So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Sure they're coming. I don't think they'll be a big deal.
Take Bobby - he adds 3CP until you realize he requires his own detachment. Tigurius adds 2 CP, but then you're forcing yourself out of successors.
There will be a fine line to walk. They don't always walk it well, but if they goof it'll get sorted.
You are not alone. I actually enjoyed 8th over-all, but have been largely disappointed by what we've seen so far. I feel 9th will be game that is more complex (in a bad way) and actually takes LONGER to play. On top of that, for things like overwatch, my first thought was "And I bet Loyalist marines, Tau, Craftworld Eldar, and possible 'Crons will, to some extent, completely ignore that rule." That's the direction they've taken with Marines in general. I say this as a marine player, but it's like they looked at our first 8th ed book and said "Why isn't this working?", made a list of the rules in 8th that were "hurting" marines, and then released a series of books with units and strats that just let them completely ignore those things and VIOLA! #GAMEDESIGN!
I fear this trend will only get worse as we go ... WHich is weird because, except for the amount of rerolls, I was really positive throughout most of 8th. Something about the way they've handled this sudden transition just isn't sitting well I guess.
I hate to say it but so far I'm seeing a lot of rules that while on the surface seem like good changes the outstanding issue is points for models is still an unknown and what little we have seen isn't giving me great feeling of GW have understood why units that cost X & Z are taken but unitd Y isnt.
Ironically it seems like they have targeted the units/codex's most complained about 18 months ago and written core rules that render them seriously disadvantaged. Digging themselves out of that is going to be sucking up a big pill of Reeeing from many or those codex's will be flat broken for all of 9th.
Ice_can wrote: I hate to say it but so far I'm seeing a lot of rules that while on the surface seem like good changes the outstanding issue is points for models is still an unknown and what little we have seen isn't giving me great feeling of GW have understood why units that cost X & Z are taken but unitd Y isnt.
Ironically it seems like they have targeted the units/codex's most complained about 18 months ago and written core rules that render them seriously disadvantaged. Digging themselves out of that is going to be sucking up a big pill of Reeeing from many or those codex's will be flat broken for all of 9th.
I give this edition 1,5-2 years until GW starts to add Codex books that ignore most of the yet new core rules
and in 2,5-3 years this will be an entire different game because most factions just play around the core restrictions and people start asking for a new edition to solve those problems
You're not alone. At the least Marines will get overrides for any and every rule. Each army will get a subsection they can ignore - morale [IG], cover [Tau], extra CP [Eldar], etc.
Ice_can wrote: I hate to say it but so far I'm seeing a lot of rules that while on the surface seem like good changes the outstanding issue is points for models is still an unknown and what little we have seen isn't giving me great feeling of GW have understood why units that cost X & Z are taken but unitd Y isnt.
Ironically it seems like they have targeted the units/codex's most complained about 18 months ago and written core rules that render them seriously disadvantaged. Digging themselves out of that is going to be sucking up a big pill of Reeeing from many or those codex's will be flat broken for all of 9th.
Could you elaborate a bit more?
At the moment we only know points for 3 units.
Sorry I mean without seeing all the points for units I dont know if GW have really understood what th3 combined effects of their previewed rules means for specifically the armies I play the way I play them.
So far the rules seem to punish anyone who doesn't want to be in CC, LoW are banned from benefiting from cover, Multiple Dx weapons are helped less by blast weapons that double shooting a Dx weapon, move and shoot without penalty dor vehicals helps those that didn't have it but those that did I doubt will see points drops to compensate.
So far the Points of Intercessors, Warrior's and conscripts still feel like the favour marine's. Warrior's I never really encountered in 8th, conscripts I did but they died out bar some odd 1 massive unit or such with the points increases.
Intercessors went up in a way that doesn't jive with how dang powerful they are in 8th and nothing so far says they are getting worse, if thats the way marines have gone it's still going to be 6 months to a year of Marines vrs Marines as the meta.
Unless the points previews so far are misleading I'm not holding out much hope anymore that we wont have an edition so out of balance CA 2021 is going to need to hand out some crazy poinra drops to make certain codex's worth putting on the table.
Hmm, it's really hard to say how the game will shape up. The fact alone that the focus of the game has been moved to turn 3, makes everything different.
Spoletta wrote: Hmm, it's really hard to say how the game will shape up. The fact alone that the focus of the game has been moved to turn 3, makes everything different.
I really like that potential shift. Honestly I can't wait to play some games.
The point of any unit rule that's needs to be spelled out on a datasheet is to break the core rules...or it wouldn't need to be written.
Ignoring rules is a core part to how this game, and almost all of its kind actually work. Asking them to never do this would put the game in a very chess like state, where a datasheet would only ever be a stat line and nothing more.
Umbros wrote: I don't see the problem with this? Isn't this a perfectly valid way to add new mechanics and gameplay variety to the game?
Of course this is in abstract. If executed poorly, it could be bad (shocking, I know)
There are already LOADS of rules exceptions in the game. Adding more rules adds more exceptions and interactions to the point where the game becomes increasingly bloated and complicated.
I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential. Because of my particular playstyle, if the get Crusade right, other minor flaws will be really, really easy for me to overlook.
Man I love having missions written for 500 point, 1k point, etc- and LOTS for each to boot!
The customizability of terrain looks awesome to me- I can't wait to assign traits to my themed campaign terrain- the time and attention I'm taking to build detailed interiors for stackable
multilevel buildings, or buildings with breakaway battle damage will actually mean something in game! Traits assigned mid game as a result of battle damage in special missions is also something I'm looking forward to trying out.
Levelling the CP field AND giving us so many things we can do with CP! Do you hate strategems and think they ruined 8th? Do you hate using them because you feel complicit in a system you hate?
Well now you can spend them to subfaction soup so that all of your shooty units get the best shooty SF trait and all of your close combat units get the best CCSF trait. Worried about your Knight getting executed if you don't win first turn? Bring it in as a reserve and shoot. You could make meaningful and strategic choices with your CP without playing a single strat.
Shooty armies can protect themselves from being surrounded for one unit per turn and their tanks aren't just bait for cheap tarpits anymore.
Flyers don't magically blow up when they reach a table edge! Even better, this is indicative of flyer awesomeness going forward- every army that doesn't already have an Aircraft is going to get one. I've wanted an Aircraft for Sororitas since they were introduced to the game. I feel far more confident than I ever have that it's really going to happen.
I suspect this edition will be fabulous for Xenos- Necrons have already started the ball rolling, and I think love is coming for the guard too. There will, of course be some marine releases, but beyond the opening salvo, I think they already have so much that there's room for a lot of other factions to grow, especially during the first year.
I've kinda meandered from OP, so to address the specific concerns about exceptions: existing exceptions are going to be the hardest to deal with because a) they all have to be addressed on launch day b) a FAQ is the only tool which will allow them to do that.
It is going to be painful. Exceptions which are now global may find themselves becoming conditional, some may be assigned costs, and still others will disappear or become limited to a few units.
But once the existing ones are hammered into the new shape, I think the rules previewed so far are setting us up for exceptions which are limited or conditional.
I could be wrong, of course; we have a fair bit of information, but certainly not enough to pass judgement yet. But I've seen more that gives me hope than I've seen that takes it away.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
Haha. 7th ed started out being bloated with USRs and just got worse.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
Haha. 7th ed started out being bloated with USRs and just got worse.
That's cause it was just 6th with a very slightly new coat of paint and a PR spin.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?
There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?
There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.
I think they've made changes for the better. I think we as a community can help them continue to make those changes, some of this stuff that has been revealed for 9th edition is stuff I have literally discussed in emails I sent to the rules team. Not word for word, obviously. But the general ideas. I know I'm not the only one who sends those emails, that alone means they're llama to us as a group.
Will this be the best edition ever? I don't know. But I can tell you this, I played a heck of a lot of 40K during the 8th run. 6 months before 8th came out, I was so frustrated with the game I quit, sold my armies and invested in HH. I played HH and had a lot of fun with it.
When 8th launched, I saw an opportunity to start fresh and I evened my collections, joined back in with 8th and in less than four months I'd left HH permanently. I've had more fun, more zany stories and more even matches this edition than any other before it.
Since 9th is going to be 8th, but more refined, I can safely say that I believe my good luck and fun will continue. Like one of the other posters in this thread said, I'm excited about terrain. I went to my local store today, put my mask on and used their new snazzy no-touch door handle to go inside. I got for the first time some terrain of my own and I cannot wait to start building it, designing it and putting it to work. I see the potential, and I couldn't be happier.
Yes, there are some things I hope to see. I hope to see Guard, Eldar and Tyranids get their updates, not just rules but models too. I want to see more focus locally on campaigns. I hope that many groups can find fun ways to build their armies and not just have to sit and play the same three units in some combination like everyone else.
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO). The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes. More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
in my opinion the LOS rules and function of terrain were so badly implemented in 8th that it really made me pack my stuff away and not bother unless my friends and I were playing City Fight (which is a great rules set and should be more widely played!!). All of the changes thus far, warts and all, seem be improvements - however incremental that may be. Lots of speculation still and maybe there will be a nasty surprise once it lands, but at the very least the decimation of entire units because you can see one guards arm through multiple different ruin windows traced across the map is *somewhat* addressed.
I haven't been glass half-full about GW in uhh a decade. And I am not yet (because they keep releasing more space marines instead of updating other factions, which is BIG RED FLAG), but compared to the dark ages of 6 & 7 editions....the game is in much better shape.
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
There is nothing inherently wrong with rerolls or stratagems. Reroll all hits is just another way to say "+1 to hit" and i'm sure that all games have that. Reroll 1's is a way to give a bonus which is less powerful than a +1, which in a D6 game is a big bonus
As always, it's not a problem of the mechanic per se, but how wide spread you make it... which isn't a lot at the moment, if you were to change the CM stratagem you would see most of it gone.
then just bake that in, it's like wanting take backs or mulligans. deal with what happened, you cant reroll ones in combat.
D6 is the problem, D10 allows a larger difference in how you can make units interact with one another. you wouldnt need to resort to rerolls and strats. D6 is fine for to hit rolls, D10 for strength/toughness/AP on wounding and saving rolls gives you the design space to account for grots & superheavies.
I really like 8th. I also really like the sound of some of the decisions they've made for 9th. It seems to me that any ruleset can have it's benefits: 8th is simple, streamlined and easy to learn; 9th sounds relatively more complex, yet deals with corner cases more comprehensively. I think when all is said an done, no edition is really any much better than any other. 8th started out well because it had a very fun ruleset, then the codices came along and with each iteration, eroded the fundamental benefits of the ruleset. 9th interesting new mechanics, or variations on old classics will probably be pretty great too, but then new iterations of each army's rules will come along, and they'll erode these benefits too. 10th will be the same, and there really isn't anything realistic that can be done about it, because each iteration drives sales and increases profit, because we buy into it. Every edition will start out well, then bloat, then reset. That's the cycle, and our buying habits are the root cause.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?
There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.
the Problem is not that they try to solve things, but how they do it
to already listend to poeple in 7th as we complained about bloat and entry Level, their solution was to change the core rules to a minimum but keep codex bloat and the high amount of models needed to play
the Core was never the big problem, but the arms race and bloat of the codex were and there is nothing indicating that GW has learned that yet
So no matter how much better the Core will be, the game won't benefit from it as finding a Workaround to those rules with each new Codex is a given thing
If i was guessing it'll be either an overcooked Deathwatch codex updating them for 9th and some gimmick or other nudging them past current marines or Eldar, not on purpose but some unintended combo
Ginjitzu wrote: I really like 8th. I also really like the sound of some of the decisions they've made for 9th. It seems to me that any ruleset can have it's benefits: 8th is simple, streamlined and easy to learn; 9th sounds relatively more complex, yet deals with corner cases more comprehensively. I think when all is said an done, no edition is really any much better than any other. 8th started out well because it had a very fun ruleset, then the codices came along and with each iteration, eroded the fundamental benefits of the ruleset. 9th interesting new mechanics, or variations on old classics will probably be pretty great too, but then new iterations of each army's rules will come along, and they'll erode these benefits too. 10th will be the same, and there really isn't anything realistic that can be done about it, because each iteration drives sales and increases profit, because we buy into it. Every edition will start out well, then bloat, then reset. That's the cycle, and our buying habits are the root cause.
Every edition serves a purpose.
7th edition was a really milking driven edition, led by a management which was focused on short term gains. This has bleed them a lot of players.
8th edition was an edition aimed at regaining the playerbase. It was simple to learn and (relatively) cheap to buy into. It also saw the launch of primaris, which gave them a strong icon for the "new game". It's not a coincidence that 8th also saw an enormous reshape of the PR strategy of GW and the launch of a lot of new factions. The edition was built to attract new players, and the numbers tell us that it was a big success.
9th edition is (IMO) a retain edition. GW got a lot of new players in 8th, now they need to retain them. To retain them you need to beat the competition of other wargames, and you do that by offering a game that is perceived as "better". For this, you bring the competitive community on the boat and design it together with them, because today the "perception" of a game's quality is more based on international events and streams than on personal experience. 9th edition can afford to lose the "Easy" aspects of 8th, because it is not aimed toward new players, but the main target are the players acquired with 8th.
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
There is nothing inherently wrong with rerolls or stratagems. Reroll all hits is just another way to say "+1 to hit" and i'm sure that all games have that. Reroll 1's is a way to give a bonus which is less powerful than a +1, which in a D6 game is a big bonus
As always, it's not a problem of the mechanic per se, but how wide spread you make it... which isn't a lot at the moment, if you were to change the CM stratagem you would see most of it gone.
Reroll all hits isnt another way to say +1 to hit its actually far more powerful a flat +1 to hit would actually make Marines weaker
Reroll 1's is slightly weaker.
While i dont think strategums are the issue driving rerolls for days, I can get that rerolls for days are a pain.
For me, the Space Marine 2019 Codex and Supplements cast a long dark shadow over 8th and will for 9th until we see proof that the rules writers understand the mistakes they made with them.
I think a good example is the anti psyker strats.
One sub faction of Adeptus Mechanicus has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that AdMech can't take psykers. Same for sisters of battle/silence.
One sub faction of Chaos Space Marines has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that sub-faction can't take psykers. Same for Black Templars/assassins. I don't think the penalty is enough to be honest for World Eaters, too easy to take a single WE model and get it.
Iron Hands had a stop spells strategem, it was better than the other stop spells strategems (until nerfed in FAQ 1 for Iron Hands). The penalty is nothing, Iron Hands get psykers and access to three psychic disciplines.
There are loads of these littered throughout SM2019+Supplements. Raven Guard get the best suite of infiltration strategems in the entire game while getting all the generic SM support.
I'm also waiting to see what they do with the mess that is Chaos soup. In 8th the designers made the choice to allow Codex Daemons to give out aura buffs to CSM Daemons and to allow CSM spells/strategems to work on TSons and DGuard. This is why no one Chaos codex is particularly functional on its own because if they were then Chaos soup would be unstoppable.
This is then also why tournament Chaos lists are usually complicated abominations. I don't want to take a mixed Nurgle detachment made up of codex nurgle daemons, codex death guard tanks and codex chaos space marine characters, but maybe if my chapter tactics weren't nearly all useless on those models I would feel more penalised for mixing them all together.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?
There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.
the Problem is not that they try to solve things, but how they do it
to already listend to poeple in 7th as we complained about bloat and entry Level, their solution was to change the core rules to a minimum but keep codex bloat and the high amount of models needed to play
the Core was never the big problem, but the arms race and bloat of the codex were and there is nothing indicating that GW has learned that yet
So no matter how much better the Core will be, the game won't benefit from it as finding a Workaround to those rules with each new Codex is a given thing
Those are different eras. The arms race is real. The difference is in the past it took 3 to 6 months for GW to move the needle. In the post-Kirby era they're still finding their footing on what they want the game to be. They pumped books out at a pace never seen before, which led to limited play-testing and proofing. The arms race will begin anew, but hopefully the effects are less painful.
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
Truth. Wombocombos are low hanging fruit. They exist to make you “feel smart”.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Apparently it starts right now. Tau continue to overwatch exactly as they did in 8th, no strategem required. Shocking, isn't it?
But also, as I understand it, almost necessary in order for them to not become the worst army in the game?
I don't play Tau, and haven't fought against them in a long, long time.
Also, they don't play exactly like they used to, because a unit who uses GG to cover for an allied unit can't overwatch again that phase. I know, smaller OW nerf than everyone else gets, to be sure, but a somewhat limiting factor that is very pertinent to the discussion.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Apparently it starts right now. Tau continue to overwatch exactly as they did in 8th, no strategem required. Shocking, isn't it?
Likely only fair. I wasn't entirely sure how they were going to get through some of the challenges that presented, but I'm not a T'au expert.
Of course it is. I'm definitely not a fan of tau, but good overwatch is what they do. The same strategies that work against them now will continue to work, with new ones possibly being developed using some of the new rules. If you play against tau, expect efficient overwatch, just like always. It won't stop my warp talons from turning them into puree any more in 9th than in 8th.
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
Truth. Wombocombos are low hanging fruit. They exist to make you “feel smart”.
How do you “shoot twice/fight twice” incorrectly?
yup, but I guess feeling superior is better than actually being the better general/commander these days.
Nitro Zeus wrote: they would still have the most powerful overwatch in the game even if they had to pay 2CP for it.
This is just one more change proving melee is still gonna suck ass in 9th.
Maybe jumping the gun there? Most powerful overwatch =/= functional army if they were only able do it once. They don't melee much at all and psychic is non-existent. Owerwatch is their melee.
It's almost as if some of the 9th edition is being designed to force diversity rather than specialist lists.
Unit A counters Unit B which counters Unit C.
I've played every edition. 9th is looking to be one of those editions where "Unit A" never sees the table because it's already effectively countered by the core rules themselves.
After that, who wins between "Units B and C" it will just be a case of which unit ignores the rules more.
Unfortunately, that's kind of the paradigm 8th set up. Keep in mind I really liked most of 8th. But 9th is building on it's flaws in an attempt to fix the "problems". One of the flaws was that a units general strength has less to do with how it's pointed for its statline, and more to do with how well it ignores the standard rule set.
EightFoldPath wrote: For me, the Space Marine 2019 Codex and Supplements cast a long dark shadow over 8th and will for 9th until we see proof that the rules writers understand the mistakes they made with them.
I think a good example is the anti psyker strats.
One sub faction of Adeptus Mechanicus has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that AdMech can't take psykers. Same for sisters of battle/silence.
One sub faction of Chaos Space Marines has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that sub-faction can't take psykers. Same for Black Templars/assassins. I don't think the penalty is enough to be honest for World Eaters, too easy to take a single WE model and get it.
Iron Hands had a stop spells strategem, it was better than the other stop spells strategems (until nerfed in FAQ 1 for Iron Hands). The penalty is nothing, Iron Hands get psykers and access to three psychic disciplines.
There are loads of these littered throughout SM2019+Supplements. Raven Guard get the best suite of infiltration strategems in the entire game while getting all the generic SM support.
I'm also waiting to see what they do with the mess that is Chaos soup. In 8th the designers made the choice to allow Codex Daemons to give out aura buffs to CSM Daemons and to allow CSM spells/strategems to work on TSons and DGuard. This is why no one Chaos codex is particularly functional on its own because if they were then Chaos soup would be unstoppable.
This is then also why tournament Chaos lists are usually complicated abominations. I don't want to take a mixed Nurgle detachment made up of codex nurgle daemons, codex death guard tanks and codex chaos space marine characters, but maybe if my chapter tactics weren't nearly all useless on those models I would feel more penalised for mixing them all together.
Except all those Factions have access to Psykers via Inquisition, which are an add-on to any army.
Okey, if tau keep their special overwatch, then I kind of don't get the sense of the whole overwatch change. It is like saying overlaping auras and re-rolls are too good, and removing them from, orcs or GK
Quickly.... and they should introduce these quickly.
This is how you make units interesting/ stick out. Every game is based on this concept Warhammer and otherwise. Take for example
> all units must start in the deployment zone....... except reserves, infiltrate, ect
> all units must walk around this wall...... except fly, phase, ect
> all units in this cover get +1 to their save...... except if being shot by mortal wounds, imperial fists, ect
The way you create tactical depth in a game is by having units do different things like ignoring/ modifying different rules.
Okey, if tau keep their special overwatch, then I kind of don't get the sense of the whole overwatch change. It is like saying overlaping auras and re-rolls are too good, and removing them from, orcs or GK
Yep. There went most of the point of the overwatch changes, before the edition even starts.
Why did they originally say that T'au got "two for one" overwatch when in fact they get the old 8th edition overwatch and FTGG totally unmodified while everyone else got nerfed overwatch?
Slayer-Fan123 789469 10842421 wrote:
Except all those Factions have access to Psykers via Inquisition, which are an add-on to any army.
Well, don't get me started on Space Marines getting extra powerful rules for being mono faction (that being the implied weakness that makes up for the strength) and then two tool kit bolt on factions now existing which bypass that.
I was completely ready for a rule in Engine War that allowed one Imperial Knight to join an army without breaking doctrines. Thankfully not there (saving it for the 9th edition codex probably).
Nitro Zeus wrote: they would still have the most powerful overwatch in the game even if they had to pay 2CP for it.
This is just one more change proving melee is still gonna suck ass in 9th.
Maybe jumping the gun there? Most powerful overwatch =/= functional army if they were only able do it once. They don't melee much at all and psychic is non-existent. Owerwatch is their melee.
Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.
The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.
The problem is.... we don't really give a gak about overwatch from other armies, they are a wound or two off a charge at most, in most circumstances. It doesn't hurt there of course, but it's Overwatch from the problem armies like Tau that hold it back. I don't see why they couldn't have just had to pay 2CP for their super-overwatch, it really doesn't seem like it would be that bad. Ah well. I'll continue to judge once we've seen all the changes.
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot
Does it matter? I'm not a game designer but from 24 years experience of wargaming rules and the designers I have spoken or listened to core rules are very much there to be broken.
Does it matter? I'm not a game designer but from 24 years experience of wargaming rules and the designers I have spoken or listened to core rules are very much there to be broken.
People get obsessed with weird things. People are still talking about 'superheavies' being a bad inclusion to the game despite that not actually being a thing anymore. People get all up in arms about units 'breaking the core rules' but ignore the fact that Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Sniper, Scout, FNP, run and shoot, run and charge, etc are all well-liked examples of the core rules being broken.
People get obsessed with weird things. People are still talking about 'superheavies' being a bad inclusion to the game despite that not actually being a thing anymore. People get all up in arms about units 'breaking the core rules' but ignore the fact that Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Sniper, Scout, FNP, run and shoot, run and charge, etc are all well-liked examples of the core rules being broken.
There was a time when those USRs were semi limited. They were a clear exception. This is fine. But there is a big difference between, this unit ignores "a" core rule, and "This army can ignore ALL the rules". The problem a lot of people are calling out is that GW has a tendency to go to the extremes with some of this, so when they say "We're fixing problems "ABC" with rules "XYZ", the concern is that they tend to go over board. So I think everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop now, and several armies will totally ignore "XYZ", thereby defeating the work of those rules to begin with. It's one thing if, for example, Ultramarines maybe get a strat that allows some kind of minor Overwatch manipulation, but when the marine codex drops, if they have the capability to completely ignore pretty much all the core rules, that will be a problem. In recent history, this is the approach they've landed on, and that's a legitimate concern.
Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.
The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.
It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.
I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.
Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.
The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.
It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.
I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.
These are token changes? Jesus. I'd hate to see what you consider real change. You do realize they have points and day 0 FAQs coming, right?
Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.
The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.
It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.
I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.
These are token changes? Jesus. I'd hate to see what you consider real change. You do realize they have points and day 0 FAQs coming, right?
yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.
What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP
Siegfriedfr wrote: yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.
What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP
Siegfriedfr wrote: yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.
What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP
and much more.
So, delete Terminators? Got it.
Nope; Make them 3+, and then make everything that was 3+, 4+ etc. before you ask, 6 remains 6.
Siegfriedfr wrote: yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.
What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP
and much more.
So, delete Terminators? Got it.
Nope; Make them 3+, and then make everything that was 3+, 4+ etc. before you ask, 6 remains 6.
That would make intercessors even better then termintors.
Does it matter? I'm not a game designer but from 24 years experience of wargaming rules and the designers I have spoken or listened to core rules are very much there to be broken.
People get obsessed with weird things. People are still talking about 'superheavies' being a bad inclusion to the game despite that not actually being a thing anymore. People get all up in arms about units 'breaking the core rules' but ignore the fact that Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Sniper, Scout, FNP, run and shoot, run and charge, etc are all well-liked examples of the core rules being broken.
First of all including super heavies WAS a mistake, secondly many of the rules you bring up are given to a limited number of units not basically a whole army.
At a minimum take them away from IKs, FW dreads, and the like. And make SS more expensive on models liek Wulfen. Termiantors don't need them either. Melta should ruin them.
Martel732 wrote: At a minimum take them away from IKs, FW dreads, and the like. And make SS more expensive on models liek Wulfen. Termiantors don't need them either. Melta should ruin them.
Terminator Armour was quite LITERALLY designed to walk in active fusion reactors and go "lol".
I'll be happy if they would reduce the riptide invuln from 3++ to 4++
I think that's the only thing in my play group that sticks out. A 3++ on a T4 marine is pretty different than a 3++ T7 riptide. I don't even care about the 2++ on the archon that I can't shoot at anyway because he's a character.
Martel732 wrote: At a minimum take them away from IKs, FW dreads, and the like. And make SS more expensive on models liek Wulfen. Termiantors don't need them either. Melta should ruin them.
Terminator Armour was quite LITERALLY designed to walk in active fusion reactors and go "lol".
Dont' really care. They don't need to make AP worse than it already is. GW gave up on making the fanfiction match the game a long time ago anyway. Terminator suits could be used in ice cream shops. It doesn't matter.
I'll be happy if they would reduce the riptide invuln from 3++ to 4++
I think that's the only thing in my play group that sticks out. A 3++ on a T4 marine is pretty different than a 3++ T7 riptide. I don't even care about the 2++ on the archon that I can't shoot at anyway because he's a character.
Martel732 wrote: Dont' really care. They don't need to make AP worse than it already is. GW gave up on making the fanfiction match the game a long time ago anyway. Terminator suits could be used in ice cream shops. It doesn't matter.
I can agree giving invulnerable saves to big vehicles is not the way to make them more resilient. Just give them more wounds! It makes high ap high damage weapons actually better agaisnt them than spamming medium ROF medium strenght and 2-3 damage weapons the best AT.
Try playing a wraithknight if you think big models shouldn't get an invuln. Its nigth and day when compared to the Ik.
I would argue making big models T10 or T9 would be a potential solution also capping at 5++. A 5++ aint really all that if you got multiple multi damage shots coming through with he amount of re-rolls available. Especially now that they are visible to the entire army. The new DS rules might help here so maybe it will be enough. But on the flipside if your big asset isint on the table in your first turn to do damage by the time he comes on it might be too late.
Oh I agree that the higher toughness numbers need to be used more. They made a big deal about things being able to go above 10 in this edition, yet basically nothing has it.
The Stormsurge is T7 and the Baneblade is T8, and they're two of the biggest non-FW things in the game.
Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety combat.
The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.
It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.
I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.
I mean the tripoint nerf is absolutely huge to melee so yeah it is like melee was nerfed for a lot of factions.
But either way, it’s a problem to me because they advertised it as something they were trying to do - fix melee.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Oh I agree that the higher toughness numbers need to be used more. They made a big deal about things being able to go above 10 in this edition, yet basically nothing has it.
The Stormsurge is T7 and the Baneblade is T8, and they're two of the biggest non-FW things in the game.
I argueed about that in other thread. Tougthness values (And in many cases basic strenght ones) should go up to T10. Without touching shooting strenght values.
For example, Imperial Knights and baneblades should be T10, leman russes, land raiders, etc... T9, and normal T7 vehicles be made t8.
Stuff like imperial guardsmen, sisters of battle, etc... should remain S3/T3, and ork boyz or necron warriors S4/T4, but normal marines, necron inmortals, ork nobz should go to F5/T5 (Nobz to F6/T5), custodes to F6/T6 , etc... etc...
Make that change, and give more wounds to bigger stuff like Imperial Knights and Baneblades with 40 wounds (And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles), and I believe it would make the edition much less lethal, make single shoot high damage weapons the proper AT weapons again, and even make meele better because for example a Space Marine would shoot F4 attacks but make F5 meele ones.
Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety combat.
The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.
It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.
I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.
I mean the tripoint nerf is absolutely huge to melee so yeah it is like melee was nerfed for a lot of factions.
But either way, it’s a problem to me because they advertised it as something they were trying to do - fix melee.
But maybe we’ll see. The fly nerf is important.
BA melee is fethed, but that's because we were a one gimmick winner.
Martel732 wrote: Dont' really care. They don't need to make AP worse than it already is. GW gave up on making the fanfiction match the game a long time ago anyway. Terminator suits could be used in ice cream shops. It doesn't matter.
1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Galas wrote: ... And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles...
My only issue with what you're saying is this.
If you increase toughness and wounds, and then go and increase damage as well, then has anything really changed?
I think that weapons should be separated into three broad categories:
Anti-Tank - Are poor against infantry because they're unlikely to really hit many. I mean they'll axe the one they hit, but that's it. Anit-Infantry - Are poor against vehicles (like a D3 Anti-Infantry weapon still only causes 1D to a vehicle/monster). Null/Generic/Whatever - That being weapons that can kinda do anything, like Autocannons or Missile Pods, but aren't especially good at either.
This would go hand-in-hand with one extra keywords - Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry would suffer from AT weapons as normal, but regular infantry would not.
I did kinda come up with all this at around 3am in the morning a week ago, so it's a bit rough, but I think that would work and solve a lot of problems regarding the ubiquitous mid-range multi-shot, mid-strength mid-damage weapons being so prevalent.
Martel732 wrote: 1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
A lot of people do. You not caring is not a reason to change it.
Martel732 wrote: 2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
The game has tons of large save mods. Terminators need something to represent just how extraordinarily tough they are. That's what the 5+ invul does.
Martel732 wrote: 3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Galas wrote: ... And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles...
My only issue with what you're saying is this.
If you increase toughness and wounds, and then do and increase damage as well, then has anything really changed?
I think that weapons should be separated into three broad categories:
Anti-Tank - Are poor against infantry because they're unlikely to really hit many. I mean they'll axe the one they hit, but that's it.
Anit-Infantry - Are poor against vehicles (like a D3 Anti-Infantry weapon still only causes 1D to a vehicle/monster).
Null/Generic/Whatever - That being weapons that can kinda do anything, like Autocannons or Missile Pods, but aren't especially good at either.
This would go hand-in-hand with one extra keywords - Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry would suffer from AT weapons as normal, but regular infantry would not.
I did kinda come up with all this at around 3am in the morning a week ago, so it's a bit rough, but I think that would work and solve a lot of problems regarding the ubiquitous mid-range multi-shot, mid-strength mid-damage weapons being so prevalent.
Martel732 wrote: 1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
A lot of people do. You not caring is not a reason to change it.
Martel732 wrote: 2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
The game has tons of large save mods. Terminators need something to represent just how extraordinarily tough they are. That's what the 5+ invul does.
Martel732 wrote: 3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Does it though?
But the AT guns are invalidated by invulns. See the problem?
No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.
Your problem isn't vehicles having invuls. It's the application of these invuls. If vehicles were tougher and there were proper delineations between anti-tank and non-anti-tank weapons they wouldn't need them.
Between Strength, Toughness, the Keyword system, and a scaling back of invulnerable saves, it should be possible to make vehicles and anti tank weapons matter more.
If Vehicles have more wounds / toughness - why limit it to T8, they will gain resilience. Wounds could become an issue since 9th has the 18 wound cover limit, but that still leaves space for adding 1-4 wounds on most Vehicles. If a Leman Russ is T16 with 16 wounds, or Carnifex T14 with 14 wounds, suddenly spamming rate of fire medium strength weapons isn't as viable.
Weapons whose core role is anti tank / monstrous creature can then have their strength / damage boosted to match (a S18 Lascannon doing flat 6 damage, or 3+1d6 will give a big dent to a vehicle/monster, and still kill a single infantry unit unless damage spillover is changed to Sigmar's model).
Alternatives / Supplemental bits are using keywords to fine tune things. Want a weapon to be good vs tanks but not monsters? Make a Tank Hunter rule and have it deal extra damage / penetration vs the Vehicle keyword. Same goes for weapons good or bad vs other unit types.
Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety combat.
The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.
It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.
I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.
I mean the tripoint nerf is absolutely huge to melee so yeah it is like melee was nerfed for a lot of factions.
But either way, it’s a problem to me because they advertised it as something they were trying to do - fix melee.
But maybe we’ll see. The fly nerf is important.
BA melee is fethed, but that's because we were a one gimmick winner.
Opponents get to break one tripont per turn. THat means they can delete one expensive ass BA unit per turn at a minimum. Especially if they are smart and use huge screening units that the strat can be applied to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.
Your problem isn't vehicles having invuls. It's the application of these invuls. If vehicles were tougher and there were proper delineations between anti-tank and non-anti-tank weapons they wouldn't need them.
My problem is paying for -4 AP on an expensive ass gun and only getting one point of that AP. GW doesn't understand that the FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the 4th or 5th. But they charge so much for high AP, they clearly don't get it.
auticus wrote: Its like we all live in groundhog day lol. This thread has existed in every pre-edition. And every edition has delivered on its question.
Galas wrote: ... And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles...
My only issue with what you're saying is this.
If you increase toughness and wounds, and then go and increase damage as well, then has anything really changed?
I think that weapons should be separated into three broad categories:
Anti-Tank - Are poor against infantry because they're unlikely to really hit many. I mean they'll axe the one they hit, but that's it.
Anit-Infantry - Are poor against vehicles (like a D3 Anti-Infantry weapon still only causes 1D to a vehicle/monster).
Null/Generic/Whatever - That being weapons that can kinda do anything, like Autocannons or Missile Pods, but aren't especially good at either.
This would go hand-in-hand with one extra keywords - Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry would suffer from AT weapons as normal, but regular infantry would not.
I did kinda come up with all this at around 3am in the morning a week ago, so it's a bit rough, but I think that would work and solve a lot of problems regarding the ubiquitous mid-range multi-shot, mid-strength mid-damage weapons being so prevalent.
My logic is that stuff like lass cannons and meltas are actually quite bad at being anti tank by virtue of being single shot. I have no problem with a Imperial Knight dying to like, 13-15 lass cannon shots or a predator to 6-7. At the end of the day each lass cannon is an expensive weapon. 5 alone are 125 points, not counting the cost of the model that carries them. So if you make them have more damage, and give many more wounds to big things, then those weapons will be viable at killing those targets but all those Damage 2 or damage 3/1d3 weapons will lose a lot of value at anti tank. They would still be good at killing heavy infantry with 2-3 wounds.
H.B.M.C. wrote: No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.
I mean, most of the vehicles that see a lot of play DO have invulns.
H.B.M.C. wrote: No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.
I mean, most of the vehicles that see a lot of play DO have invulns.
That's why they see play. Because they cheat AT weapons.
That's exactly what they do. I don't get discounts on my AT guns when invulns show up.
The unit with the Invulnerable Save pays points to reduce the effectiveness of your AT guns AP. It has no impact on it's strength or damage, so it not like your AT gun disappears when the Invulerable Save appears. It's not like unit with the Invulnerable Save gets a discount if you don't bring weapons with high AP values.
That's exactly what they do. I don't get discounts on my AT guns when invulns show up.
The unit with the Invulnerable Save pays points to reduce the effectiveness of your AT guns AP. It has no impact on it's strength or damage, so it not like your AT gun disappears when the Invulerable Save appears. It's not like unit with the Invulnerable Save gets a discount if you don't bring weapons with high AP values.
I don't think they do. Not like the weapons do, at any rate. There are some cheapass units with invuln. The invuln saves being too cheap is the primary problem, really. I really think GW just tacks them on and never factors them into the cost.
" it not like your AT gun disappears when the Invulerable Save appears."
What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?
So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?
Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.
sanguine40k wrote: What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?
So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?
Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.
Just no as that's a buff to primaris who damn well don't need buffs.
Invulnerable saves are needed on vehicals because GW still overcosts vehicals and then handed out numerous wats to get Rerolls for days.
Being T7 3+ Sv isnt a defensible stat line with 2 x S4 Ap -2 30 inch range as a basic infantry weapon. Hit 2/3 of the time, wounded 1/3 of the time, fail your save 2/3 of the time. Add rerolls as that math starts going even harder against vehicals.
Unless your willing to throw away the wounding chart as it exsists for 8th and 9th vehicals will always need something more to be viable as to many things can just volume of dice past statlines.
Also A basic BA marine unbuffed is wounding a Warlord Titan T16 on a 5+ FFS its T is 4xS but 5+ to wound.
sanguine40k wrote: What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?
So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?
Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.
Just no as that's a buff to primaris who damn well don't need buffs.
Invulnerable saves are needed on vehicals because GW still overcosts vehicals and then handed out numerous wats to get Rerolls for days
Being T7 3+ Sv isnt a defensible stat line with 2 x S4 Ap -2 30 inch range as a basic infantry weapon. Hit 2/3 of the time, wounded 1/3 of the time, fail your save 2/3 of the time. Add rerolls as that math starts going even harder against vehicals.
Unless your willing to throw away the wounding chart as it exsists for 8th and 9th vehicals will always need something more to be viable as to many things can just volume of dice past statlines.
Also A basic BA marine unbuffed is wounding a Warlord Titan T16 on a 5+ FFS its T is 4xS but 5+ to wound.
To answer your points in order:
That fact that it's a buff for Primaris is not the high ROF weapons' fault. Primaris overstating is a separate issue that also needs to be dealt with - they should have 1W, but base T5. The extra wound completely skews balance without giving everyone else's heavy/elite infantry an extra wound.
Rerolls do need to be reduced, especially for SM. Maybe more of the T'au model, where you get to activate the aura once per battle for 1 turn and taking multiple captains doesn't increase the number of activations?
T7 3+ is perfectly ok when you don't have basic troops running around with ap-2 weapons, but again, that's an issue with Primaris rather than the vehicles.
The high ROF weapons change would drop the bolt rifles down to S3, making them need 6's to wound T7...
BA wounding Warlords on 5+ is due to them getting +1 to wound in melee - you won't see many/any BA basic troops charging Warlords, imho. And the crushing feet are going to make a mess of any that do. In short, BA are an edge case, it's more standard marines being able to plink wounds off anything with sheer weight of fire that is the issue.
sanguine40k wrote: What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?
So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?
Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.
Just no as that's a buff to primaris who damn well don't need buffs.
Invulnerable saves are needed on vehicals because GW still overcosts vehicals and then handed out numerous wats to get Rerolls for days
Being T7 3+ Sv isnt a defensible stat line with 2 x S4 Ap -2 30 inch range as a basic infantry weapon. Hit 2/3 of the time, wounded 1/3 of the time, fail your save 2/3 of the time. Add rerolls as that math starts going even harder against vehicals.
Unless your willing to throw away the wounding chart as it exsists for 8th and 9th vehicals will always need something more to be viable as to many things can just volume of dice past statlines.
Also A basic BA marine unbuffed is wounding a Warlord Titan T16 on a 5+ FFS its T is 4xS but 5+ to wound.
To answer your points in order:
That fact that it's a buff for Primaris is not the high ROF weapons' fault. Primaris overstating is a separate issue that also needs to be dealt with - they should have 1W, but base T5. The extra wound completely skews balance without giving everyone else's heavy/elite infantry an extra wound.
Rerolls do need to be reduced, especially for SM. Maybe more of the T'au model, where you get to activate the aura once per battle for 1 turn and taking multiple captains doesn't increase the number of activations?
T7 3+ is perfectly ok when you don't have basic troops running around with ap-2 weapons, but again, that's an issue with Primaris rather than the vehicles.
The high ROF weapons change would drop the bolt rifles down to S3, making them need 6's to wound T7...
BA wounding Warlords on 5+ is due to them getting +1 to wound in melee - you won't see many/any BA basic troops charging Warlords, imho. And the crushing feet are going to make a mess of any that do. In short, BA are an edge case, it's more standard marines being able to plink wounds off anything with sheer weight of fire that is the issue.
Nothing really wrong with the weapon.
According to your exact scenario, you have 170 points of unit firing in ideal conditions (doctrine turn and standing still) and inflicting 3 damage on a Rhino... wow.
Don't look at the weapons as the root of the issue.
That same attack action inflicts 4,66 damage with CM and Lt near, and almost destroyes the razorback with the double shoot stratagem.
The problem is not in the weapon.
By the way, it's mandatory to mention that marines doctrines are HUGELY nerfed in 9th with strategic reserves.
Marines in general are going to change the playstyle completely. Now that castes are a thing of the past (they already were in the last part of 8th to be honest), the chars they so much rely on can be killed and the doctrines being able to be outlasted with a good use of strategic reserves, they will need to switch to an ultra aggressive playstyle. Which by the way is much more in line with the faction fluff.
Just as soon as they need to sell a new model. they have done it in every edition-look a shiny new model with better rules that you don't currently own.
Upping the toughness and strength of tanks and AV weapons respectively would do a lot to mitigate volume of fire and doesn't end up doing too much to balance of non-tank interactions. If the base tank was t8 you'd halve the number of wounds from a bolt rifle. Then with the Melta at S9 it's wounding everything basically the same as it already was.
IMO the thing to do with Invulns on high-toughness models is to turn them into damage reduction instead. Halve the effectiveness of the all that high-rof D2 weaponry out there.
Maybe add higher damage floors and/or higher damage period to the Lascanons and Railguns
1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Termintor models are too cheap, what the hell? with the -1/+1 limitation they are worse intercessors for more points, assuming GW rises the point cost of everything, just like they promised. If anything terminators should get a +4inv, so they can actualy save plasma or heavy weapons. Still wouldn't change the fact that biggest termintors killer are anti personal weapons, often run by whole squads, that are ap -1 or ap -2.
1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Termintor models are too cheap, what the hell? with the -1/+1 limitation they are worse intercessors for more points, assuming GW rises the point cost of everything, just like they promised. If anything terminators should get a +4inv, so they can actualy save plasma or heavy weapons. Still wouldn't change the fact that biggest termintors killer are anti personal weapons, often run by whole squads, that are ap -1 or ap -2.
Yes terminators became a joke in 8th,. the high points you were paying for was the 2+ save, now that there is the AP- system in place with -1/-2 all over the place they suddenly become basic marines or scouts.
rbstr wrote: Upping the toughness and strength of tanks and AV weapons respectively would do a lot to mitigate volume of fire and doesn't end up doing too much to balance of non-tank interactions. If the base tank was t8 you'd halve the number of wounds from a bolt rifle. Then with the Melta at S9 it's wounding everything basically the same as it already was.
IMO the thing to do with Invulns on high-toughness models is to turn them into damage reduction instead. Halve the effectiveness of the all that high-rof D2 weaponry out there.
Maybe add higher damage floors and/or higher damage period to the Lascanons and Railguns
Except if you raise T7 to T8 you cut 33% of S7. Then you can't really leave T8 T8 without nerfing them so those go to T9. And that affects melta's etc.
Somebody above said make knights T9 40 wound and lascannons 2d6 vs vehicle. 40 lascannons needed for knight. Sisters can forget taking down knight with that stat change.
That Tau case is honestly just annoying, because rather then finnally fix them ( nerfing drones making vehicles and auxxilia work or expand them ) instead they opted to just do allready a 180 .
I do wonder what subfactions will get that are connected to overwatch improvements.
H.B.M.C. wrote: No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.
Your problem isn't vehicles having invuls. It's the application of these invuls. If vehicles were tougher and there were proper delineations between anti-tank and non-anti-tank weapons they wouldn't need them.
It doesn't seem fair at all when people are free to always choose those vehicles over the ones that don't have them.
1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Termintor models are too cheap, what the hell? with the -1/+1 limitation they are worse intercessors for more points, assuming GW rises the point cost of everything, just like they promised. If anything terminators should get a +4inv, so they can actualy save plasma or heavy weapons. Still wouldn't change the fact that biggest termintors killer are anti personal weapons, often run by whole squads, that are ap -1 or ap -2.
No, terminators should not have an invuln in the 8th/9th ed system. Or pay more for having it. And I've already stated in the thread that the first two points of AP are the most valuable.
1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Termintor models are too cheap, what the hell? with the -1/+1 limitation they are worse intercessors for more points, assuming GW rises the point cost of everything, just like they promised. If anything terminators should get a +4inv, so they can actualy save plasma or heavy weapons. Still wouldn't change the fact that biggest termintors killer are anti personal weapons, often run by whole squads, that are ap -1 or ap -2.
Yes terminators became a joke in 8th,. the high points you were paying for was the 2+ save, now that there is the AP- system in place with -1/-2 all over the place they suddenly become basic marines or scouts.
What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.
Martel732 wrote: No, terminators should not have an invuln in the 8th/9th ed system. Or pay more for having it. And I've already stated in the thread that the first two points of AP are the most valuable.
This again? Terminators do pay for their invul, and it only comes into play against AP-4 or better. So that's what, your precious meltas and hellblasters? Because I can't think of any other weapons with that kind of AP that you would shoot at terminators. Seriously, who shoots volcano cannons at terminators?
What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.
So wait, now you're agreeing that terminators are a joke? Then what are you complaining about? Make up your mind.
Terminators are a joke for the wrong reasons. Terminators are weak to the wrong weapons. Just like every vehicle with an invuln. So yes, this again. Feel free to put me on ignore.
Mechanics that make entire classes of weapons suspect against the very targets they are intended to be effective against are a problem.
" Terminators do pay for their invul,"
You don't know that. And I can tell you for a fact that they didn't when it was initially introduced. They just bolted it on in late 3rd.
sanguine40k wrote: What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?
So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?
Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.
Just no as that's a buff to primaris who damn well don't need buffs.
Invulnerable saves are needed on vehicals because GW still overcosts vehicals and then handed out numerous wats to get Rerolls for days
Being T7 3+ Sv isnt a defensible stat line with 2 x S4 Ap -2 30 inch range as a basic infantry weapon. Hit 2/3 of the time, wounded 1/3 of the time, fail your save 2/3 of the time. Add rerolls as that math starts going even harder against vehicals.
Unless your willing to throw away the wounding chart as it exsists for 8th and 9th vehicals will always need something more to be viable as to many things can just volume of dice past statlines.
Also A basic BA marine unbuffed is wounding a Warlord Titan T16 on a 5+ FFS its T is 4xS but 5+ to wound.
To answer your points in order:
That fact that it's a buff for Primaris is not the high ROF weapons' fault. Primaris overstating is a separate issue that also needs to be dealt with - they should have 1W, but base T5. The extra wound completely skews balance without giving everyone else's heavy/elite infantry an extra wound.
Rerolls do need to be reduced, especially for SM. Maybe more of the T'au model, where you get to activate the aura once per battle for 1 turn and taking multiple captains doesn't increase the number of activations?
T7 3+ is perfectly ok when you don't have basic troops running around with ap-2 weapons, but again, that's an issue with Primaris rather than the vehicles.
The high ROF weapons change would drop the bolt rifles down to S3, making them need 6's to wound T7...
BA wounding Warlords on 5+ is due to them getting +1 to wound in melee - you won't see many/any BA basic troops charging Warlords, imho. And the crushing feet are going to make a mess of any that do. In short, BA are an edge case, it's more standard marines being able to plink wounds off anything with sheer weight of fire that is the issue.
Nothing really wrong with the weapon.
According to your exact scenario, you have 170 points of unit firing in ideal conditions (doctrine turn and standing still) and inflicting 3 damage on a Rhino... wow.
Don't look at the weapons as the root of the issue.
That same attack action inflicts 4,66 damage with CM and Lt near, and almost destroyes the razorback with the double shoot stratagem.
The problem is not in the weapon.
By the way, it's mandatory to mention that marines doctrines are HUGELY nerfed in 9th with strategic reserves.
Marines in general are going to change the playstyle completely. Now that castes are a thing of the past (they already were in the last part of 8th to be honest), the chars they so much rely on can be killed and the doctrines being able to be outlasted with a good use of strategic reserves, they will need to switch to an ultra aggressive playstyle. Which by the way is much more in line with the faction fluff.
I'm glad my playstyle in 8th will continue in 9th.
It makes zero sense that marines would sit back and act like bluefishfaces. Why in BiggiEs palace would you put all your eggs in one basket? Sounds heretical to me.
The look out sir rule rewards castling more than the 8th edition character rules. I don't understand the hot take that the character targeting changes will result in less castling, not more.
Yeah. Characters will be extremely vulnerable to any kind of ignoring LOS firing if they are not surrounded by a couple of squads and/or vehicles. But that also means going from 9 to 10 wounds isn't that big of a deal.
It makes zero sense that marines would sit back and act like bluefishfaces. Why in BiggiEs palace would you put all your eggs in one basket? Sounds heretical to me.
you would have to ask GW why they make some books so reliant on using one or two high cost units.
What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.
Back when heavy weapons that were meant to deal with terminators and heavy armor had AP2 in the old system there were many platforms that could take them, but normally aside from grav weapons were basically all one shot guns and very expensive to take.
When every singe gun in your army (that now gets double the shots) including your basic infantry arms have the same effect in 8th with terrain having little to no affect, then yes it does become a joke when all the factors are combined.
What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.
Back when heavy weapons that were meant to deal with terminators and heavy armor had AP2 in the old system there were many platforms that could take them, but normally aside from grav weapons were basically all one shot guns and very expensive to take.
When every singe gun in your army (that now gets double the shots) including your basic infantry arms have the same effect in 8th with terrain having little to no affect, then yes it does become a joke when all the factors are combined.
Plasma spam from 5th really started it. Don't forget plasma.
Martel732 wrote: It's wishful thinking. Or they are really depending on missions to get people to move.
With 75 points up for grabs on primaries and 45 on secondaries, yea. That means even if you could get all kill secondaries (you can't) that holding objectives vastly out-weighs killing. Isn't that the exact thing people have been asking for?
To score more you need to be well into the middle of the table. Otherwise you're picking up 1/3 your primary. That plus perfect secondaries is 70 points, which means if the opponent picks up perfect secondaries they just need 2 turns of max primary to win or 3 turns of half-assing it.
Martel732 wrote: It's wishful thinking. Or they are really depending on missions to get people to move.
With 75 points up for grabs on primaries and 45 on secondaries, yea. That means even if you could get all kill secondaries (you can't) that holding objectives vastly out-weighs killing. Isn't that the exact thing people have been asking for?
To score more you need to be well into the middle of the table. Otherwise you're picking up 1/3 your primary. That plus perfect secondaries is 70 points, which means if the opponent picks up perfect secondaries they just need 2 turns of max primary to win or 3 turns of half-assing it.
But if they murder the opponent to where they can't score at all, they don't need to score many primary points. Dead units can't score. This is the fundamental problem with every "fix" GW tries. Murder is too effective.
Martel732 wrote: It's wishful thinking. Or they are really depending on missions to get people to move.
With 75 points up for grabs on primaries and 45 on secondaries, yea. That means even if you could get all kill secondaries (you can't) that holding objectives vastly out-weighs killing. Isn't that the exact thing people have been asking for?
To score more you need to be well into the middle of the table. Otherwise you're picking up 1/3 your primary. That plus perfect secondaries is 70 points, which means if the opponent picks up perfect secondaries they just need 2 turns of max primary to win or 3 turns of half-assing it.
But if they murder the opponent to where they can't score at all, they don't need to score many primary points. Dead units can't score. This is the fundamental problem with every "fix" GW tries. Murder is too effective.
It's a likewise proposition. You can kill all you want - if you don't move you won't score. Also, are you getting first turn or are they? I imagine the person who gets first has to decide their reserves first. Then the second player gets to decide off of that.
I can plop a couple beasts of nurgle out of LOS on my deployment objective and score that all game no problem. The rest of my army can maneuver and fight.
What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.
Back when heavy weapons that were meant to deal with terminators and heavy armor had AP2 in the old system there were many platforms that could take them, but normally aside from grav weapons were basically all one shot guns and very expensive to take.
When every singe gun in your army (that now gets double the shots) including your basic infantry arms have the same effect in 8th with terrain having little to no affect, then yes it does become a joke when all the factors are combined.
Plasma spam from 5th really started it. Don't forget plasma.
Didn't forget, it started in 3rd actually 5 man squad las/plas, however we are at the same point-1 shot at 24" for plasma guns and for 2 shots at 12" your gonna get charged if they are that close. every other plasma weapon was a heavy that fired a single shot small blast. this cannot compete with primaris bolt rifles especially when you add in tactical doctrine, bolter discipline, and aura re-rolls in 8th.
From my limited understanding of coming back to 40K just before a new edition is announced (I did this in 7th and now 8th editions), it seems that the bloat and power creep start very soon, but to be fair, the "simplicity" they tried to introduce in 8th was deceptive.
The core rules were only 4 pages long. Fair enough. What it neglected to mention is that every single unit type has special rules on their datasheet, in some cases limited to just a couple of weapon options, but in most there are extensive special rules. Special rules such as Feel No Pain and Deep Strike now have multiple names with the exact same rules. We are back to 1990 where Epic Space Marine required you to learn the unique abilities of many units. And yet, the most important thing about picking an army - its points value - was relegated to some back page somewhere, with a casual mention in the rulebook that I missed on several readings.
Furthermore, they have already made the Tau army use overwatch differently to other factions in 9th, if what I've heard is correct.
