stuff up), you had terrified remnants running away and so on. Yes, from the purpose of pure gaming, all of those were an inconvenience, but it made the game feel like a real battle. In 8th edition, everything is bland and generic, you just move your models backward or forward, turn your specials on, throw dice and remove models. It is like a crappy RTS without all the RTS appeals - explosions, graphics and fog of war.
BrianDavion wrote: yeah barring some sort of restriction, a super heavy's going to cost CPs just to deploy (ditto a primarch, although we might see the primarchs errata'd to HQ choices)
Ditto for Fortifications since we know they were left off the example Battalion detachment. A Sacristan Forgeshrine or Tectonic Fragdrill was already a dubious choice when all it cost was points and a detachment slot. Now if it burns CP too, I don't expect to see many on the field.
The fortification network is one detachment I could see costing +-0 CP.
On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
Then I'm really confused at why they would even bother. The stated goal was to "make games go faster by having fewer models on the table". I was already skeptical that this would really help given the core ruleset, but surely we can agree that one marine squad isn't going to make much difference to the game length?
Rules themselves were not bad (I liked the core ruleset much much more than 8th edition) but wacky Codex design and all the stupid detachments etc ruined it.In the end it was enormously confused mess.
That's cool that you liked them, but even the core rules were a janky mess. IIRC, we had over 50 pages of rules, with something like 12 full pages of USRS. Some of which only existed to confer several other USRS. It was like a "Choose your own adventure book". "OK, I have "Wrath of the awesome hammer" - Here it is on page 57. Oh, Now I need to look up what these four USRs do. Ok, turn to page ...."
Plus it was the edition of random. "Roll how many dice to see how many dice you can roll" should just never be a core mechanic. The psychic phase? A mess. Anyone remember D weapons? Do we want those back because I don't.
Admittedly, you're right in that what finally killed it was "Supplement Hammer", but 7th was falling out of favor well before we hit that point.
Using Power rather than Points ensures that people don't really have to worry as much about TFGs, since they can swap in things on the fly.
Swap things in on the fly? I'm not sure I follow.
Ditto for Fortifications since we know they were left off the example Battalion detachment. A Sacristan Forgeshrine or Tectonic Fragdrill was already a dubious choice when all it cost was points and a detachment slot. Now if it burns CP too, I don't expect to see many on the field.
Agreed. A lot of curious things happening. At least we can't claim that all the new rules are just "so GW can sell more models". If anything, it looks like they'll be selling less, so at least that's a good sign. It's a far cry from 7th where they were literally just making rules to sell as many models as they could ,,,
Remember when they said that PA has been written with 9th in mind. Yeah? Remember F&F? more then -1 to hit is no more, yet how come that the AL options are full with that?
That's one of the reasons I keep saying it's not likely 8th ed codexes will retain compatibility w/9th. They've said several times, in several places that PA was written w/9th in mind, but then have said that not everything from the PA books will make it to 9th, and we already have several examples of PA conflicting with 9th. So if a series of books that was supposedly written with the edition in mind isn't making the cut - what chance to the codexes (that were written for 8th) have?
Amishprn86 wrote: On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
I mean either
A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or
B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.
It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."
Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...
On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
Then I'm really confused at why they would even bother. The stated goal was to "make games go faster by having fewer models on the table". I was already skeptical that this would really help given the core ruleset, but surely we can agree that one marine squad isn't going to make much difference to the game length?
Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.
Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...
Considering these specific designers ... it is in no way weird.
"We specifically gave you a preview of one unit that we adjusted in a sane way, and one unit that we totally fethed up! That way you'll know what to expect from our spaghetti cannon at a dart board rules adjustment system TM all rights reserved! what - you think a Guardsman in 9th is going to be 7ppm? pff, don't be ridiculous, they're 4ppm just like right now, and cultists cost 6, cultists just suck thats their narrative flair!"
On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
Then I'm really confused at why they would even bother. The stated goal was to "make games go faster by having fewer models on the table". I was already skeptical that this would really help given the core ruleset, but surely we can agree that one marine squad isn't going to make much difference to the game length?
Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.
Yes, but it was couched as a statement that people were "way overestimating" the amount of changes to points.
if the cultist hike was really indicative of how much, for example, GEQ were going to change in price, then someone playing Guard or GSC or Orks would see some pretty huge price hikes.
The alternative is that the cultist hike is not indicative, and cultists are just weirdly imbalanced.
Amishprn86 wrote: On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
I mean either
A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or
B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.
It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."
Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...
Nah GW hates them for some reason, it was only one of their more popular Box sets (Dark Vengeance) and they didn't move them all (just the base 4 models out of 10) to plastic kits, and now DV is going away, yeah Cultists needs to bee more than anything else, OFC, otherwise they need to fix the kit, and can't have that.
Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.
If his army isn't indicative, then I would like to think he would not have said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, ..."
Because that implies that, across the board, we overestimated the points changes ...
There are two conclusions that can be drawn - we really did overestimate the changes, and we will be left with a points increase that accomplishes pretty much nothing, OR they understand their own game even less than we thought ...
Amishprn86 wrote: On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
I mean either
A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or
B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.
It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."
Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...
Nah GW hates them for some reason, it was only one of their more popular Box sets (Dark Vengeance) and they didn't move them all (just the base 4 models out of 10) to plastic kits, and now DV is going away, yeah Cultists needs to bee more than anything else, OFC, otherwise they need to fix the kit, and can't have that.
I mean it isn't like GW sells about 2 dozen modern multipart plastic kits that could be easily used as cultists.
The read might be that
A) The new missions are very focused on holding objectives/doing "actions".
B) Therefore troops with obsec and relatively little damage output surrendered are the best.
C) Therefore troops have to go up in points disproportionately to everyone else.
The concern is going to be however that this just encourages everyone to go full super death robots and hope they shoot you off the board. Which they can probably do quite easily, if a 6 point cultist is anything like a 4 point cultist but everyone's heavy support options are essentially unchanged.
The concern is going to be however that this just encourages everyone to go full super death robots and hope they shoot you off the board. Which they can probably do quite easily, if a 6 point cultist is anything like a 4 point cultist but everyone's heavy support options are essentially unchanged.
They're not unchanged. Heavy support got better with the whole tanks can shoot out of CC thing ....
That said, my guess is that we will see similar points increases across everything and it will be classic GW. Some units go up by a reasonable amount (whether they needed to or not), other units go up by an absurd amount with no rime or reason, a smattering of in-between units, and non of it will have had the desired effect of making games faster.
There might also be the issue of marines in cover being just as durable as they are now, while hordes with low armor saves can now effectively use armor again and thus become vastly more durable compared to before.
Amishprn86 wrote: On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
I mean either
A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or
B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.
It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."
Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...
There's a bit of extra context to it, where there's a mention of wargear prices changing too and the end result being just one Marine Squad down.
Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.
If his army isn't indicative, then I would like to think he would not have said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, ..."
Because that implies that, across the board, we overestimated the points changes ...
There are two conclusions that can be drawn - we really did overestimate the changes, and we will be left with a points increase that accomplishes pretty much nothing, OR they understand their own game even less than we thought ...
Or, loyalist marines will see little change, as shown in their example, while everyone else, especially armies that rely heavily on geq troops and the like, will get hit hard. Gotta sell those new primaris kits don't they?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: There might also be the issue of marines in cover being just as durable as they are now, while hordes with low armor saves can now effectively use armor again and thus become vastly more durable compared to before.
Are you implying a return to old school cover saves? Please, don't get my hopes up.
Excited. I don't expect 9th edition to be the paragon of balance, but I hope it will be better than 8th and at the very least I like the general idea of the changes.
Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.
If his army isn't indicative, then I would like to think he would not have said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, ..."
Because that implies that, across the board, we overestimated the points changes ...
There are two conclusions that can be drawn - we really did overestimate the changes, and we will be left with a points increase that accomplishes pretty much nothing, OR they understand their own game even less than we thought ...
Did you watch the stream in question? From what Stu Black said it's pretty obvious he's talking about people thinking 3000 points in 9th is equivalent to 2000 points in 8th. I think there's quite a lot of room between small changes that "accomplish pretty much nothing" and a 50% increase across the board. It's entirely possible to reconcile the two things. Losing a squad or two from an army can have quite a big effect on how it plays and if 9th sees all armies reduced in a similar manner that will be a material change but still some way short of armies being about 2/3 the size they are now.
Amishprn86 wrote: On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
I mean either
A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or
B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.
It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."
Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...
Nah GW hates them for some reason, it was only one of their more popular Box sets (Dark Vengeance) and they didn't move them all (just the base 4 models out of 10) to plastic kits, and now DV is going away, yeah Cultists needs to bee more than anything else, OFC, otherwise they need to fix the kit, and can't have that.
I mean it isn't like GW sells about 2 dozen modern multipart plastic kits that could be easily used as cultists.
People converting things? Heaven forbid! What is this, the middle ages? This is 2020, we have "no model no rules" here for a reason you know!
Losing a squad or two from an army can have quite a big effect on how it plays and if 9th sees all armies reduced in a similar manner that will be a material change but still some way short of armies being about 2/3 the size they are now.
This is what I'm saying. Losing a squad may have an effect on how an army plays (heavily dependent on which squad and what army of course), but at just about any points level north of 1000, losing a single squad does absolutely nothing to achieve the stated goal of "reducing army size for faster play". Don't move the goal posts for them. The stated goal wasn't "points increases to effect how armies play" was it?
Amishprn86 wrote: On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."
I mean either
A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or
B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.
It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."
Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...
Nah GW hates them for some reason, it was only one of their more popular Box sets (Dark Vengeance) and they didn't move them all (just the base 4 models out of 10) to plastic kits, and now DV is going away, yeah Cultists needs to bee more than anything else, OFC, otherwise they need to fix the kit, and can't have that.
I mean it isn't like GW sells about 2 dozen modern multipart plastic kits that could be easily used as cultists.
People converting things? Heaven forbid! What is this, the middle ages? This is 2020, we have "no model no rules" here for a reason you know!
LOL, but some people like the models and its not like the molds are done. Also a couple of those models were awesome.
A 2000 point marine army losing an entire squad could be like a 10% size reduction depending on what that squad was. 10 Intercessors lost is 200 points. A 5 man tactical squad is like a quarter of that. So still we are at wait and see on just how reduced things are.
Lance845 wrote: No you can absolutely definitively say what is a good or bad movie. Not wether you like it or not. But you can look at cinematography. Writing. Acting. Characterization. Theme and consistency. Sound quality. Etc...
The transformers live action movies all have severe plot holes that become exponesionally worse as they go. They all have inconsistent characterization or no characterization. The dialog is bad. The acting is bad. The cinematography is juvenile.
They are, not opinion, fact, bad movies.
I consider Trasformers movies among the worst films ever made in history, but the concepts of good and bad are entirely subjective. This is a fact.
Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.
Why would you ask if people are excited? Dakka is where people go to hate their hobby.
Now get off my lawn!
(and I'm really excited. Its a relatively inexpensive hobby that gives tons of enjoyment for the time and money spent, and the setting and fiction is great, so I'm going to continue to be excited for this new edition until we get to a point where its time to be excited for the next onet!)
Seabass wrote: Why would you ask if people are excited? Dakka is where people go to hate their hobby.
Now get off my lawn!
(and I'm really excited. Its a relatively inexpensive hobby that gives tons of enjoyment for the time and money spent, and the setting and fiction is great, so I'm going to continue to be excited for this new edition until we get to a point where its time to be excited for the next onet!)
Odd... results are heavily positive here on dakka... maybe you are spouting stereotypes while ignoring facts.
Seabass wrote: Why would you ask if people are excited? Dakka is where people go to hate their hobby.
Now get off my lawn!
(and I'm really excited. Its a relatively inexpensive hobby that gives tons of enjoyment for the time and money spent, and the setting and fiction is great, so I'm going to continue to be excited for this new edition until we get to a point where its time to be excited for the next onet!)
Odd... results are heavily positive here on dakka... maybe you are spouting stereotypes while ignoring facts.
I was trying to be a little humorous, hence the
but...you're right, the results of this poll are about 2/3 positive, however, dakkas vocal community is a very, very different story. but who knows, maybe you read a different 6 pages of forum posts.
Definitely more excited, though at the same time more hesitant. I -love- the sword and board Marines, and everything I've seen got me geared up for building Templars, but there is so much I don't know about the rules that has me waffling on what to equip models with and even how I want to play things.
Kind of like a "the more you know the less you understand." I mean we got a pretty clear "it's like 8th, only better" but the more the talk about the less it feels "like 8th" and more it feels like a major update instead of a small one. Like 5th to 6th instead of 6th to 7th if that makes sense. Some core mechanics are the same, but enough of the game has changed that it's going to need to settle a bit as well.
Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.
Well, I've rated 2322 titles at the moment on IMDB, but you may be right as I never considered very low budget semi-amateur movies. I was comparing TF to movies that actually have some popularity. Americans love Micheal Bay, I get it
People converting things? Heaven forbid! What is this, the middle ages? This is 2020, we have "no model no rules" here for a reason you know!
In 3rd edition codex there were entire pages about how to convert/kitbash models and examples of conversions. Lots of miniatures showed throughout the codex were conversions or even scratch bult models. More than half the units/wargear in that codex didn't have an official model/bitz. I miss that mentality though, it's litterally what made me choose orks in the first place.
I'll be honest, I miss the ol' "kitbash it" approach as well, but I understand GW is trying to protect their IP at this point since IP law is a messy pain in the rear that can easily result in losing it if you're not careful.
That said, kitbashing is definitely not dead. I mean I've been using Grey Knight and Black Templar bits to give my new army some more flavor:
Spoiler:
A new Castellan:
An apothecary with a better choice in helmet:
TANKRED ENDURES:
A Master of Sanctity (Primaris Chaplain given some Templar bits and backpack):
A more Knightly Aggressor:
A 2nd ed Techmarine with a more Zealous arm:
Amazing what a head swap and an extra bit of bling brings to a Centurion (picture taken before finishing drilling his hurricane bolters):
I know none of this is on the level of rebuilding half a leg in greenstuff just to change a pose or the like, but I'm liking the extra flavor from those changes, even when they're not that large on the whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, I need to finish Tankred. Been trying to decide how I want to pose him which has me scratching my head for the moment.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see
So the more things change the more they stay the same?
welcome back to the old FOC
We already had dedicate mono armies with limits on allies and superheavies. guess that big 8th ed experiment in soup was a failure afterall.
Well this isn't adding limit as much as cost so it's less obvious. You can still soup as much as you did in 8th. Just with actual price attached.
Would be less needed if all the regiment/chapter/whatever rules weren't free and would cost according to what value it is for unit but ah well. better than nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: A 2000 point marine army losing an entire squad could be like a 10% size reduction depending on what that squad was. 10 Intercessors lost is 200 points. A 5 man tactical squad is like a quarter of that. So still we are at wait and see on just how reduced things are.
300 and 400 pts units also exists. And of course depends on what units he fielded. If he uses just units that didn't get much of price hikes while others have units that got big...
Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.
Well, I've rated 2322 titles at the moment on IMDB, but you may be right as I never considered very low budget semi-amateur movies. I was comparing TF to movies that actually have some popularity. Americans love Micheal Bay, I get it
How much of the rock is bay though? Movies are often a collaborative effort and it isn't until your name is attached to a few big successes that a director gets to control THAT much of the production. The rock is really early bay. Bayformers is Michael bays work all the way. That or he stopped giving a gak about good movies before he got signed on for those piles of garbage.
Lance845 wrote: How much of the rock is bay though? Movies are often a collaborative effort and it isn't until your name is attached to a few big successes that a director gets to control THAT much of the production. The rock is really early bay. Bayformers is Michael bays work all the way. That or he stopped giving a gak about good movies before he got signed on for those piles of garbage.
"No, you see when it's a 'good movie' it had little to do with him. When it's a 'bad movie' it's all his fault."
Back to 40k:
I'm terribly excited for 9th Ed. Some things I was keen to see, and which GW was clearly toying with (e.g., AA versus IGOUGO) evidently didn't survive rigorous design analysis, which makes me very hopeful that the version they've implemented will be the superior concept.
I am not at all worried about anything that looks problematic right now (e.g., table size changes, cost increases, etc.) as I'm confident these are implemented well.
To be fair, I have limited experience with edition changes being worse. From my experience, 7th was better than 6th and 8th was better than 7th; so their modern design/development paradigm has a great track record.
Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.
Well, I've rated 2322 titles at the moment on IMDB, but you may be right as I never considered very low budget semi-amateur movies. I was comparing TF to movies that actually have some popularity. Americans love Micheal Bay, I get it
Yeah, and how many of those actually came to theatres? How many had the budget of TF? Hard to do worse if you have 150M to invest
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sieGermans wrote: From my experience, 7th was better than 6th and 8th was better than 7th; so their modern design/development paradigm has a great track record.
From my experience 3rd and especially 5th (skipped 4th completely due to other priorities/interests) were way better than 6th, 7th and 8th but I also have hope that the new edition will be an improvement from 8th.
I'm excited at the prospect of something new and shiny, and it sort of sounds like GW have identified and are attempting to address some of existing problems.
That said, if I'm honest, I care much more about how it might affect my (predominantly Venom riding Kabalite) army than anything else, and some of the things that I've heard have me a bit anxious.
ClockworkZion wrote: Definitely more excited, though at the same time more hesitant. I -love- the sword and board Marines, and everything I've seen got me geared up for building Templars, but there is so much I don't know about the rules that has me waffling on what to equip models with and even how I want to play things.
Kind of like a "the more you know the less you understand." I mean we got a pretty clear "it's like 8th, only better" but the more the talk about the less it feels "like 8th" and more it feels like a major update instead of a small one. Like 5th to 6th instead of 6th to 7th if that makes sense. Some core mechanics are the same, but enough of the game has changed that it's going to need to settle a bit as well.
Yeah. At this point, I need some concrete details added on to the vague gesturing to put me firmly in the "I am wholeheartedly excited" camp. Part of what's bothering me so far is that they've done so many little puff piece type previews at this point, while ignoring/holding off on what they know is obviously the thing most people are the most curious about.
Extras like Crusade, some very nice art, and new missions aren't why I buy a new edition. They might be why I might choose to buy a Chapter Approved book, but they're not the core rules changes to fix problems endemic to the edition that I want to be seeing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harlokin wrote: I'm excited at the prospect of something new and shiny, and it sort of sounds like GW have identified and are attempting to address some of existing problems.
That said, if I'm honest, I care much more about how it might affect my (predominantly Venom riding Kabalite) army than anything else, and some of the things that I've heard have me a bit anxious.
If dark eldar do retain the CP bonus for raiding party as rumored, then I am pretty much guaranteed to be excited for them. Smaller board size tips a ton of Wych Cult units that were previously juuuuust out of first turn charge range into that, and puts most of the Haemonculus roster into a viable turn 2 tempo setup even without relying on Fire and Fade. Ongoing CP is a good thing for us because we never were a CP wombo-combo army.
If they make up for Drukhari being required to soup by making specifically multiple detachments of Drukhari free or granting bonus cp (Depending on whether a Patrol is 2CP base or 1CP base) then that's a fine trade-off.
Lance845 wrote: How much of the rock is bay though? Movies are often a collaborative effort and it isn't until your name is attached to a few big successes that a director gets to control THAT much of the production. The rock is really early bay. Bayformers is Michael bays work all the way. That or he stopped giving a gak about good movies before he got signed on for those piles of garbage.
A 2000 point marine army losing an entire squad could be like a 10% size reduction depending on what that squad was. 10 Intercessors lost is 200 points. A 5 man tactical squad is like a quarter of that. So still we are at wait and see on just how reduced things are.
Agreed that we need more info, but the percentage is essentially meaningless if it only actually adds up to losing roughly one squad. Like I keep saying - the stated purpose of the increases is to "reduce army size to speed up game play". A flawed statement because the gameplay is currently slowed due to the actual game mechanics. It has a hell of a lot less to do with army size. RIght now, most games are essentially over by turn 2, yet still take as long or longer than 3 or 4 turns of 7th ed. which used a similar number of models. On top of that, if you've only reduced by a single squad ... then what did you really accomplish. Has anyone ever had a game where they looked back and said "Man - that ONE SQUAD of marines just caused the game to go on so much longer than it would have"? No. No one anywhere has ever said this. lol
THAT is why I'm so skeptical of the increases. Right now, in combination with the new CP system, we have all the signs of most xenos armies getting kicked in the nethers by the new rules, and Marine armies barely being affected. This is worrying. Obviously reserving final judgement and will be happy to be proven wrong, but so far there just seems to be so much flawed thinking applied to these so called "fixes".
I've been really excited, and most of the news has just kept that excitement going.
Things I like:
1. Smaller armies (across-the-board point increases), along with revamping army requirements should help make army building more focused.
2. Additional/specialized detachments costing CP should force some strategic choices instead of being the go-to.
3. Smaller boards and revamped cover should help balance shooting and melee, make movement more strategic.
4. Increased emphasis on holding majority of objectives instead of random objective cards should help force confrontation, and having secondary "flavor" objectives for your army will be an easy way to balance out those armies that struggle. This one feels big to me.
5. Being able to shoot your big stuff in melee. And being able to target stuff you're not in melee with, assuming you can kill that last little gribbly blocking the barrel first!
Things that worry me:
1. I've had to re-read a few of their rules to make sense of them. There are already flowcharts popping up in regards to melee bonuses from cover. The more complicated the wording, the more edge cases to consider - and GW hasn't been great about rules bloat.
2. I need to see cover in action before I trust it.
3. Capping modifiers has the potential to be easily nullified/samey feeling. Don't get me wrong, it's dumb when my Teslas can't proc because I have no way to actually roll a 6, but modifiers are a great way to add flavor to an army.
4. A big part of their problem in 8th was the rapid-fire releases and power creep, without taking the time to balance properly. I don't see that changing.
jhnbrg wrote: I am getting more and more pessimistic With each new reveal. I cant see any new rules that realisticly could save orks now.
Still -1 to hit and still +1 to save. Looks like it will be primaris all the way...
After the latest play test reveal. i am amused with the idea that hey we want this to work like 5th ed where the games are faster and close combat armies have a chance in an 8th ed setting.....doing so requires them to reduce the size of tables, reduce the size of armies, bring back some semblance of terrain, add even more phases (as opposed to simply 3-move/shoot/assault with reserves, psyker powers, and consolidation built into those 3 phases), and a more convoluted scoring systems while still maintaining the increased lethality in shooting.
I was only mildly tolerant of 8th since it worked really well for playing epic scale. good thing i still have all my books for other editions since 9th is looking even less appealing.
Given the price increase for the cultists i cant see ork boyz getting a points drop or even staying at current prize.
Well I think units like cultists or guardsmen aren't inferior to ork boyz or kabalite warriors, in fact they're just as squishy but have better shooting. If boyz and kabalists are 7ppm, those units should have been 6ppm since the beginning. Two ork boyz definitely don't make an intercessor, which is 20ppm and outperforms the greenskin troop dude by 3x at least. But I also fear they'll get a price hike, even if they don't deserve it.
I'd been saying for some time that when 9th came, I wasn't moving to it.
So far, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to change that decision, and only encourages me getting off the merry-go-round.
Though I admit this appears to be more than a mere rules organization and clean-up than I thought. However, the changes they seem to actually highlight strike me as just arbitrary change arounds and are likely to cause as many issues as they supposedly fix.
Stormonu wrote: I'd been saying for some time that when 9th came, I wasn't moving to it.
So far, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to change that decision, and only encourages me getting off the merry-go-round.
Though I admit this appears to be more than a mere rules organization and clean-up than I thought. However, the changes they seem to actually highlight strike me as just arbitrary change arounds and are likely to cause as many issues as they supposedly fix.
After seeing them double down on the bad i am in the same boat. i think i will be promoting a casual 5th edition group at my FLGS so we can enjoy the game again.
Im actually starting to grow a A BIT optimistic, being able to hide bloodthirsters, terrain amount guide, table size, actually goes along way for my world eaters/khorne demons. But as usual they are more likely to go back on their word with stupid FAQ's, they have done that alot lately (please stop that GW). Now we just need fallback and overwatch to get a kick in the nutsack and we are off to a really good start id say.
Furthermore i saw Tabletop Tactics podcast give the new edition their stamp of approval as gametesters, and i know Lawrence got a good grip on what works and what dosent.
People staying in 3rd/5th/7th is understandable, they have a special feel, but staying in 8th hah, thats absolute crazytalk to me. But hey, each to their own i suppose.
I think it depends. We really need to see how people pivot to using the new detachment system and CPs.
I play GK, my army is already small, I don't want it to get even smaller.
I already struggle to imagine how an GK army with termintors is suppose to hold multiple objectives while doing nothing in the psychic and shoting phase. That is like standing and letting opponents shots. Now if termintors or elite armies were supper resilient, I would get it. But they are not, so those objectives are going to be killzones, specialy if opponents put them in the open. The CP and new detachments are worries some too. There is very few CP to start with, and it is not that great to gain 2CP per turn, even if it is better then what other armies have, just because a ton of our stratagems cost 2 or more CP.
People can gravitate to what ever they want, but GW decide to give my army a codex that was out of date for 8th ed in mind. If they add higher point costs too, it is just going to be stupid, specialy as they already said that GK stuff was overcosted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brutallica wrote: Im actually starting to grow a A BIT optimistic, being able to hide bloodthirsters, terrain amount guide, table size, actually goes along way for my world eaters/khorne demons. But as usual they are more likely to go back on their word with stupid FAQ's, they have done that alot lately (please stop that GW). Now we just need fallback and overwatch to get a kick in the nutsack and we are off to a really good start id say.
I remember the GK article that came with its new codex in 8th ed. And it told how aweseome, but also crucial to the army mass deep striking is going to be. And then GW change it to, you can only deep strike 50% of your army.
I think it depends. We really need to see how people pivot to using the new detachment system and CPs.
I play GK, my army is already small, I don't want it to get even smaller.
I already struggle to imagine how an GK army with termintors is suppose to hold multiple objectives while doing nothing in the psychic and shoting phase. That is like standing and letting opponents shots. Now if termintors or elite armies were supper resilient, I would get it. But they are not, so those objectives are going to be killzones, specialy if opponents put them in the open. The CP and new detachments are worries some too. There is very few CP to start with, and it is not that great to gain 2CP per turn, even if it is better then what other armies have, just because a ton of our stratagems cost 2 or more CP.
People can gravitate to what ever they want, but GW decide to give my army a codex that was out of date for 8th ed in mind. If they add higher point costs too, it is just going to be stupid, specialy as they already said that GK stuff was overcosted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brutallica wrote: Im actually starting to grow a A BIT optimistic, being able to hide bloodthirsters, terrain amount guide, table size, actually goes along way for my world eaters/khorne demons. But as usual they are more likely to go back on their word with stupid FAQ's, they have done that alot lately (please stop that GW). Now we just need fallback and overwatch to get a kick in the nutsack and we are off to a really good start id say.
I remember the GK article that came with its new codex in 8th ed. And it told how aweseome, but also crucial to the army mass deep striking is going to be. And then GW change it to, you can only deep strike 50% of your army.
Yeah. They have comitted alot of "crimes", and blantantly disregarded commen sense in the name of tournament trends and sometimes FROM OUT OF NOWHERE off the cuff rules changes (suddenly demons with 3++ was waaay too strong, yet no one played that crap). On that, i am no longer supporting their digital or paperback with my money. I am probably gonna buy 9th book if it come out resonable.
I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?
How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon
It looks good so far but GW's track record is that it will quickly spiral out of control in some way. Unless they *continue* to balance things and not bloat the game again and avoid immediate power creep, it will last a few months at most before it becomes a dumpster fire again.
Tyran wrote: But 8th is simpler than the convoluted mess that was 7th.
Sort of. The "core rules" are simpler. It's not really simpler to play. There are vastly more unique special rules to keep track of, the proliferation of rerolls makes rolling dice much slower, and the interactions of faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, warlord traits, psychic powers, chaplain prayers, and stratagems are much more complicated.
Except that 7th basically also had all that even if in a different flavor.
It has several pages full of USRs, most of which you would never use so they were hard to memorize (e.g. does anyone remember what Zealot did?) and several different unit types, each one with their own intrinsic USRs.
Instead of stratagems it had formation galore, which most exaggerated example was the so called "Decurion" detachments that were a complex system of different formations in a large super formation.
And the worst offender IMHO was the over-complicated psychic phase, in which you had to have some godly administration skills to keep up how many warp dice you have, your psychic powers (and there were so many more powers in 7th) and their interactions (remember the re-rolling 2++).
The only thing that is truly new with 40k is sub-faction rules (unless you played Marines), but last time I checked most of us like having sub-faction rules instead of it being a marine only club.
I'm not saying 8th is simple to play, but it is simpler than 7th.
jeff white wrote: Simple question:
Are you more or less excited for the release of 9th given the slow drip of details?
More excited (or at least not less exctied); the details indicate promise that GW is making the right kinds of changes in the right ways.
Less excited (or growing anxious with suspicion that GW is going to screw things up); the details indicate that 9th will be flawed, perhaps in avoidable ways.
In discussion, please indicate why you voted one way or the other.
Given the slow drip of details? Neither.
I'm looking forward to 9th on the basis that there may be needed improvements from 8th, but preview pacing doesn't matter.
Chamberlain wrote: Not a fan of the arbitrary 5" height for obscuring. 4" dense trees = see through. 5" sparse trees = no LOS for you.
Then don't use the keyword "obscured" with your sparse trees if it annoys you...
That doesn't solve the 4" dense trees. If only they could grow a bit more and suddenly block line of sight despite nothing at all changing about how dense they are.
A 20" tower surrounded by 5" ruins can't be used as a sniper position under these rules. Well I guess you can apply another terrain template on it "Firing position" that lets you ignore LOS. But something tells me that won't be in the rules.
Two identical ruins except one has a flag pole extending up to 5". One qualifies, one doesn't.
My prediction is that these rules will be ignored outside of events in favour of what makes sense in the moment. Which is fine and how I'll play, but it's just strange to make how well something blocks LOS be based on it's height rather than it's density/how well it actually obscures vision.
That doesn't solve the 4" dense trees. If only they could grow a bit more and suddenly block line of sight despite nothing at all changing about how dense they are.
If that forest is so "dense", it already block LOS, just not infinitely vertically.
They have to choose a height because otherwise some people would try to pass a rock as a skyscraper and any other number they would chose, you would be arguing about it too, so it doesn't matter.
The point is, you use the rules where it makes sense or where both you and your opponent are fine with.
addnid wrote: I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?
How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon
One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.
Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.
It really is strange that holding a barrier is better for the attackers. The charging unit will be on one side of it and get the bonus but the defenders actually occupying the defensive position won't. It's such a bizarre choice.
Chamberlain wrote: It really is strange that holding a barrier is better for the attackers. The charging unit will be on one side of it and get the bonus but the defenders actually occupying the defensive position won't. It's such a bizarre choice.
Yeah is it an error - is it supposed to do something? Makes zero sense
addnid wrote: I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?
How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon
One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.
Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.
Miniatures and rules are separate so people should play the edition they like with any house rules they agree to. And when they go to an event they should play the rules the organizer sets.
It's not hard. If a game is working for you, why not keep playing it?
addnid wrote: I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?
How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon
One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.
Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.
So you stick with way worse gak called 8th?
Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.
So far what they are releasing looks really good and essentially seems to be things that the community has asked for. This is excellent as it shows that they are listening to the community at large, so if something doesn't work for the majority of players you can be assured it will get a rework at some point. What's even more encouraging is the range of players that have helped in design (from players like the ITC creators on the competitive side to community leasers on narratives like the guys from tabletop tactics). It seems like they are creating a game that will make the majority of narrative and competitive players happy.
addnid wrote: I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?
How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon
One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.
Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.
So you stick with way worse gak called 8th?
Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.
Allright, cool, will it be publicly available? Im allway curious to alternatives, and try new things.
addnid wrote: I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?
How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon
One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.
Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.
So you stick with way worse gak called 8th?
Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.
I didn't even bother doing that much, it isn't needed. i am just using 5th edition as the core rules and "house ruling" 1 page of 20 rules that are not even made up but rather the good rules from editions 3, 4, 6, and 7th that work better in the core rules set of 5th.
addnid wrote: I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?
How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon
One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.
Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.
So you stick with way worse gak called 8th?
Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.
I didn't even bother doing that much, it isn't needed. i am just using 5th edition as the core rules and "house ruling" 1 page of 20 rules that are not even made up but rather the good rules from editions 3, 4, 6, and 7th that work better in the core rules set of 5th.
things like using overwatch and snap fire.
There's that too. The 8E houserules we* did use when playing 8E fixed most of the issues we had with the game, and we didn't need many. The advantage of writing my own ruleset is that it does everything that I want, the way I want.
* "We" consisting of myself and my sons. The local FLGS has a 40K clique I've learned to avoid.
I think it depends. We really need to see how people pivot to using the new detachment system and CPs.
There's a possibility that it doesn't hurt them. Sure. The problem is, right now, 9th is rapidly shaping up to be anti-horde and anti-light infantry. They are structuring the rules as though the biggest issues with 8th was Orks ... and it absolutely was not.
Plus, my main point has been that the points increases will hurt a lot of armies while leaving marines untouched and will fail at their stated purpose of making games faster. While I admit I may very well be wrong about orks being hurt by that points increase, the world does not exist in which losing that amount of points (in a game any size north of 1000pts) has a significant effect on speeding up the game. So it just reads like another one of those times where they don't really seem to understand the change they're making.
It's the start of 8th all over again - where they looked us in the eye and sincerely claimed this was the fastest playing edition of 40k ever. It was less than a month before we figured out this wasn't remotely accurate. Now they're targeting army size as a function of game length when the biggest issues causing games to go too long are the core mechanics. It's not that, occasionally, an Ork player brings 100+ models in a game. It's that every army packs enough re-rolls that you're practically playing the game twice. Add in strats on top of that and you have an edition where most games are done by end of turn 2, but still take as long as 4 rounds of 7th ...
But sure, drop an army by 100 points. That'll help ...
And mind you, I actually loved 8th. It's been one of my favorite editions. I just don't feel like they are addressing the problems correctly so far. Happy to be proven wrong, but growing more skeptical w/each rules reveal.
Given the price increase for the cultists i cant see ork boyz getting a points drop or even staying at current prize.
Well I think units like cultists or guardsmen aren't inferior to ork boyz or kabalite warriors, in fact they're just as squishy but have better shooting. If boyz and kabalists are 7ppm, those units should have been 6ppm since the beginning. Two ork boyz definitely don't make an intercessor, which is 20ppm and outperforms the greenskin troop dude by 3x at least. But I also fear they'll get a price hike, even if they don't deserve it.
You don't think a cultist (BS4+ WS4+ Str 3 gun Sv6+ LD what, 5? no trait) is not inferior to a Kabalite Warrior (BS3+ WS3+ poison 4+ gun Sv5+ Ld7, excellent traits+PFP)?
I mean, in 8th ed, where anything cheaper than a primaris marine is a meaningless chaff model that just gets shoveled off the board by some dumb gak like an aggressor rolling 18 shots per model, maybe. But ideally, in a game where stats matter, a cultist is far, far inferior to a kabalite. That's like asking whether a tactical marine is really superior to a dire avenger.
I think it depends. We really need to see how people pivot to using the new detachment system and CPs.
There's a possibility that it doesn't hurt them. Sure. The problem is, right now, 9th is rapidly shaping up to be anti-horde and anti-light infantry. They are structuring the rules as though the biggest issues with 8th was Orks ... and it absolutely was not.
Plus, my main point has been that the points increases will hurt a lot of armies while leaving marines untouched and will fail at their stated purpose of making games faster. While I admit I may very well be wrong about orks being hurt by that points increase, the world does not exist in which losing that amount of points (in a game any size north of 1000pts) has a significant effect on speeding up the game. So it just reads like another one of those times where they don't really seem to understand the change they're making.
It's the start of 8th all over again - where they looked us in the eye and sincerely claimed this was the fastest playing edition of 40k ever. It was less than a month before we figured out this wasn't remotely accurate. Now they're targeting army size as a function of game length when the biggest issues causing games to go too long are the core mechanics. It's not that, occasionally, an Ork player brings 100+ models in a game. It's that every army packs enough re-rolls that you're practically playing the game twice. Add in strats on top of that and you have an edition where most games are done by end of turn 2, but still take as long as 4 rounds of 7th ...
But sure, drop an army by 100 points. That'll help ...
And mind you, I actually loved 8th. It's been one of my favorite editions. I just don't feel like they are addressing the problems correctly so far. Happy to be proven wrong, but growing more skeptical w/each rules reveal.
You can resolve the actions of a blob of ork boyz in apocalypse in 1/4 the time it takes to resolve them in a game of 8th.
Movement: Coherency in apoc is 1/2", meaning the whole blob moves together. You make your movement without rolling a single die, all at once. Compare to 8th ed, where in a single turn it is not uncommon for all 30 boyz to have to move 4 separate times (Move, charge, pile in, consolidate), rolling up to 5 dice (Advance roll, charge roll, re-roll charge roll). Also, in apoc, there is no micromanagement of which model can fight, so there is no need for the ork player to get the absolute maximum out of those 4 separate movement events.
Attack: 8th ed: 30 shooting dice that must be rolled 4 times (to hit, DDD, to wound, save) and 150 melee attacks that must be rolled 3 times. Apoc: 3 shooting dice that must be rolled twice, 16 melee dice that must be rolled twice.
defense: large blasts in apoc (the primary way that ork boyz will take damage) do not require even a single save roll, and the blob is either all on the board, or all off the board. In 8th every model must save, maybe painboy save, and each casualty must be removed individually for each attack.
Tycho wrote: ^ Exactly. My point this whole time has been "It's not the model count, it's the rules".
With what we currently know, I will bet my house on games of 9th actually taking LONGER than games of 8th ...
I mean, they most certainly will IMO. What I'm holding out hope for is that they'll last longer turnwise as well. I'll play a game in 4 hours instead of 2.5 hours if it means the outcome isn't all but decided by the top of turn 3.
I am hopeful that the new beefier terrain rules will help turn 1 in particular be a little less bonkers.
The only things i'm pissed about is GW's gakky PR and timing and pricing.
~ We're in the middle of a world wide Pandemic and they increase the $$$ of all their models
~ Instead of an FAQ or giving us a small drip of info or tallking to their community they just drop 9th and smile.
~They increased the unit prices across the board, but kept game sizes the same. (I like and hate this. Its healthy for the game to have shorter games and it helps people get into the hobby easier, i'm just a fan of large/long games)
~ Instead of an FAQ or giving us a small drip of info or tallking to their community they just drop 9th and smile.
But they are giving us small drips of info ...
~They increased the unit prices across the board, but kept game sizes the same. (I like and hate this. Its healthy for the game to have shorter games and it helps people get into the hobby easier, i'm just a fan of large/long games)
Not to worry. The points increase on units will have ZERO effect on game length.
