With 9th being out for more than a half a year, I’d thought it be interesting to go over what I like least
About. Overall I think the edition is pretty solid, but these are the major issues I’ve seen with it so far.

1) Core, as it is being handled, is a mistake. While I get GW’s desire to stop captain equivalents babysitting vehicles in the backfield, their solution has been worse than the disease. I was skeptical of core the moment it was announced, and that skepticism has only increased as we see more and more books come out. The reason we saw captain equivalents with tanks so much, is because the tanks needed the extra efficiency to be competitive. It was also at least somewhat interesting being able to find and use combos with
vehicles. Having played deathguard with their new rules, I think a lot of our vehicles aren’t good enough because they aren’t core, and even the ones that are feel less interesting to play because they have no added synergy beyond maybe use a strat with them, or play poxmongers to buff up a an inv. Based on what I’m seeing with necrons and marines, I don’t think this is just a Deathguard problem.

2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game.

3) Book secondaries are being mishandled, Why do marine armies get 2 sets of 3 choices to make for secondaries. Why are some of these book ones much better than others? Why does GW think competitive players like this?

4) Restrictions have gotten to be too much. I get that GW wants to make this game more casual appealing, but restrictions add more problems then they solve in a lot of places, Already plenty of units of been invalidated because of equipment choices they had in previous editions, and army construction is becoming more and more difficult/ samey between armies. In essence, GW is hurting the flavor of the game with these level of restrictions.

5) GW’s rules writing structure is getting to become more and more of a problem. Right now we are living in age of 10 point revears and 275 kill tanks (yes they are OP, try them if you aren’t sure). Why did this happen, because GW releases things piecemeal and adresses
problems only after something else bad shows up, Simply put having this many models and rules in the game requires that GW faq things more frequently, and move more towards digital (army builder needs to be better).

10 points reavers is definitely a typo, just like when SW had EVERYTHING with obj sec. It will be fixed. Kill Tanks are FW, almost no one owns them, and while they may be undercosted (and yet SM have tons of more undercosted stuff) they won't break the game as only a tiny fraction of games will have them.

About core vehicles I don't know, I play orks and my vehicles can't benefit from generic auras anyway. What I do know is that fielding 3 ravagers in a corner babysitted by an archon (yes, I also played them a lot) was an abomination and I'm glad it's over.

To me 9th has basically three issues: one is the rules bloat, second is the massive dice rolling, and last is the presence of superheroes and superheavies in regular games, although this is something that GW introduced several years ago, it's not a 9th edition thing. Still, playing against knights, primarchs, etc it's something I despise .

Honestly, and I get perhaps they had to release it last year but I think dropping a new edition during what is currently going on is a crap idea. I can't speak for everyone but I won't be buying any books until I can actually hope to regularly play a game once more. This edition feels like the ramp up of codex creep and edition of the marine releases.

Which I love marines but really, this is silly. I feel like it'll end up being my least played edition since I started playing warhammer and I can't imagine I'm alone in that regard.

When something drops, you have to pray to the emperor to get it. Order anything its a life time away and yeah this isn't their fault but its a sign of the time from last year to this one.

This, over all, feels like the worst edition of warhammer and it's not all GWs fault it just is what it is. At this point I wonder if I'll play any 9th before they nuke the whole system from orbit and flip it all on its head again to clear up the bloat and codex creep once more.

I feel like with the limitations GW can't handle model releases, rules testing, or even road maps at the moment. They may have had to drop 9th but I don't think this edition will be remembered for the robust use of its game system but more for the turmoil all around it.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Honestly, and I get perhaps they had to release it last year but I think dropping a new edition during what is currently going on is a crap idea. I can't speak for everyone but I won't be buying any books until I can actually hope to regularly play a game once more. This edition feels like the ramp up of codex creep and edition of the marine releases.

Had they not released it during covid then for duration of covid there would be pathetic amount of sales.

GW lives by new releases. Models sell majority of all the sprues they are going to sell in lifetime in first months. If they don't release new kits they don't have new sales in significant amount. That's what dropped FB sales. GW moved resources to do AOS and as such only trickle of new kits which meant sales dropped hard.

They did not have luxury of waiting for covid to go away especially as there was no quarantees there would be vaccine even within couple years while 9th was released.

Salt donkey wrote:
With 9th being out for more than a half a year, I’d thought it be interesting to go over what I like least
About. Overall I think the edition is pretty solid, but these are the major issues I’ve seen with it so far.

1) Core, as it is being handled, is a mistake. While I get GW’s desire to stop captain equivalents babysitting vehicles in the backfield, their solution has been worse than the disease. I was skeptical of core the moment it was announced, and that skepticism has only increased as we see more and more books come out. The reason we saw captain equivalents with tanks so much, is because the tanks needed the extra efficiency to be competitive. It was also at least somewhat interesting being able to find and use combos with
vehicles. Having played deathguard with their new rules, I think a lot of our vehicles aren’t good enough because they aren’t core, and even the ones that are feel less interesting to play because they have no added synergy beyond maybe use a strat with them, or play poxmongers to buff up a an inv. Based on what I’m seeing with necrons and marines, I don’t think this is just a Deathguard problem.

2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game.

3) Book secondaries are being mishandled, Why do marine armies get 2 sets of 3 choices to make for secondaries. Why are some of these book ones much better than others? Why does GW think competitive players like this?

4) Restrictions have gotten to be too much. I get that GW wants to make this game more casual appealing, but restrictions add more problems then they solve in a lot of places, Already plenty of units of been invalidated because of equipment choices they had in previous editions, and army construction is becoming more and more difficult/ samey between armies. In essence, GW is hurting the flavor of the game with these level of restrictions.

5) GW’s rules writing structure is getting to become more and more of a problem. Right now we are living in age of 10 point revears and 275 kill tanks (yes they are OP, try them if you aren’t sure). Why did this happen, because GW releases things piecemeal and adresses
problems only after something else bad shows up, Simply put having this many models and rules in the game requires that GW faq things more frequently, and move more towards digital (army builder needs to be better).

1: I agree Core is a bad concept. It's basically a return to vehicles not getting chapter tactics, for some reason.

2: Honestly, deep strike is super good for me. I'm including an extra patrol of Stormtroopers in my IG lists to leverage deep strike, and my Space Marine and Grey Knight lists have tons of outflankers and deep strikers. That Said, it has felt devalued not because of a lack of strength, but because any unit can come close now with standard reserves coming with baked-in outflank capability, which is definitely something I think should go to preserve the advantage units with native deep strike have.

3: The regular secondaries are also mishandled, so that's nothing new. The missions of 9e are one of the lowest point parts of the edition for me, and they have so many problems from the scoring structure that devalues later turns, unequal secondaries and anti-faction secondaries, and a huge first turn advantage that I don't think they made a dent in after they methodically stripped out anything that would give the second player some recourse against being on the wrong side of lanchester's law.

4: Confused exactly what your saying. Things feel about the right amount of, if not restricted enough. I for one would like to see a return to the old force org. of 1-2HQ, 2+Troops, and 3ea of FA, Elite, and HS.

5: I would like to see a return to having 1 codex per month and having a set of model releases for each codex during that month, like at least how I felt it was when I started; as opposed to the codecies without models coming at a breakneck pace with lots of marine releases interspersed.




In terms of positive things:
Terrain. I really like the terrain, but vertical engagement is really silly. Guardsman Timmy has a really long bayonet. The whole "knights can't reach upper floors" could be solved by having models measure to a vertical volume of themselves, or by having knights and walkers have a special rule for a taller engagement range rather than guardsman timmy having a 25' long bayonet.

And... uh... yeah. That's kind of all I can think of. I think the game was at it's best in terms of balance just a little before the SM supplements came out a year and a half ago.

Salt donkey wrote:

2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game

And? You could foot slog it across the board, fail your turn two charge, and achieve achieve exactly the same amount of nothing.
At least on the DS + charge you save yourself a round of eating fire....

 Blackie wrote:

To me 9th has basically three issues: one is the rules bloat, second is the massive dice rolling, and last is the presence of superheroes and superheavies in regular games, although this is something that GW introduced several years ago, it's not a 9th edition thing. Still, playing against knights, primarchs, etc it's something I despise .

I definitely agree. The rules bloat and dice rolling in particular.

I'd say the biggest problem of 9th is GW's release strategy. The slow codex feed and uneven rules distrubution makes many armies feel very out dated or unplayable. At least in 8th they had the indexes in the start of the edition, but it was same problem when the codexes started to trickle in. Playing for example orks or tau now and having to wait at least a year for an update while marines rofl-stomp you with creeping rules is not fun really.

Gw should pretty much release all main factions together with the main edition rulebook. This would force them to have some coherent design aswell. In order to achieve this they really should streamline their rules.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

Which I love marines but really, this is silly. I feel like it'll end up being my least played edition since I started playing warhammer and I can't imagine I'm alone in that regard.

Well, a global pandemic interfering with normal life will make playing games more difficult.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
When something drops, you have to pray to the emperor to get it. Order anything its a life time away and yeah this isn't their fault but its a sign of the time from last year to this one.

Maybe that's a regional thing. I've had zero issue on any new release. No praying, I just let one of my local shops know what I want & come release day I get a text saying "Hey, come get your stuff..." Sometimes just a pic.

Let me just start by saying I like 9th edition. I have had somewhere around 6 to 8 games with it I think, with pandemic and all.

What I do not is when I get games that are despises turn 2 with one army beeing gone. It happened with my tyranids once, and with SW both times I played it.

I have concluded that stacking a whole lot of buffs on units like SM can do is very unbalanced. Especially on units with a high damage potensial. I am also unsure if giving multimelta 2 attacks was wise as they are very deadly. I would like to see things be less deadly so we get actual games. Not more deadly.

Agree that deep strike for the most is a trap. There are some exceptions. (Tyranids scoring units.) But you need a good early board presence, and preferably different lines of units/consistency plans. Sort of like a buddy system.

ccs wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game

And? You could foot slog it across the board, fail your turn two charge, and achieve achieve exactly the same amount of nothing.
At least on the DS + charge you save yourself a round of eating fire....

Foot sloggers aren't fishing for 28% chance charge, 48% with CP reroll. Bit different when you are at best(for one unit a turn) doing less than 50% chance with less than 30% for rest vs lot bigger chance for all ;-)

Main problem of 9th (and 8th):

rules written for a Patrol sized wargame with RPG elements is used to play Company sized games

hence why there is rules bloat as problem coming from using the "wrong" level of rules is tried to be fixed with even more rules while at the same time even more rules are added to fit the "fluff"

My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

These are just the examples I can think of on the go. Obviously some are more competitive than others, my issue is just how boring they seem. I would just prefer some levelling out within the Codex so they aren't autopicks.

It also would be good to have a single LoW option in the Battalion detachment. Probably the idea of a Knight Castellan terrified GW enough to put a +3CP tax on every single LoW unit, but it'd be nice to run a Valdor or Malcador, admittedly crappy LoW units, without having to give up 1/4 of my CP to do so, then another CP just for the regiment bonuses.

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:

2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game

And? You could foot slog it across the board, fail your turn two charge, and achieve achieve exactly the same amount of nothing.
At least on the DS + charge you save yourself a round of eating fire....

Foot sloggers aren't fishing for 28% chance charge, 48% with CP reroll. Bit different when you are at best(for one unit a turn) doing less than 50% chance with less than 30% for rest vs lot bigger chance for all ;-)

True, in ideal circumstances the %s are better. But failures still happen. + there's so many more things things that can go wrong with the plan.

I mainly dislike the secondaries. They were garbage as ITC rules and somehow Reese and company conned gw into thinking they were good.

I have yet to play for obvious reasons but I've also always hated the codex creep and wait your turn for your update crap, however neither of those are new. Sure it's not as bad as the old days when you'd have to wait a long time for a new book, if you ever got one, but that doesn't make how they do it now any good.

Honestly with their campaign type supplements I think it's about time they moved to a format like Warmahordes did: you don't update the existing stuff outside of errata and the new books are campaign type books that add in extra units for multiple factions.

tneva82 wrote:


Foot sloggers aren't fishing for 28% chance charge, 48% with CP reroll. Bit different when you are at best(for one unit a turn) doing less than 50% chance with less than 30% for rest vs lot bigger chance for all ;-)

It depends on the footsloggin unit, not everyone has jump packs or plays sisters . Meganobz with their 4'' M will never reach combat without either a transport, a psyker to teleport them, or the deep strike stratagem. For them being able to appear 9'' away from an enemy unit is the best chance they get to be in combat, even if they fail the charge and soak one turn of shooting in response.

Terminators? Their transports are so inefficient and expensive that risking the possibility of failing the charge and getting shot off the board after that is still their best chance to do their job.

 Valkyrie wrote:
My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

That's not an 'issue' with 9th.

Drukhari (or at least Kabals) are a transport and infantry army. The codex has two transports in it. Would it be better if it were Raiders being 'spammed'? Or if it's the spamming that is offending your sensibilities, what balance of Venoms to Raiders is now not a problem?

As it happens, most of the recent Drukhari lists have been some flavour of Coven with Dark Technomancers (at least until the recent nerf), and now 'discount bin Reavers'. Kabalites in Venoms is so 'early 8th'.

I didn't really understand the problems I had with 9th edition until I played a different game a few times with a friend of mine, a WW2 game called Battlegroup with a fairly similar model count to your average 2000pt game.

The problems with 9th (and 8th, and 7th, honestly) are:

1) Time to resolution.

When you have made a decision, the amount of time that it takes to resolve that decision in 40k and determine the outcome is double or triple other wargame systems.

BG granularizes down to similar numbers of dice per model that 40k does, and has a similar triple roll resolution matrix where you either spot-hit-save vs non armored stuff or spot-hit-penetrate vs armored stuff. however, that's only for "Aimed Fire" which tends to be much harder to achieve results with than suppressive "Area Fire". and when you shoot "Area Fire" you take all the rate of fire you would have (say, 6 dice, for a fairly typical tank with a pair of machine guns) and then just roll a single pair of dice on the table to see if you've flung enough bullets to keep your target's heads down.

2) Deadliness

40k requires a MASSIVE amount of terrain on the table to prevent games being fully resolved by tabling in a matter of a few turns. Rerolls, stratagems, special abilities, relics etc are all massively tilted in the favor of offense rather than defense, and core mechanics like the morale system and mission structure add more deadliness rather than allowing players alternative ways to affect an opponent's models rather than getting them off the board.

Problem 1 in conjunction with Problem 2 results in a situation where you play other games the same length of time you'd play 40k, but you play more turns and end up with vastly more on the board at the end of the game, so you've had more actions and made more decisions with a vastly larger number of units.

3) Effective range as a percentage of board size

An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.

30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.

It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.

3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun

5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still

7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move

8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still

You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Foot sloggers aren't fishing for 28% chance charge, 48% with CP reroll. Bit different when you are at best(for one unit a turn) doing less than 50% chance with less than 30% for rest vs lot bigger chance for all ;-)

It depends on the footsloggin unit, not everyone has jump packs or plays sisters . Meganobz with their 4'' M will never reach combat without either a transport, a psyker to teleport them, or the deep strike stratagem. For them being able to appear 9'' away from an enemy unit is the best chance they get to be in combat, even if they fail the charge and soak one turn of shooting in response.

Terminators? Their transports are so inefficient and expensive that risking the possibility of failing the charge and getting shot off the board after that is still their best chance to do their job.

Not to be rude but have you played many 9th edition games? To win you have be on the center objectives by turn 3 at the latest and you’re already at a disadvantage if you haven’t gotten something on then by top of Turn of 2. Meaning it should be pretty easy for meganobz to get charges by turn 2.

As an example, I run a 10 man squad of blightlords and 2 squads of deathshrouds. The only time I’ve considered deepstriking any of it is when I thought my deathshroud shooting could be impactful (I still didn’t do it even then). In every game I’ve played these could either make a turn 2 charge or the game became unwinnable for my Opponent due to me gaining too much of a point lead early on.

The scion guy is right only because scions A) take up a small footprint B) are relatively cheap/expandable and C) shoot rather than charge when the come in. Blood angles and white scars player deepstrike only because the have a small footprint and can add +2 to their charges.

I definitely agree with the above on the weapon ranges making the game static and boring. That combined with no unit facing mechanics means that there is effectively no agility or manoeuvrability. Its a big shame.

The biggest issue with 8th was lethality. Practically every change made was an attempt to bring down lethality despite codex after codex pushing it higher.

9th has simply kept making this worse. Weapons keep getting more deadly and then rules upon rules get piled on to try and keep things alive on the table in the face of such overwhelming firepower instead of GW taking a step back.

The fact we are now getting 3 wound terminators which can only be wounded on a 4+ just to have them maybe stay on the table for a turn is such failure of game design.

to many attacks everywhere, to much ap, to much damage.

I would love 40k to have some kind of moral system where you can meaningfully impact a unit without just killing it.
40k's moral system isn't really a moral system IMO, it's just "oh a lot of stuff died? Even more stuff dies", really GW?

Different games show a large variety of exactly how such a mechanic could work. But all have the general commonality of allowing yo reduce a unit's effectiveness in ways other than killing them.
That in turns allows you to build a game with interesting tactics beyond simply "kill the enemy".

 Valkyrie wrote:
My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

These are just the examples I can think of on the go. Obviously some are more competitive than others, my issue is just how boring they seem. I would just prefer some levelling out within the Codex so they aren't autopicks.

It also would be good to have a single LoW option in the Battalion detachment. Probably the idea of a Knight Castellan terrified GW enough to put a +3CP tax on every single LoW unit, but it'd be nice to run a Valdor or Malcador, admittedly crappy LoW units, without having to give up 1/4 of my CP to do so, then another CP just for the regiment bonuses.

This is both anecdotal and could be applied to literally every edition to 40k. For example, in 5th edition every army had the exact same competitive builds that spammed the same stuff. Every grey knight looks list spammed paladins backed by pyscannon dreadnoughts. Every tyranid list spammed Tervigons with hiveguard. And every army with transports spammed their best ones with their best troop (with whatever their best special weapon were) Tac marines /grey hunter in razorbacks for marines, company vets in chimeras for IG, dire avengers with wave serpents for Eldar, oh and Kabolite warriors in venoms for dark Eldar. Yet people talk about this time as if it where the golden years of 40k.

IMO 9th has much more diversity in both competitively viable armies and units than editions 3-7 (1-2 were never competitive game). I just saw 3 killtanks wreck a deathguard and space marine meta, which would never have happened back in 5th.

Hmmm. Of the list I think book secondaries are the only major issue and I fear its going to get worse due to GW having to come up with dozens and dozens of objectives across all the factions. It would be impossible to balance this even if GW wanted to - and all evidence is that they don't.

For Death Guard, the MBH and dual spitter bloat drone are probably overcosted for what they do. I also think its clear the new Gladiator tanks are overcosted. The lack of synergy may exacerbate this - but I'm not sure every vehicle needs to have a buffbot giving them reroll 1s to hit to be viable.

I don't really mind Deepstriking. It should be for a tactical purpose - i.e. getting to a place on the board you couldn't just jog too. If you are are intending the unit to just brawl over some mid-board objectives, then yes its not an advantage and may even be a disadvantage. But I disagree it should be buffed.

Salt donkey wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

These are just the examples I can think of on the go. Obviously some are more competitive than others, my issue is just how boring they seem. I would just prefer some levelling out within the Codex so they aren't autopicks.

It also would be good to have a single LoW option in the Battalion detachment. Probably the idea of a Knight Castellan terrified GW enough to put a +3CP tax on every single LoW unit, but it'd be nice to run a Valdor or Malcador, admittedly crappy LoW units, without having to give up 1/4 of my CP to do so, then another CP just for the regiment bonuses.

This is both anecdotal and could be applied to literally every edition to 40k. For example, in 5th edition every army had the exact same competitive builds that spammed the same stuff. Every grey knight looks list spammed paladins backed by pyscannon dreadnoughts. Every tyranid list spammed Tervigons with hiveguard. And every army with transports spammed their best ones with their best troop (with whatever their best special weapon were) Tac marines /grey hunter in razorbacks for marines, company vets in chimeras for IG, dire avengers with wave serpents for Eldar, oh and Kabolite warriors in venoms for dark Eldar. Yet people talk about this time as if it where the golden years of 40k.

IMO 9th has much more diversity in both competitively viable armies and units than editions 3-7 (1-2 were never competitive game). I just saw 3 killtanks wreck a deathguard and space marine meta, which would never have happened back in 5th.

Oh yes, I meant to make a point that the issue isn't unique to 9th.

To add to my previous point, a particular gripe I have with both 8th and 9th is the Mortal Wound mechanic. I just don't like it. It's a lazy and boring mechanic that is just thrown in whenever they need an extra effect on something.

Anyone remember the old C'tan powers? Now they're just different iterations of "roll (x)D6, if you score (y) cause a MW". What harm would a proper ranged profile have done?

Mortal Wounds remove any flavour or character from a particular unit, and overall is just lazy rules design.

I agree, I'm disappointed with the way mortal wounds are used.
Especially since you get stuff like frag mines being about 4x as lethal to Terminators as to Guardsmen.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I agree, I'm disappointed with the way mortal wounds are used.
Especially since you get stuff like frag mines being about 4x as lethal to Terminators as to Guardsmen.

Exactly. A Sentinel blowing up is far deadlier to a Guardman than the Volcano Cannon which destroyed it in the first place.

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Of the list I think book secondaries are the only major issue and I fear its going to get worse due to GW having to come up with dozens and dozens of objectives across all the factions. It would be impossible to balance this even if GW wanted to - and all evidence is that they don't.

For Death Guard, the MBH and dual spitter bloat drone are probably overcosted for what they do. I also think its clear the new Gladiator tanks are overcosted. The lack of synergy may exacerbate this - but I'm not sure every vehicle needs to have a buffbot giving them reroll 1s to hit to be viable.

I don't really mind Deepstriking. It should be for a tactical purpose - i.e. getting to a place on the board you couldn't just jog too. If you are are intending the unit to just brawl over some mid-board objectives, then yes its not an advantage and may even be a disadvantage. But I disagree it should be buffed.

b

Agree with your first point. Objectives are something that are extremely difficult to balance, and GW hasn’t done a great job already.

As a deathguard player, I don’t actually like any of our vehicles outside Mower drone and FW nonsense (FW still warping the game, what a surprise). I thought that plagueburst crawler has a shot to be great, but the flamer variant being S6 with no way to buff it further kinda ruins everything and the cannon version having 2 shots that only hit on 3’s ruins that against anything with even an ok inv (good against marine dreadnoughts though). All of our CSM vehicles are far too fragile to be worth their points, especially because none of them hit very hard/ need to be durable for their function, Marines I’m less knowledgeable on, but I’ve only ever seen them run Core dreadnoughts and speeders for vehicles. Maybe there’s other things people are sleeping on?

You hit the nail on the head for what deepstrike should be used for but are dead wrong about it actually working the way you described. The problem is you are only every getting to where you want be if you have a small footprint/your opponent isn’t trying to screen at all. Even if you do have a small footprint there’s still a good chance your opponent will be able to zone you out. In fact most of the time people deepstrike it is only because they don’t whatever the unit is to be shot before they shoot with them (or in rare cases charge). The rule of thumb I’m of seeing is if you want to deepstrike something,you’d better be ok with it landing near or in your deployment zone.

Salt donkey wrote:


Not to be rude but have you played many 9th edition games? To win you have be on the center objectives by turn 3 at the latest and you’re already at a disadvantage if you haven’t gotten something on then by top of Turn of 2. Meaning it should be pretty easy for meganobz to get charges by turn 2.

As an example, I run a 10 man squad of blightlords and 2 squads of deathshrouds. The only time I’ve considered deepstriking any of it is when I thought my deathshroud shooting could be impactful (I still didn’t do it even then). In every game I’ve played these could either make a turn 2 charge or the game became unwinnable for my Opponent due to me gaining too much of a point lead early on.

The scion guy is right only because scions A) take up a small footprint B) are relatively cheap/expandable and C) shoot rather than charge when the come in. Blood angles and white scars player deepstrike only because the have a small footprint and can add +2 to their charges.

Your blightlords and deathshrouds have M5'', T5, 3W, 2+, 4++ and FNP (or reducing damage) base, without other units' help, my friend. They're extremely more resilient than Meganobz. Litterally no one, including players who placed high at GTs, footslogs Meganobz towards mid field objectives as they aren't resilient at all, they're simply heavy hitters.

You only see 3-5 man squads of Meganobz as a single turn of shooting is enough to invalidate them, that's why you shouldn't invest many points into a single unit of them. You could do it with your nurgle termies, you can't (well you can of course but you really shouldn't) with the ork equivalents. Meganobz do work when they are cheap and expendable (190-200 points for a 5 man squad).

 Valkyrie wrote:

To add to my previous point, a particular gripe I have with both 8th and 9th is the Mortal Wound mechanic. I just don't like it. It's a lazy and boring mechanic that is just thrown in whenever they need an extra effect on something.

I think it also represents the designer's trend to bolt new mechanics on, rather than fixing existing ones. So what we end up with is an ever-increasing pile of one-upmanship.

- Armour saves protect against weapons.
- But high-AP weapons ignore or reduce those saves.
- So Invulnerable saves ignore AP.
- But then Mortal Wounds ignore armour and Invulnerable saves.
- But then FNP saves can resist even Mortal Wounds.
- And now we're seeing stuff that ignores armour saves, invulnerable saves, and FNP.

Looking forward to a future codex introducing the everything-proof save, which can save against Mortal Wounds and also against anything that would normally penetrate armour, invulnerable and FNP saves.

You mean the abilities that mean you can never take more than a certain number of wounds? GW is way ahead of you

These new abilities are especially ridiculous because GW doesn't use universal special rules anymore (or rather they pretend they don't).
Instead they word the exact same ability in slightly different ways.
So when they want a rule to negate 'Feel No Pain' instead of simply saying "Feel No Pain cannot be used against this weapon" they're tying themselves in all sorts of knots trying to describe 'Feel No Pain' in a generic sense to describe the 101 slight variations of it.

It's not just this either, there's loads of abilities like that. I would describe all of this sort of thing as rules bloat.

1. Core - Agree this is being mishandled. "Oh! You're a marine unit? HAVE SOME CORE BABY!" "Oh - Xenos codex? Hmmmm, well, you see, it just wouldn't "forge the proper narrative" if more than 3 of your units had core...."

That said, so far, I don't think it's turned out to be a huge issue at this point. What vehicles were you using that they seemed bad? Because for me, the stuff that was good before (MBH, Flesh-Mower Drones, and PBC's) has all gotten even better! The PBC may be one of the best tanks in the game atm. If you're talking things like Predators/Land Raiders, well, good news is those still suck for EVERYONE and I don't think core would have helped them all that much. They're products of a by-gone era and just don't work as well in the current system.


2. Deepstrike imo has never been better. Ok - there was that period of time in 8th when it was better, but the fixed that so that it was no longer OP. So outside of THAT, deepstrike is really good right now. Did you play in other editions where you could scatter and die? That was terrible. I don't think I can agree on this point as my Crons LOVE this rule.

3. I wouldn't worry about the book secondaries at all. Most tournaments aren't going to allow them, and you can just ask your friends not to use them if you think they're a problem. Frankly, most of them aren't very good so barring a few, I'd not be too bothered by them.

4. If you're talking about what they did to DG - yeah, that sucks and I'm hoping they roll it back, or, at least, don't pass it on to everyone else. It was a bad call imo.

5.

Simply put having this many models and rules in the game requires that GW faq things more frequently, and move more towards digital (army builder needs to be better).

Nah - they had the same problems every edition. Imagine how bad it was for us in 2nd when this happened and there was no such thing as the internet. You had to just deal with it for YEARS. The Reavers are clearly a mistake and while I agree that the "Re-Pointing" they did at the start of 9th was a mistake, they are already fixing it so I can't agree here either.

They've even taken great strides to fix the excessive dice rolling IMO.

The real issues with 9th IMO -

1st turn advantage - and hey look! They've already taken steps to fix this!
Repititve Mission structure and smaller board size - Eh - good luck. I don't see this changing ... ever. Sorry Tau
Secondaries - They've taken steps to address these, but they really need to eliminate the "Kill" secondaries, or at least repoint everything so that anything requiring opportunity cost should be worth way more.
Morale - Not only is it even less meaningful, it also takes longer now.

I can't really agree with how deep strike is framed as too weak.

Being able to drop a unit with pinpoint precision, immediately fire with full efficacy, and then charge into combat with a pretty reasonable chance of making it offers no opportunity for counterplay. It's extremely effective for either suicide units that can recoup their cost with one round of shooting, or units with charge bonuses that can get into combat reliably.

It's exactly the sort of wombo-combo gameplay that the game has been increasingly leaning into, to the detriment of interactivity. You pick the right unit with the right deep strike capabilities, and if your opponent's screening isn't perfect you drop it in exactly where you want and do all your damage before the enemy can respond. You see a 50/50 chance of failing the charge as a problem, I see a 50/50 chance of being able to get a melee unit into melee with no way to prevent it as a problem.

I also play Horus Heresy, and there the combination of scatter, reserve rolls, and restrictions on what you can do when you come in (no charging the turn you arrive) give it a very different flavor. It's a potentially powerful but risky and unpredictable positioning tool rather than a combo-facilitator.

The problem with deep strike in 9th is that on a smaller board, in an edition where everything is fast and nearly everything can shoot at full effectiveness while moving full speed, where there's no crossfire, armor facing, or casualty removal order so positioning largely doesn't matter, and where everything can buy the ability to effectively DS near a board edge, innate deep strike isn't all that special or useful as a movement tool. It's mostly a way to keep things from getting shot on T1.

Salt donkey wrote:
2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game.

The problem with Deep Strike is that it is too good. You know which of your Reserves will show up, which turn they will show up on, and exactly where they will arrive, with no skifters in the deck.

If you can't maximise the advantage such a mechanic gives, don't blame the mechanic.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I would love 40k to have some kind of moral system where you can meaningfully impact a unit without just killing it.
40k's moral system isn't really a moral system IMO, it's just "oh a lot of stuff died? Even more stuff dies", really GW?

How do you plan to test the morals of the opposing force? What about an instinctive army like the Tyranids, who are decidedly amoral?

I hate lethality as the next guy but what people needs to understand is that the reason we have the spam of strats that make your dudes hit harder and make more damage, rerrolls to eliminate those "feel bad" moments when you super unit fails 80% of his rolls, and weapons becoming more and more deadly is because people HATES that.

People wants their stuff to destroy the opponent. Because thats fun!

I remember when in league of legends they heavely nerfed most forms of healing or straight up removed them. Why? Because people HATED to see how the work they had done (the damage they caused to their opponent) was just removed with the hability of healing.
And you can see how when a healing champion becomes too strong it is labeled as extremely toxic.

And thats why in league of legends most fights 1vs1 last at most 4 seconds because the one that shoots first deletes the other hero.

High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.

I know I'm the broken record Crusade guy, but Crusade will solve your secondary issues, since secondaries don't win games in Crusade- they provide XP to units who achieve them instead.

 Galas wrote:

High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.

I agree.
But that's where a morale system comes into play.
"I didn't kill them, but I suppressed them" isn't a failure then.

 Galas wrote:
I hate lethality as the next guy but what people needs to understand is that the reason we have the spam of strats that make your dudes hit harder and make more damage, rerrolls to eliminate those "feel bad" moments when you super unit fails 80% of his rolls, and weapons becoming more and more deadly is because people HATES that.

People wants their stuff to destroy the opponent. Because thats fun!

I remember when in league of legends they heavely nerfed most forms of healing or straight up removed them. Why? Because people HATED to see how the work they had done (the damage they caused to their opponent) was just removed with the hability of healing.
And you can see how when a healing champion becomes too strong it is labeled as extremely toxic.

And thats why in league of legends most fights 1vs1 last at most 4 seconds because the one that shoots first deletes the other hero.

High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.

If the game was designed around instantly deleting everything we wouldn't be seeing the constant attempts to try and make a unit survive for a turn by piling on more and more defences.

Its fun to destroy the enemy, but super unfun when it happens to you and that unit you spend all month painting gets taken off the board before they do anything.
Its a completely self destructive path that doesn't have a winner.
And yes healing is 'unfun' which is why the varias 'get back up' Necron rules are often complained about, because you shoot stuff and it dies, and then its not dead.

But I think that is a very different thing from simply killing slightly less.
Less lethality isn't about not killing things, its about removing 3 marines instead of 10. Your still killing, you still get that good feeling of having done something but units actually get to stay around and do stuff instead of being blown up constantly.

Inner Circle Deathwing don't come to be because GW wants to kill kill kill, but because they see units instantly get removed before doing anything, and instead of using 9th edition to reduce lethality of weapons they are just piling on more and more special rules. And FU if your not an army known for being tough because then your only option is 'more models' and taking them off by buckets at a time.
Sure aint 'fun' there either.

It's funny how Morale, that they basically scraped for (I suppose?) some hero-centric narrative of never-faltering model is the literal answer to almost all of their design problems.

They dug their own hole

Too many Stratagems. I could get behind it if it was specialist detachments, you have up to three, but probably just one and going over the Stratagems within the Specialist Detachment doesn't take too long. Having a unique Stratagem for 10 different units is silly, just bake more strength and higher points cost into the units. Making some options which previously cost CP cost points instead is nice, even if they are not perfectly balanced it is way easier for GW to come back and balance later.

Lack of USR makes everything more confusing than it needs to be, people still use old terms because they are useful enough that people don't care GW has stopped using them. Deep Strike and Feel No Pain would be the minimum of things that need to be reverted back to USRs. Universal Stratagems and abilities would massively simplify the game without causing any real harm. Making it clear which abilities are Auras is really nice though and generally, 9th is well written technically.

I liked the ITC secondary objectives in 8th but points need to be adjusted for it. Secondary objectives can help nerf an overpowered unit, but it will usually hit every other unit that is similar to that unit. GW's secondaries were also designed less well than ITC's were, but they are working on it which is nice.

Different objectives for different armies is unfair, staggering the release of the objectives is just pure BS. If you have a 5d chess brain you might be able to engineer objectives to help out in situations that are otherwise unfair, GW does not have any 5d chess brains designing the codex objectives. They should have been part of the crusade content, alternatively, each faction objective should replace one of the main book objectives. But for the most part the objectives have as balanced as one could hope for with GW.

There was a rhyme to the points adjustments made at the start of the edition but no reason, just following a random algorithm to change points and then a pitiful amount of exceptions to the algorithm. The recent points adjustments were far too few to fix the ridiculous amount of errors from last time. At this rate, 9th will never have balanced points. But the new points format is very nice.

CORE

CORE is great in terms of squelching some of the sillier things. People seem to forget how abusive Levis were with rerolls or haven't seen the dip in reliability a Smash Cap took. Is it applied a little too liberally to marines? Maybe, but it is quite hard to stretch auras on the board these days.

DEEPSTRIKE

Stop dropping all your deepstrikers on turn 2. If you're going to put them up there you need to make sure they make an impact and sometimes that requires waiting while you thin them out a bit more.

SECONDARIES

GW needs to add more to the core set. Hopefully we see a new GT set this summer. Most of the codex secondaries aren't all that save one or two.

FREQUENCY OF FAQS

Certainly better, but I don't know why they have chosen not to address Reavers or some of the other oddities when they could easily have done so. Have people communicated the issue enough? It would be nice to get a "seal of approval" from GW on this stuff. Relying on dubious documents is aggravating.

Galas wrote:

High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.

Which is a very bad thing.

If you never face adversity, how can you learn to overcome?

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Galas wrote:

High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.

I agree.
But that's where a morale system comes into play.
"I didn't kill them, but I suppressed them" isn't a failure then.

A more impactful morale phase would be nice as long as overall lethality isn't too high. It would be awful to have too many units that can't do anything because of morale in addition to casualties.

"I didn't kill them but I suppressed them" in addition to "I have killed (lots of) other stuff" seems too rewarding for the player who strikes first.

 Ordana wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I hate lethality as the next guy but what people needs to understand is that the reason we have the spam of strats that make your dudes hit harder and make more damage, rerrolls to eliminate those "feel bad" moments when you super unit fails 80% of his rolls, and weapons becoming more and more deadly is because people HATES that.

People wants their stuff to destroy the opponent. Because thats fun!

I remember when in league of legends they heavely nerfed most forms of healing or straight up removed them. Why? Because people HATED to see how the work they had done (the damage they caused to their opponent) was just removed with the hability of healing.
And you can see how when a healing champion becomes too strong it is labeled as extremely toxic.

And thats why in league of legends most fights 1vs1 last at most 4 seconds because the one that shoots first deletes the other hero.

High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.

If the game was designed around instantly deleting everything we wouldn't be seeing the constant attempts to try and make a unit survive for a turn by piling on more and more defences.

Its fun to destroy the enemy, but super unfun when it happens to you and that unit you spend all month painting gets taken off the board before they do anything.
Its a completely self destructive path that doesn't have a winner.
And yes healing is 'unfun' which is why the varias 'get back up' Necron rules are often complained about, because you shoot stuff and it dies, and then its not dead.

But I think that is a very different thing from simply killing slightly less.
Less lethality isn't about not killing things, its about removing 3 marines instead of 10. Your still killing, you still get that good feeling of having done something but units actually get to stay around and do stuff instead of being blown up constantly.

Inner Circle Deathwing don't come to be because GW wants to kill kill kill, but because they see units instantly get removed before doing anything, and instead of using 9th edition to reduce lethality of weapons they are just piling on more and more special rules. And FU if your not an army known for being tough because then your only option is 'more models' and taking them off by buckets at a time.
Sure aint 'fun' there either.

Or more realistically, the same number of models, and you just get deleted harder and harder by the armies that were already smashing your face in but now you can't kill them back.

"oh cool, so your Death Guard and Deathwing and Ravenwing got way more durable and also got way more damage, guess I'll....wait for my army to get a codex, then."

Core is a very bad rule. For space marines for example - though almost everything is core - the things that aren't are auto not include. Core for crons is like a bonus rule that only a few units have. I feel like the implementation for core with crons is how it should have been. Only a few units being core....kinda balances the game. Marines implementation is terrible. Way too much has core but without core marine units are not worth taking.

Its not fair though that marines and crons have such different use of the keyword. For marines it really only affects vehicles that aren't dreads (it doesnt really limit you). For crons (it is hugely limiting).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Core is a very bad rule. For space marines for example - though almost everything is core - the things that aren't are auto not include. Core for crons is like a bonus rule that only a few units have. I feel like the implementation for core with crons is how it should have been. Only a few units being core....kinda balances the game. Marines implementation is terrible. Way too much has core but without core marine units are not worth taking.

Its not fair though that marines and crons have such different use of the keyword. For marines it really only affects vehicles that aren't dreads (it doesnt really limit you). For crons (it is hugely limiting).

CORE is applied based on a logic of "models that can be inspired". Cryptek and Destruction cults fall into the uninspirable. We hoped that CORE would have been more of a scalpel for marines, but you'd probably see a lot of units get dropped. In no way is lack of CORE causing people to drop models. Lack of an effective role against other options does that. Still - we will see the new speeders make their way to tables with DA. Other units will find more purpose as the meta gets weirder.

Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

the_scotsman wrote:

3) Effective range as a percentage of board size

An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.

30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.

It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.

3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun

5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still

7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move

8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still

You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.

I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.

In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.

And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

Busier looking at targeting systems than to check if the captain is saying something cool.

Core/Non-Core has actually been pretty well-done in the Necron book.

Hear me out, okay?

Basically, non-Core units in that book still have ways to get amplified and buffed, it's just a lot more limited and specific, but crucially they've almost all been given very generous points values to account for their lack of Core. If Core is all-important and the only thing that matters, then why do Scarabs, Cryptothralls, Spyders, Wraiths, Ghost Arks, Skorpekhs, Lokhust Heavies, Doomstalkers, Flayed Ones (!!!), Triarch Praetorians, Triarch Stalkers and C'tan either show up in competitive lists or are considered decent enough to be taken in regular games without issue? Well, one because many of them provide interesting and strong utility roles, but it's also because they get a points discount for not being Core. And the non-Core units that don't show up? That's mainly because they're just being overpriced, not because the lack of a keyword is crippling them. Put many of them down an appropriate amount and you'd start to see them pop up more and more.

Where the Marine book(s) fall down is of course over-bloat and Core/non-Core not really having this points differential. In fact, they seem to have gone the opposite direction where Core units are weirdly cheap (BGV), but non-Core are taxed heavily (the Gladiator tanks). If those tanks went down to like 170 points then suddenly they're looking pretty spicy but as-is they seem to have been priced assuming they're capable of receiving the absurd amount of buffs that Marines get.

 Valkyrie wrote:
My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

These are just the examples I can think of on the go. Obviously some are more competitive than others, my issue is just how boring they seem. I would just prefer some levelling out within the Codex so they aren't autopicks.

It also would be good to have a single LoW option in the Battalion detachment. Probably the idea of a Knight Castellan terrified GW enough to put a +3CP tax on every single LoW unit, but it'd be nice to run a Valdor or Malcador, admittedly crappy LoW units, without having to give up 1/4 of my CP to do so, then another CP just for the regiment bonuses.

all these examples are 8th edition armies that don't work in 9th.

Yes! put a goddamned LoW slot in battalions please GW!!!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

Busier looking at targeting systems than to check if the captain is saying something cool.

Tanks probably a lot easier to hear your commander shout something awesome, then say an infanteriest beeing shelled to hell and back whilest bullets whizz past him...

 Valkyrie wrote:
My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

Is this a joke post? Seriously.

 Insectum7 wrote:

And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.

Don't discount 12" guns this edition.

I run 12" Gauss Reapers all day and they're awesome. Now that Dire Avengers are Necron Warrior cost they're pretty similar. Warriors are still better overall even if Dire Avengers can run and shoot w/o penalty. Defenders are probably closer at 8 points - still not as good, but the gap won't be hard to bridge when they get their book.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

Busier looking at targeting systems than to check if the captain is saying something cool.

And all those targeting systems make you less accurate with the same weapons than a dude on foot who is busy listening to see if the Captain is saying something cool.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And all those targeting systems make you less accurate with the same weapons than a dude on foot who is busy listening to see if the Captain is saying something cool.

Firing from the hip - worked for Rambo!

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

Is this a joke post? Seriously.

No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.

 Valkyrie wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:

- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)

Is this a joke post? Seriously.

No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.

All of those examples are completely outdated. Not only that, there's an incredible amount of variety amongst lists and factions in competitive play right now.

 Valkyrie wrote:
No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.

We only have Australian tournaments for the most part, but the lists have been incredibly varied. Even the occasional games outside Murder Bug Island have been pretty distinct.

That might change when COVID is over, but it will take a long time since we'll have so many other codexes by then.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Core is a very bad rule. For space marines for example - though almost everything is core - the things that aren't are auto not include. Core for crons is like a bonus rule that only a few units have. I feel like the implementation for core with crons is how it should have been. Only a few units being core....kinda balances the game. Marines implementation is terrible. Way too much has core but without core marine units are not worth taking.

Its not fair though that marines and crons have such different use of the keyword. For marines it really only affects vehicles that aren't dreads (it doesnt really limit you). For crons (it is hugely limiting).

CORE is applied based on a logic of "models that can be inspired". Cryptek and Destruction cults fall into the uninspirable. We hoped that CORE would have been more of a scalpel for marines, but you'd probably see a lot of units get dropped. In no way is lack of CORE causing people to drop models. Lack of an effective role against other options does that. Still - we will see the new speeders make their way to tables with DA. Other units will find more purpose as the meta gets weirder.

Not based on competitive rules or anything. There is literally no vehicle worth including that is not a dread and the speeders are on the lower end of both durability and damage per point even compared to other vehicles which are already low end based on the fact they aren't core.

There also is nothing along the lines of a noticeable cost for "core" keyword. Even though it has immense value. This is another serious problem with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

If realism is seriously going to be a factor. vehicles have advanced targeting systems...They hit essentially 100% of the time. So they don't need to be inspired. Also inspiring doesn't make you hit better ether. Going prone does...

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

3) Effective range as a percentage of board size

An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.

30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.

It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.

3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun

5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still

7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move

8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still

You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.

I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.

In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.

And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.

One shot a tank is generous. I would say Lascannons are more powerful than before, unduly so.

Remember, while it could one shot a tank all tanks died [almost] exclusively to 1 shot results, and a Lascannon had at like best a 1-in-9 chance against a Predator or Vindicator class tank, with a 1-in-18 chance against a Leman Russ, Battlewagon, or Land Raider tank. Now, while it can't one-shot a tank, a few of the things are far more likely to kill a vehicle than before.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

3) Effective range as a percentage of board size

An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.

30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.

It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.

3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun

5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still

7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move

8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still

You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.

I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.

In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.

And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.

One shot a tank is generous. I would say Lascannons are more powerful than before, unduly so.

Remember, while it could one shot a tank all tanks died [almost] exclusively to 1 shot results, and a Lascannon had at like best a 1-in-9 chance against a Predator or Vindicator class tank, with a 1-in-18 chance against a Leman Russ, Battlewagon, or Land Raider tank. Now, while it can't one-shot a tank, a few of the things are far more likely to kill a vehicle than before.

In 3rd Ed, where vs. AV 13 a Lascannon had about a 1 in 8 by my math. (Remember glancing could kill on 6s)
Vs. a Rhino (Or predator flank) It was about a 1 in 4

At the moment we average 8 Lascannons to kill a Rhino and 9 for a Predator, and flanking doesn't matter.

In addition, there was a good chance of stopping the tank from firing with a Crew Shaken or Stunned result. In practicality a Lascannon had a 1 in 4.5 chance of stopping a Predator from firing in the next turn. Or better than a 1 in 3 against an AV 11.

So I certainly wouldn't say Lascannons are more powerful now. The kill is more grindy, flanking has no effect and there's more pressure to kill over 3rd. where you could more readily switch targets after a Stun.


*Edit: I find the effective range of engagement for basic rifles/troops to be more interesting to follow between editions, but I gtg at the moment.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not based on competitive rules or anything. There is literally no vehicle worth including that is not a dread and the speeders are on the lower end of both durability and damage per point even compared to other vehicles which are already low end based on the fact they aren't core.

There also is nothing along the lines of a noticeable cost for "core" keyword. Even though it has immense value. This is another serious problem with it.

People are confusing "marine vehicles aren't worth it" ( because there are so many choices that are better and safer ) with "all vehicles aren't worth it". The former might be true, but the latter is not.

Basic troop weapon range has not actually escalated for many armies (Eldar Guardians have already been mentioned, but lets also not forget Fire Warriors with their mighty 30" range....for half the effectiveness, meaning they get absolutely dumpstered for their point value in the 30"-16" range band by primaris troops)

What's changed for those armies in 7th and beyond was the removal of the need for basic troops in armies and the ubiquity of abilities that allow you to get around the need to actually maneuver or position to come into range. Orks now Da Jump 30 boyz at you on the regular. Daemons have numerous units that can cross the board t1. Marines now choose between troops with range = board, or troops that deploy in no man's land already in range. harlequins have like a 30" turn 1 threat range.

Some armies do exist that don't have the ability to bring their full strength to bear right off the bat the turn they show up on the board. Durability skew with necrons, nurgle, etc is a thing, those armies do still tend to walk up the board not doing much the first turn or so. but between fifth when I started and now, the norm has absolutely 100% changed from "average joe army starts out in transports, moves forward, disembarks/transport gets popped, squads inside fight" to "either your whole army starts basically ready to smash, or you wait until turn 2 and then you deep strike in en masse, ready to smash."

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.

Don't discount 12" guns this edition.

I run 12" Gauss Reapers all day and they're awesome. Now that Dire Avengers are Necron Warrior cost they're pretty similar. Warriors are still better overall even if Dire Avengers can run and shoot w/o penalty. Defenders are probably closer at 8 points - still not as good, but the gap won't be hard to bridge when they get their book.

I don't discount it, but it's the relative fall of the Catapult in relation to the Bolter that concerns me.

Also S5 AP-2 vs. S4 AP0 (with special rule) Is a pretty big difference. (on T4 vs. T3 models, etc. . . )

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not based on competitive rules or anything. There is literally no vehicle worth including that is not a dread and the speeders are on the lower end of both durability and damage per point even compared to other vehicles which are already low end based on the fact they aren't core.

There also is nothing along the lines of a noticeable cost for "core" keyword. Even though it has immense value. This is another serious problem with it.

People are confusing "marine vehicles aren't worth it" ( because there are so many choices that are better and safer ) with "all vehicles aren't worth it". The former might be true, but the latter is not.

Nah...it is that bad. You don't include units that cant take buffs in an army based around auras. Not only are they not compensated in points for their disadvantage - the book they are in is built around rerolling dice. In any case - core is bound to produce the same effect in every army. Non core units will see the bench while core units see the field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.

Don't discount 12" guns this edition.

I run 12" Gauss Reapers all day and they're awesome. Now that Dire Avengers are Necron Warrior cost they're pretty similar. Warriors are still better overall even if Dire Avengers can run and shoot w/o penalty. Defenders are probably closer at 8 points - still not as good, but the gap won't be hard to bridge when they get their book.

I don't discount it, but it's the relative fall of the Catapult in relation to the Bolter that concerns me.

Also S5 AP-2 vs. S4 AP0 (with special rule) Is a pretty big difference. (on T4 vs. T3 models, etc. . . )

Str 5 ap-2 is the most reliable profile in the entire game. T10 does not exist. AP -2 almost always produces. High volume. It perfect.

Rules bloat. I will not be paying for any of it, whereas if rules were responsibly done and with some genius, then I would.

Arbitrary limitations on unit comp and gear.

Restartes. Specifically everything but especially flying tanks and tacticool nast.

Buff aura power command point magic meta level CCG elements. If I wanted to play MtG then I would play MtG... every game doesn’t need to be everything for everyone. 40k used to be a miniature war game. Now it is has manna. Ick.

Small tables with huge units with a WAAC mentality as a given, e sport and “builds”...

I think the 'Core' thing illustrates the exact point I was making earlier. GW "fixes" issues not by changing the rules causing those issues but rather by bolting on yet more rules and exceptions.

I think the whole Core thing could have been made unnecessary by removing/replacing auras. They are the reason for static characters - because they make it more efficient for characters to sit and buff a pile of other units than to engage on the frontlines.

I could maybe get behind melee-buffing auras (as the character would basically have to be in melee himself in order to maintain the buff), but auras that directly buff ranged attacks should really be a no-no.

I can understand GW testing the mechanic, having removed the IC rule, but they would have done well to try something different in 9th.

Instead, they kept auras and added the Core rule to limit what said auras can affect. So what exactly is 'Core' supposed to represent? It sounds a lot like 'troops', but that's a different thing so I guess not. It also doesn't seem to refer to units that are ubiquitous in a given army (otherwise necron Scarabs would be Core). Nor does it seem to refer to units that are mandatory in many detachments (if it did, HQs would be Core).

So I guess a unit is a Core unit if it's a Core unit. Phew, good job we cleared that up.

And bear in mind that units are now lugging around a veritable graveyard of abandoned keywords. Anyone remember back when [IMPERIUM] and [CHAOS] were still relevant? Not to mention the other keywords that have been all but abandoned as GW has repeatedly changed their minds about which distinctions they want to focus on.

As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

3) Effective range as a percentage of board size

An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.

30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.

It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.

3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun

5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still

7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move

8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still

You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.

I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.

In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.

And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.

One shot a tank is generous. I would say Lascannons are more powerful than before, unduly so.

Remember, while it could one shot a tank all tanks died [almost] exclusively to 1 shot results, and a Lascannon had at like best a 1-in-9 chance against a Predator or Vindicator class tank, with a 1-in-18 chance against a Leman Russ, Battlewagon, or Land Raider tank. Now, while it can't one-shot a tank, a few of the things are far more likely to kill a vehicle than before.

In 3rd Ed, where vs. AV 13 a Lascannon had about a 1 in 8 by my math. (Remember glancing could kill on 6s)
Vs. a Rhino (Or predator flank) It was about a 1 in 4

At the moment we average 8 Lascannons to kill a Rhino and 9 for a Predator, and flanking doesn't matter.

In addition, there was a good chance of stopping the tank from firing with a Crew Shaken or Stunned result. In practicality a Lascannon had a 1 in 4.5 chance of stopping a Predator from firing in the next turn. Or better than a 1 in 3 against an AV 11.

So I certainly wouldn't say Lascannons are more powerful now. The kill is more grindy, flanking has no effect and there's more pressure to kill over 3rd. where you could more readily switch targets after a Stun.


*Edit: I find the effective range of engagement for basic rifles/troops to be more interesting to follow between editions, but I gtg at the moment.

Vehicle and vehicle-AT weapon interactions are my big beef with 8e and 9e. [not so much the lack of vehicle resilience, so much as the fact that since AT weapons range 8/9/10 and vehicles range 6/7/8, almost all vehicles look essentially the same to almost all AT weapons. The new bonus to melta makes S8 more prevalent in AT and makes T8 matter a bit more, but it's not a lot.]

Anyway:
I quickly simulated the attack process, including the probability of destroying the vehicle by immobilizing it twice, and got that the mean number of lascannon hits to destroy as:
9e:
Predator: 6.3
Leman Russ: 6.8

5e:
Predator: 8.9
Leman Russ: 17.7

That's a substantial increase in power for the Lascannon, especially against AV14 tanks.

^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.
GW resets everything to sell more books and toys but does not perform intensive playtesting of the new rules prior to release, often resulting in issues with the new and changed rules. Then GW attempts to "fix" the issues with numerous FAQs and Errata documents, leading to further rules bloat before scrapping everything, releasing a new edition, and starting the process over.

Likewise, new codexes are released every few months as another money grab, written at different periods of time by different rules writers, instead of releasing all factions' rules at once, written by a single committee of rules writers (the 8th Indexes were actually a very good concept in this regard), often resulting in significant power disparities between factions. Then GW attempts to "fix" the issues and power disparity with numerous FAQs and Errata documents as well as Chapter Approved and other expansion supplements (more $$$ for GW), leading to further rules bloat before scrapping everything, releasing a new edition, and starting the process over.

My suggestion: get off of the 40k new rules rollercoaster, find an earlier or alternative ruleset that you like with additional house rules as necessary (I happen to prefer 4th/5th, Apocalypse, and even 8th Indexes-only), and try to get other player to join you playing that ruleset. Yes, it will be more difficult than finding games under the current edition, but you will likely spend a lot less money and get more enjoyment from the game. If you are a tournament player and/or dead set on keeping up with the latest edition, then best wishes to your patience, perseverance, and wallet.

CORE is applied based on a logic of "models that can be inspired". Cryptek and Destruction cults fall into the uninspirable. We hoped that CORE would have been more of a scalpel for marines, but you'd probably see a lot of units get dropped. In no way is lack of CORE causing people to drop models. Lack of an effective role against other options does that. Still - we will see the new speeders make their way to tables with DA. Other units will find more purpose as the meta gets weirder.

I can't go with you on this - That's just silly. CORE is supposed to be what units are "CORE" to the army - it's sort of implied in the name. But that's also why it's falling down a bit. If it were "able to be inspired" I don't think ANY Necron models would get it. Their whole point is being soul-less killing machines and actually, if you read "Indomitus" you come away thinking the Skorpek Lord was probably more able to be "inspired" than any of the nobles ...

The issue is, you can't tell me Assault Centurions are "CORE" but, you know, RHINOS aren't ... Everything got CORE in marines except the vehicles. That's ridiculous when you then look at Necrons and see it's what? 4 units. People then say "Yeah! It fits the fluff! Only units that have a relationship with the Nobles got it!" But ... it was supposed to be non-vehicle units that are "CORE" to the army - so, that's wrong. It's not been applied right. ALso, you can't tell me you found ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING a spot where a Warrior literally had direct contact with a Noble. They're emotionless husks so good luck with getting them "inspired". Then we go to DG and not nearly as many things got CORE as in Marines, but probably still too many, and we also see things not CORE that should be.

At the very least, for Crons, there should have been a "Destroyer Core" or some such. Or really, since the ONLY thing CORE does efficiently is keep Captains from buffing Executioners, GW should just have said "Unless the aura specifically states otherwise, Auras do not work on vehicles" and avoided this whole silly thing. It's another example where a small handful of units were an issue, so rather than go in w/a scalpel, they hit it with a sledge hammer ...

The Core ongoing debacle is another demonstration of how the designer team throw things at wall and see what's stock rather than using what they have.

They had plenty of keywords to workaround the problem. Yet, they throw another wrench in the mechanism hoping it fixes stuff.

Really, GW are the Orks of game design. Their game works as long as you believe it. ^^

 vipoid wrote:
...I could maybe get behind melee-buffing auras (as the character would basically have to be in melee himself in order to maintain the buff), but auras that directly buff ranged attacks should really be a no-no. ...

If "inspiration" is the mechanic then this makes sense. However, I'm not sure how the presence of a dude in a big shiny hat is able to exhort his troops to shoot more accurately, perhaps he's bellowing the marksmanship principles?

They had plenty of keywords to workaround the problem. Yet, they throw another wrench in the mechanism hoping it fixes stuff.

That's what gets me I think. You have a lot of people complaining all the time that there are now (for example) a dozen different versions of "deepstrike" and crying about how the names are different. But the beauty of the system as GW sold it, was that it would enable them to do direct fixes to problem units without causing collateral damage. But I can't think of a single time they've taken advantage of it.

GW Designer: "Captains are skewing tank efficiency in an unintended way"

Other Designer: " Well we have this nice keyword system so we can ju....."

GW Designer interrupts: "Right! We'll just create an entirely new keyword concept that applies to all armies so that the problem army isn't a problem army anymore. Boy howdy is that better! We've come a long way from the old days when we would have just created a blanket rule to smash everything in order to fix this ..."

Other Designer "That's not ... I uh ... right, I'll see myself out ..."

 Daedalus81 wrote:
CORE is applied based on a logic of "models that can be inspired".

You can inspire a Poxwalker, but not a Possessed. Lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Only the ones lurking around the dizzie toting Ravagers, trying anything else is stumped by auras not stretching into or out of transports

FWIW, Marines having Rapid Fire as a unique rule was a 2nd Ed thing, not 3rd Ed. The uniqueness was that only they got a second shot, if at half range, and stationary.

In 3rd Ed, everyone could fire one shot at 12" on the move, or when stationary one shot at 24"/two shots at 12".

Then 4th Ed adjusted it so that you get two shots at 12" whether on the move or stationary, but you had to be stationary to get your one shot at 24".

Now you get two at 12" or one at 24" whether you moved or not.

And you can move and shoot Heavy at -1 (if you're Infantry, otherwise you don't care), whereas in earlier editions you couldn't shoot at all if you moved.

And we have a smaller board.

And big units like superheavies and Knights are now normal, with very long-ranged guns.

And the poster boy faction has 30" basic guns.

Go figure it feels like everything is always in range.

Core just seems to be the unhappy medium of having certain boosts be "this unit gets a buff" and auras.

In practice, if all aura abilities became "this unit gets a buff/debuff" - I'm not sure the Core limitation would be needed. Okay yes, a Captain could stand next to a tank and give it reroll 1s to hit. But... so? Hard to see how its especially cost effective to do so. Arguments "its not very fluffy" seem kind of soft, because you can argue the fluff however you like.

Its when you put together your carpark and boost 1000~ points of stuff that the problems came in. Which you bizarrely can still do so long as its core infantry/dreadnoughts. Thankfully though its mitigated by the fact you can't just castle in the corner all game.

This is also why I think "everything has long range" matters less than in 8th. Yes, it does, but most units should be moving into the mid-board rather than backlining. So range matters less. Also I feel the days of Marines having 40 Intercessors are long past. I'm not sure Bolter Discipline on those 15 incursors/infiltrators really matters (not least because you are often chucking them into the middle of the table before the game starts.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.

We only have Australian tournaments for the most part, but the lists have been incredibly varied. Even the occasional games outside Murder Bug Island have been pretty distinct.

That might change when COVID is over, but it will take a long time since we'll have so many other codexes by then.

Fair enough, perhaps I haven't played enough 9th in this respect.

Well I guess everyone here disagrees with me on deepstrike. Just do me a favor the next time any of you play. Whenever you are your opponent deepstrikes something in, make sure there is absolutely no enemy units within 9. Each easy to tunnel vision on 1 unit that limits your space and then completely not notice the nurgling squad hiding behind the tall ruin that also messes you. I still maintain that deep-strike is only Useful if you the unit in question can make their charge better or wants beta strike shoot. These units also really need to be cheap enough that you won’t miss them. (Also to the people saying deep-strike on the 3rd turn, that unit better be extremely cheap to justify holding them off.)

Also as far as the core thing goes. I agree it’s fine for unit to not have core as long as there are specific buffs that can be applied to that non-core unit (like in necrons). However, both space marines and deathguard can’t buff their non-core units, which is very much not good.

 harlokin wrote:
Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

This comes up... but why? The Archon's got 8" move. You can't have a blaster any more so you might as well advance him. So he will jog 9-14" across the table. Okay if you roll that 1 its annoying - but terrain etc depending, there really isn't much stopping you from keeping a lot of ravagers/venoms/flyers etc within a 6" aura.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

 Gnarlly wrote:
So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.

That's exactly what 9th is. List of some of the issues 8th had complaints over that 9th improved on:

*Ambiguous rules writing.
*Poor terrain rules.
*Soup.
*Overpowered auras.

The only steps back GW have taken with 9th is the great points shuffle and the introduction of more faction objectives, but we had those in Maelstrom for 8th as well so that one is not new. Balance also isn't a lot worse than at the start of 8th, the systems are just similar enough between 8th and 9th that a lot of the mistakes GW made with points were obvious. 8th was different enough from 7th that fewer people immediately spotted the issues, but Ynnari were stupidly strong relative to everyone else if you don't remember. GW can also only make so many errata to 8th before it stops being 8th, so they integrated a lot of the feedback they already acted on with previous errata and a bunch of things they never managed to fix with errata and made 9th edition, a gradual improvement based on player feedback to 8th edition. I like and agree with the rest of your comment.

Tyel wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

This comes up... but why? The Archon's got 8" move. You can't have a blaster any more so you might as well advance him. So he will jog 9-14" across the table. Okay if you roll that 1 its annoying - but terrain etc depending, there really isn't much stopping you from keeping a lot of ravagers/venoms/flyers etc within a 6" aura.

the archon advances less than our other units move.

The archon doesnt affect units inside transport in an army that is designed to be spamming units in transports.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

This comes up... but why? The Archon's got 8" move. You can't have a blaster any more so you might as well advance him. So he will jog 9-14" across the table. Okay if you roll that 1 its annoying - but terrain etc depending, there really isn't much stopping you from keeping a lot of ravagers/venoms/flyers etc within a 6" aura.

the archon advances less than our other units move.

The archon doesnt affect units inside transport in an army that is designed to be spamming units in transports.

ItS ToTallY BaLAnCed.
MyhReens GeT Auras FoR CorE, YoU GEt AuRa TOoo! I kid I kid. More like where are the Nid Auras.. ?


Regarding the OP:

My top 5 Issues with 8th -

1. Table size getting smaller - This has really hurt a lot of armies relying on outranging or outmoving the enemy.
2. Mission set up with primary and secondary - its always essentially turning game into a dogpile moshpit in the middle of the board... go go terminators Yay...
3. Ob sec is king - makes much more boring & rigid lists in my opinion
4. Lack of mealstorm if you feel like playing a random fun game - Although this could be fixed according to a war com and a new WD issue
5. Would like to see even more terrain rules and vertical engagement range at 5" is dumb..

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.

That's exactly what 9th is. List of some of the issues 8th had complaints over that 9th improved on:

*Ambiguous rules writing.
*Poor terrain rules.
*Soup.
*Overpowered auras.

The only steps back GW have taken with 9th is the great points shuffle and the introduction of more faction objectives, but we had those in Maelstrom for 8th as well so that one is not new. Balance also isn't a lot worse than at the start of 8th, the systems are just similar enough between 8th and 9th that a lot of the mistakes GW made with points were obvious. 8th was different enough from 7th that fewer people immediately spotted the issues, but Ynnari were stupidly strong relative to everyone else if you don't remember. GW can also only make so many errata to 8th before it stops being 8th, so they integrated a lot of the feedback they already acted on with previous errata and a bunch of things they never managed to fix with errata and made 9th edition, a gradual improvement based on player feedback to 8th edition. I like and agree with the rest of your comment.

Similar arguments could be made for the changes from 3rd to 4th, to 5th, to 6th, to 7th, and yet in many ways the subsequent editions were one step forward, two steps back. While I do agree that 9th made some positive changes from 8th, such as minimizing the use of allies and improving CP-generation by disincentivizing multiple detachments, there were other changes that I thought were not improvements to the game. Recommending smaller board sizes, in a blatant attempt to sell GW products like similar-sized Kill Team mats, was not an improvement for the game - why bother taking long-range special and heavy weapons when standard-issue weapons like the bolt rifle have a 30" range. Doubling down on the CCG-like stratagem aspect of the game was also not an improvement IMO (an aspect of 8th/9th that I really despise). The new, more complicated terrain rules are not always intuitive, and the addition of "blast" weapons has diminished traditional horde armies like Tyranids and Orks, while emphasizing even more the utility of small-unit armies like Space Marines and Harlequins (as much as they are hated by some, templates are better for this IMO). The mission objectives with primaries and secondaries are more complicated for casual players, having to keep track of dozens of possible points, instead of the more simple missions from previous editions. Plus the addition of rules like "Core" units and additional secondary objectives in the codexes instead of the main rulebook further complicates the game.

The majority of changes from 8th to 9th are no different than many of the changes to 8th introduced in errata documents, such as Bolter Discipline, Prepared Positions, limitations on CP generation, the rule of 3, etc. But instead of updating the "8th" rulebook with a few minor needed revisions, GW introduced 9th edition primarily IMO as a cash-grab to release new codexes soon again. Did the game change that much that we really needed three Space Marines codexes in three years instead of just updating the initial 8th book with datasheets for new models and adjusting points if necessary? But we needed more special layers of rules like doctrines, super doctrines, and more stratagems! . . . (bloat) . . .

At one point 8th was supposed to be the "living" edition, and it brought many players like myself back to 40k after years of being disenchanted with how the game had evolved. I admit I liked the direction of the game when the 8th was initially released with just the indexes and the few early codexes. I appreciated the more streamlined rules (including the simplistic "cover" rules) for casual gaming, but soon recognized that WAAC players could easily abuse the system. Of course GW had to mess it up with the eventual codex creep and barrage of supplements, repeating the cycle three years afterwards with 9th edition. Burn me once . . burn me twice . . .

Salt donkey wrote:
Well I guess everyone here disagrees with me on deepstrike. Just do me a favor the next time any of you play. Whenever you are your opponent deepstrikes something in, make sure there is absolutely no enemy units within 9. Each easy to tunnel vision on 1 unit that limits your space and then completely not notice the nurgling squad hiding behind the tall ruin that also messes you.

So basically learn how to play this game....

 r_squared wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
...I could maybe get behind melee-buffing auras (as the character would basically have to be in melee himself in order to maintain the buff), but auras that directly buff ranged attacks should really be a no-no. ...

If "inspiration" is the mechanic then this makes sense. However, I'm not sure how the presence of a dude in a big shiny hat is able to exhort his troops to shoot more accurately, perhaps he's bellowing the marksmanship principles?

I think the one of the best ways to transform these rules into cinematic action on the table is to consider the character making use of their battlefield experience to apply various tactics and strategies of the character/HQ unit beyond the already micro-manage-y command and control (C2) level of the player.

It could be a marine captain knowing what direction the enemy will take or attack based on the terrain (assuming that the units on the table don't have the perfect knowledge that the player do) or effective range (assuming a number of environmental conditions not concerned by the players), reading the wind/weather to pick the best time to fire as the visibility clears from dust, smoke, fog, explosions, etc., generally knowing when/making distractions to pop up and take shots (assuming that units are still attempting to provide the smallest target to the enemy and/or even if no terrain is modeled there is still something, going prone or making the best use of personal body armor), know how to direct the enemy into more favorable firing zone, stagger a unit's shooting so they aren't all reloading at the same time, dressing better firing lines or a myriad of other things best left for field officers to worry about maximizing their subordinates and not the overall C2 element.

All pretty basic assumptions that war games assume that is what randomizers are being used for. Usually this would be more a squad leader level, but in context of 40k, I don't think Capt/Lt micro-tactics is out of place either. In fact, probably makes more sense given the battlefield expertise of these veterans and the hands-on approach of the setting. Even the Capt vs. Lt. bonus could be explained more in attempting to execute differing tactics based on operational understanding of the mission. The character is also more concerned about leading preventing them from making use of these buffs too (well, now they aren't Core anyways). You got me when these auras are doubled up though. Having two field combat officers yelling orders would be confusing even for space marines. That's one of those MST3K moments (It's just a show game I should really just relax) for me.

With vehicles and marines, it could be explained that Captains and Lieutenants aren't nearly as well-versed in armor tactics as the tech marines, vehicle operators and machine spirits to squeeze better performance out of them like they would for other Core units. Obviously, there are going to be weaker and stronger explanations to how rules transform into actions. Which means some things are going to take a lot more creativity and imagination to get something remotely satisfactory. I think going MST3K occasionally isn't going to ruin the experience either.

As good as all these points are, the first thing I'd change in 9th are the coherency rules to make them only kick in from 11+ models.

It's dumb that I can spread 5 Jetbikes out to max distance, but as soon as there's a 6th one they have to huddle together for warmth.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As good as all these points are, the first thing I'd change in 9th are the coherency rules to make them only kick in from 11+ models.

It's dumb that I can spread 5 Jetbikes out to max distance, but as soon as there's a 6th one they have to huddle together for warmth.

At the same time, a unit of 10 cultists strung out some 30" looks off. Two triangles of jetbikes looks far less off.

I guess my point is that, as always, GW had a great idea (let's establish what a "horde" is!) and then messed up the execution (anything above 5 models is a horde!).

@ H.B.M.C. (thanks for explaining your handle BTW it makes remembering it much easier)

I do understand where you are coming from. All my armies (CSM, SM, GSC) tend to run in at least ten man squads. It is just how I like to play 40k as it feels right to me, even if it isn't always the most effective. I have some trouble swallowing the idea that the typical full infantry squad is a horde. Especially when at least 2 of 3 factions I play do have the option to go well beyond ten. Units of 11+ definitely feel much more like a horde to me.

I kinda get why GW placed the coherency rule like they did. Strung out (Conga line) units for screening was more frustrating to me than the new coherency rules. It was super effective in game for a number of reasons, yet it looks so off much of the time on the table. And an opponent interacting with a strung out line of models was even weirder.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

Stunned and shaken aren't destroyed. Your first point was "A Lascannon can one-shot a tank", which yes, it could, but that's how everything that could kill a tank killed a tank. With the exception of the less the 0.6% chance of a double-immobilized, every single AT system worked by one-shotting a tank against a relatively low probability, which, for the Lascannon, was low to the point of requiring more shots on average to destroy a vehicle than the modern lascannon. Especially compared to the actual legitimate heavy AT weapons like the Railcannon or Vanquisher, which I would say were a lot closer to one-hit-one-kill weapons. They still weren't, but 60% to pen from a Vanq is a lot higher than 16%, and should translate to a much greater effect than a Lascannon.

And weapon destroyed requires # of guns +2 to destroy the tank IIRC, so I didn't account for it because either tank has enough guns that it's probability of being destroyed by repeated weapon destroyed is pretty nil.

A Lascannon also essentially can't flank a gun tank unless it's owner let to do so or it's on a vehicle [in which case, there's almost certainly a more worthwhile weapon to use your 1 weapon firing while moving on], because it's a heavy weapon and can't fire on the move. That's also a completely different condition.


I think we're at a point where I'm unsatisfied with the fact that infantry AT teams feel unduly effective against tanks compared to a goddamn antitank gun that outweighs all three or four gunners and their guns combined, particularly the fact that a crappy man-portable recoilless rifle equivalent thing that's only slightly better than an RPG is somehow equally powerful to or more powerful than a heavy railcannon or a long-barreled smooth-bore APFSDS tank cannon, and you're unsatisfied with said shoulder-fired light at weapon not one-sh

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:@ H.B.M.C. (thanks for explaining your handle BTW it makes remembering it much easier)

I do understand where you are coming from. All my armies (CSM, SM, GSC) tend to run in at least ten man squads. It is just how I like to play 40k as it feels right to me, even if it isn't always the most effective. I have some trouble swallowing the idea that the typical full infantry squad is a horde. Especially when at least 2 of 3 factions I play do have the option to go well beyond ten. Units of 11+ definitely feel much more like a horde to me.

I kinda get why GW placed the coherency rule like they did. Strung out (Conga line) units for screening was more frustrating to me than the new coherency rules. It was super effective in game for a number of reasons, yet it looks so off much of the time on the table. And an opponent interacting with a strung out line of models was even weirder.

I wouldn't say that CSM and SM tend to run in 10 man squads. They tend to run in 5 man squads, you're the abnormal one.

As far as I see it, a 10 person unit is a horde unit, and 5 person unit isn't. If you're bringing 10 person marine squads and not combat squadding you're probably running a foot horde of marines of some kind or relying on your large units for extra efficiency, so either way getting a bonus against it seems fine to me.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I do understand where you are coming from. All my armies (CSM, SM, GSC) tend to run in at least ten man squads. It is just how I like to play 40k as it feels right to me, even if it isn't always the most effective. I have some trouble swallowing the idea that the typical full infantry squad is a horde. Especially when at least 2 of 3 factions I play do have the option to go well beyond ten. Units of 11+ definitely feel much more like a horde to me.

I've said this numerous times in the past, but I fully acknowledge that any number you, I or they would pick for what constitutes a 'horde' would be completely arbitrary.

You and I agree on 11+, right? Someone else might say, well why not 15+? Why not 20? There's no right answer to this, but there are wrong answers. Below what is, for the most part, the standard squad size across most factions (be it the max size of sometimes min size) strikes me as very wrong.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I kinda get why GW placed the coherency rule like they did. Strung out (Conga line) units for screening was more frustrating to me than the new coherency rules. It was super effective in game for a number of reasons, yet it looks so off much of the time on the table. And an opponent interacting with a strung out line of models was even weirder.

The issue with that is that GW has, as usual, decided to fix a perceived issue with a swing of a pendulum rather than fixing the issue.

If the issue was horde units with conga lines, then fix that. I doubt the problem was 6 Jetbikes. The rules don't scale well, and this is what draws my ire.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I wouldn't say that CSM and SM tend to run in 10 man squads. They tend to run in 5 man squads, you're the abnormal one.

5 is the current meta because of the way objectives are (poorly) handled in 9th. 10 is still the standard size across many, many factions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I wouldn't say that CSM and SM tend to run in 10 man squads. They tend to run in 5 man squads, you're the abnormal one.

5 is the current meta because of the way objectives are (poorly) handled in 9th. 10 is still the standard size across many, many factions.

Besides the issues already covered I think one problem I have for 40k is that the release schedule is just ridiculously Marine Heavy.

Codex releases so far.

Space Marines
Necrons
Space Wolves
Death Watch
Blood Angels
Deathguard
Dark Eldar
Dark Angels.

So 8 releases, 6 flavors of power armor and 2 xenos factions.

FLG put out a joke article about how the next year is basically nothing but more Space Marine releases...the sad part is that a lot of people are so jaded at this point that they actually believed it at first. The good news is that GW is keeping up a blistering release pace (Compared to 7th edition and before) and are pushing out about 2 codex's a month so it won't be that long before we all get one...unless they pull an 8th edition move and switch to other games for 6+ months.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.

That's exactly what 9th is. List of some of the issues 8th had complaints over that 9th improved on:

*Ambiguous rules writing.
*Poor terrain rules.
*Soup.
*Overpowered auras.

The only steps back GW have taken with 9th is the great points shuffle and the introduction of more faction objectives, but we had those in Maelstrom for 8th as well so that one is not new. Balance also isn't a lot worse than at the start of 8th, the systems are just similar enough between 8th and 9th that a lot of the mistakes GW made with points were obvious. 8th was different enough from 7th that fewer people immediately spotted the issues, but Ynnari were stupidly strong relative to everyone else if you don't remember. GW can also only make so many errata to 8th before it stops being 8th, so they integrated a lot of the feedback they already acted on with previous errata and a bunch of things they never managed to fix with errata and made 9th edition, a gradual improvement based on player feedback to 8th edition. I like and agree with the rest of your comment.

Similar arguments could be made for the changes from 3rd to 4th, to 5th, to 6th, to 7th, and yet in many ways the subsequent editions were one step forward, two steps back.

How did 6th improve the game? How did 5th make things worse?

But instead of updating the "8th" rulebook with a few minor needed revisions, GW introduced 9th edition primarily IMO as a cash-grab to release new codexes soon again. Did the game change that much that we really needed three Space Marines codexes in three years instead of just updating the initial 8th book with datasheets for new models and adjusting points if necessary?

Did you not notice all the complaints about overpowered NuMarines? GW acted on it and made the difference between Primaris and Firstborn smaller by increasing the wounds characteristic of Firstborn, to do that GW needed to update codexes. Multi-meltas have also been a joke outside of flyers since at least 5th edition and flamers were terrible for the most part in 8th. Space Marines were massively weak with the first codex, Guilliman and FW units were the only reason they ever won anything, that's why Marines 2.0 was needed, but releasing both Marines 2.0 and all the supplements was overkill, it should have been either or, not both, especially with 9th so close down the line, or even better SM should have gotten 2W Firstborn instead of Doctrines, soup was going to be fixed by 9th regardless. Necrons got a big bunch of new units so they needed a new codex, none of the factions that don't need a new codex has gotten one in 9th yet.

Did we need new fonts and typesetting, new hardcover books with new art on the front? No, we agree that GW could have been done with Thousand Sons and CSM by now if they used the index format and then probably also have had time for a separate crusade supplement. I think as people that liked the idea of indexes we are in the minority, so churning out codexes might have been the option that pleases the most customers. GW is also a business and until the app developers get things up to the standard of Wahapedia + BattleScribe such that is worth paying for they have to monetize rules by releasing books or else accept a loss on that front by hoping to get more sales on miniatures, with miniature production being as high as it possibly could be despite books costing money that has also not been an option, so books it was.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

Stunned and shaken aren't destroyed. Your first point was "A Lascannon can one-shot a tank", which yes, it could, but that's how everything that could kill a tank killed a tank. With the exception of the less the 0.6% chance of a double-immobilized, every single AT system worked by one-shotting a tank against a relatively low probability, which, for the Lascannon, was low to the point of requiring more shots on average to destroy a vehicle than the modern lascannon. Especially compared to the actual legitimate heavy AT weapons like the Railcannon or Vanquisher, which I would say were a lot closer to one-hit-one-kill weapons. They still weren't, but 60% to pen from a Vanq is a lot higher than 16%, and should translate to a much greater effect than a Lascannon.

And weapon destroyed requires # of guns +2 to destroy the tank IIRC, so I didn't account for it because either tank has enough guns that it's probability of being destroyed by repeated weapon destroyed is pretty nil.

A Lascannon also essentially can't flank a gun tank unless it's owner let to do so or it's on a vehicle [in which case, there's almost certainly a more worthwhile weapon to use your 1 weapon firing while moving on], because it's a heavy weapon and can't fire on the move. That's also a completely different condition.


I think we're at a point where I'm unsatisfied with the fact that infantry AT teams feel unduly effective against tanks compared to a goddamn antitank gun that outweighs all three or four gunners and their guns combined, particularly the fact that a crappy man-portable recoilless rifle equivalent thing that's only slightly better than an RPG is somehow equally powerful to or more powerful than a heavy railcannon or a long-barreled smooth-bore APFSDS tank cannon, and you're unsatisfied with said shoulder-fired light at weapon not one-sh

Well it's true, they could one-shot a tank (and they can't do that now). But also they had a good chance of essentially removing it from offensive action for a turn, which was very important. (They also cannot do that now). What it meant was that a squad armed appropriately had a higher chance of effectively engaging a vehicle at range. Even isolated, a squad could effectively suppress the vehicle with a higher reliability. And the utility a single AT weapon brought against lighter vehicles was much greater.

As for flanking. . . Those were the good days when armies didn't blob up for auras. Spreading out your forces to force flank shots was plenty doable. Plus, you could mount Lascannons on other vehicles which could move and fire. Personally I teleported Terminators quite a bit, and the Assault Cannon did excellent work on vehicles with the 4th ed Rend rules.

I agree that the vehicle mounted anti-tank weapons are often dissapointing. The Tau Railgun is particularly embarassing. But I do like my Lascannons on my Marines, and they used to have more utility. I am all for the high tech infantry AT guns being very effective though. I prefer the balance shifted more towards infantry than you, I think. Either way, I very much agree that the one-shot-kill damage model was better than the current paradigm of grinding down a health bar.

That said, I also miss how scary those Battle Cannons were against Marines. It was tense times, fishing for a disabled tank with my rolls while knowing the template could land smack in the middle of my squad and annihilate them.

(And if you think the Lascannon was too effective as an infantry-carried AT gun, wait till you learn about the 2nd Ed Multimelta).

 vict0988 wrote:
...How did 6th improve the game?...

Expanded content. Standardization of Apocalypse-scale mechanics, and edits for consistency with the core game. Corrected 5th's over-correction towards light vehicle durability, gave skimmers back a durability mechanic based on speed/agility to replace the one 5th took away.

...How did 5th make things worse?...

Drastic reduction in the flexibility/customizability of all army books. Attached sub-faction rules to named characters in the Guard and SM books. Over-corrected towards transport durability while also dropping the price of light transports in a lot of places, leading to extreme transport-spam parking lots. Dropped Kill Team, dropped terrain height and area terrain visibility mechanics.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
...How did 6th improve the game?...

Expanded content. Standardization of Apocalypse-scale mechanics, and edits for consistency with the core game. Corrected 5th's over-correction towards light vehicle durability, gave skimmers back a durability mechanic based on speed/agility to replace the one 5th took away.

...How did 5th make things worse?...

Drastic reduction in the flexibility/customizability of all army books. Attached sub-faction rules to named characters in the Guard and SM books. Over-corrected towards transport durability while also dropping the price of light transports in a lot of places, leading to extreme transport-spam parking lots. Dropped Kill Team, dropped terrain height and area terrain visibility mechanics.

I'll add the replacement of greater-numbers morale mechanic in melee for the Number-of-casualties mechanic. I think 5th also removed the use of Frag Grenades against vehicles at S4 in CC.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

Stunned and shaken aren't destroyed. Your first point was "A Lascannon can one-shot a tank", which yes, it could, but that's how everything that could kill a tank killed a tank. With the exception of the less the 0.6% chance of a double-immobilized, every single AT system worked by one-shotting a tank against a relatively low probability, which, for the Lascannon, was low to the point of requiring more shots on average to destroy a vehicle than the modern lascannon. Especially compared to the actual legitimate heavy AT weapons like the Railcannon or Vanquisher, which I would say were a lot closer to one-hit-one-kill weapons. They still weren't, but 60% to pen from a Vanq is a lot higher than 16%, and should translate to a much greater effect than a Lascannon.

And weapon destroyed requires # of guns +2 to destroy the tank IIRC, so I didn't account for it because either tank has enough guns that it's probability of being destroyed by repeated weapon destroyed is pretty nil.

A Lascannon also essentially can't flank a gun tank unless it's owner let to do so or it's on a vehicle [in which case, there's almost certainly a more worthwhile weapon to use your 1 weapon firing while moving on], because it's a heavy weapon and can't fire on the move. That's also a completely different condition.


I think we're at a point where I'm unsatisfied with the fact that infantry AT teams feel unduly effective against tanks compared to a goddamn antitank gun that outweighs all three or four gunners and their guns combined, particularly the fact that a crappy man-portable recoilless rifle equivalent thing that's only slightly better than an RPG is somehow equally powerful to or more powerful than a heavy railcannon or a long-barreled smooth-bore APFSDS tank cannon, and you're unsatisfied with said shoulder-fired light at weapon not one-sh

Well it's true, they could one-shot a tank (and they can't do that now). But also they had a good chance of essentially removing it from offensive action for a turn, which was very important. (They also cannot do that now). What it meant was that a squad armed appropriately had a higher chance of effectively engaging a vehicle at range. Even isolated, a squad could effectively suppress the vehicle with a higher reliability. And the utility a single AT weapon brought against lighter vehicles was much greater.

As for flanking. . . Those were the good days when armies didn't blob up for auras. Spreading out your forces to force flank shots was plenty doable. Plus, you could mount Lascannons on other vehicles which could move and fire. Personally I teleported Terminators quite a bit, and the Assault Cannon did excellent work on vehicles with the 4th ed Rend rules.

I agree that the vehicle mounted anti-tank weapons are often dissapointing. The Tau Railgun is particularly embarassing. But I do like my Lascannons on my Marines, and they used to have more utility. I am all for the high tech infantry AT guns being very effective though. I prefer the balance shifted more towards infantry than you, I think. Either way, I very much agree that the one-shot-kill damage model was better than the current paradigm of grinding down a health bar.

That said, I also miss how scary those Battle Cannons were against Marines. It was tense times, fishing for a disabled tank with my rolls while knowing the template could land smack in the middle of my squad and annihilate them.

(And if you think the Lascannon was too effective as an infantry-carried AT gun, wait till you learn about the 2nd Ed Multimelta).

I am aware of various crazy things from editions past. I've participated in at least on "nostalgia game" from IIRC 3rd one time; but the bulk of my formative play experience was in 5th, followed by general disappointment with the way things went in 6th and 7th, and general satisfaction with 8th until CSM2.0 thanks to it's relatively good balance leading to a positive play experience, and now a lot of disappointment and disillusionment post SM2.0 and into 9th as balance seems to get worse and we feel like we return to the days of 7th with lots of random free rules to try to force competitive or "optimal" play to match a confined idea of narrative by using free special rule incentives..

Yeah I'd also like some consistency about hordes.

Blasts get max shots against 11+ models but horde units get their horde bonus only if they are 21+ models.

I'd uniform the standards to both 11+ or 21+, otherwise it's just an unnecessary penalty for horde units.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
SM have been in 5 man squads for essentially as long as I've been playing.

N.... no.

Marine Companies are 10 squads of 10, and they can combat squad. The standard Marine combat formation is 10 men. That is the way it's been since the 2nd Ed rationalisation, and probably before that. In the rules you can have squads lower than 10 (although not in 2nd Ed, I should point out), so you can bring understrength squads or just bring singular combat squads, but standard non-specialist Marines fight in units that are composed of 10 Marines.

5 man squads of marines made sense in 8th as the game mechanics pushed on bringing 6+ troops. 5 man squads makes sense in 9th because the 6th guy comes with a malus against blasts, which is huge against MEQs.

In 3rd-7th I've always played larger squads of marines, and my marines (SW) couldn't split up into combat squads. 8-10 man squads were simply more efficient than MSU.

SemperMortis wrote:
Besides the issues already covered I think one problem I have for 40k is that the release schedule is just ridiculously Marine Heavy.

Codex releases so far.

Space Marines
Necrons
Space Wolves
Death Watch
Blood Angels
Deathguard
Dark Eldar
Dark Angels.

So 8 releases, 6 flavors of power armor and 2 xenos factions.

FLG put out a joke article about how the next year is basically nothing but more Space Marine releases...the sad part is that a lot of people are so jaded at this point that they actually believed it at first. The good news is that GW is keeping up a blistering release pace (Compared to 7th edition and before) and are pushing out about 2 codex's a month so it won't be that long before we all get one...unless they pull an 8th edition move and switch to other games for 6+ months.

Here's the list of the faction still missing a 9th ed update:

Grey Knights
Black Templars
Imperial Fists
Iron Hands
Raven Guard
Salamanders
Ultramarines
White Scars

Sisters of Battle
Custodes
Ad Mech
Imperial Guard
Knights
(micro factions like Inquisition, Assassins, Sisters of Silence)

Chaos Daemons
Chaos Knights
CSM
Thousand Sons
(eventual new codex for Emperors Children, World Eaters)

Eldar
Harlequins
Ynnari

Orks

Tyranids
Genestealer Cults

Tau Empire

Total: 16 codices + 6-8 supplements (6 old SM ones, Templars, Ynnari) yet to be announced.
Even if they return to two new codices per month, we'd end up in 2022.

DS is perfectly fine, heck I am seeing more people reserve stuff in 9th than all of 8th.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
...How did 6th improve the game?...

Expanded content. Standardization of Apocalypse-scale mechanics, and edits for consistency with the core game. Corrected 5th's over-correction towards light vehicle durability, gave skimmers back a durability mechanic based on speed/agility to replace the one 5th took away.

...How did 5th make things worse?...

Drastic reduction in the flexibility/customizability of all army books. Attached sub-faction rules to named characters in the Guard and SM books. Over-corrected towards transport durability while also dropping the price of light transports in a lot of places, leading to extreme transport-spam parking lots. Dropped Kill Team, dropped terrain height and area terrain visibility mechanics.

I'll add the replacement of greater-numbers morale mechanic in melee for the Number-of-casualties mechanic. I think 5th also removed the use of Frag Grenades against vehicles at S4 in CC.

Let's not forget 5th edition's wound allocation system which was a total mess. Why GW chose to change from the nice and simple wound allocation system in 4th edition is beyond me.

No edition is perfect. Unfortunately, it seems that GW seems to add or change at least one rule in each new edition that is a step backwards from the previous edition. IMO there should be one "living" digital edition of Warhammer 40k and its codices, properly and thoroughly playtested before release, eventually released in its entirety all at once, with only minor necessary adjustments made based on overwhelming player feedback and any new models released. In this digital age GW could actually release "alpha" and "beta" versions of it to the public for feedback and for the players to find and report any bugs and issues; notice how fast the community finds obvious typos, incorrect points, and other issues in the current releases and updates? But that will likely never happen as GW prefers to continue to ride the gravy train of charging for new books and its shoddy app, and judging by GW's profits, most 40k hobbyists are all too happy to support this ridiculous system of continuing rules releases.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
DS is perfectly fine, heck I am seeing more people reserve stuff in 9th than all of 8th.

yeah, being able to deepstrike anything is dope in 9th. i think people complaining about DS are the ones that think you gotta bring everything on the table trurn 2.

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Let's imagine a world where Archons could buff Incubi. That would be nice. I'm really curious to see what 9th brings to drukhari

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Let's imagine a world where Archons could buff Incubi. That would be nice. I'm really curious to see what 9th brings to drukhari

I think if we really wrack (no pun intended) our brains, we can probably come up with a fairly-accurate guess:

- No new units.

- No new models, save for Bane-cosplaying-as-Lelith.

- Still pointlessly split into 3 subfactions with barely any options each.

- Zero creativity.

- No indication that anyone working on the book had the slightest hint of enthusiasm for the army.

- No indication that anyone working on the book even understands the army.

- No attempt to address the pathetic HQ selection or abysmal wargear selection.

- Basically everything just copy-pasted with the only change being the edition number.


(I'd like to be wrong but I've yet to see a shred of evidence that would lead me to believe otherwise.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Same here, Flayed Skull for life.

It will be interesting to see how GW deal with Core for Drukhari, considering how few units there are. I wouldn't even be suprised if Ravagers ended up Core for Kabal, bearing in mind that Reapers are Kabal/Cult/Coven.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Let's imagine a world where Archons could buff Incubi. That would be nice. I'm really curious to see what 9th brings to drukhari

Dont get me started about incubi...I play the army for fun and typically it ether dominates or gets crushed. Incubi have got to ether A(ignore invune saves) or B(Get an invulnerable save). Also - not getting kabal traits is pretty dang silly too.

 vipoid wrote:

I think if we really wrack (no pun intended) our brains, we can probably come up with a fairly-accurate guess:

- No new units.

- No new models, save for Bane-cosplaying-as-Lelith.

- Still pointlessly split into 3 subfactions with barely any options each.

- Zero creativity.

- No indication that anyone working on the book had the slightest hint of enthusiasm for the army.

- No indication that anyone working on the book even understands the army.

- No attempt to address the pathetic HQ selection or abysmal wargear selection.

- Basically everything just copy-pasted with the only change being the edition number.


(I'd like to be wrong but I've yet to see a shred of evidence that would lead me to believe otherwise.)

they already said in a stream that the army would not be split anymore in 9th so we've got that going at least.
Getting nothing but lelith in terms of models would suck hard. We NEED new stuff. Bring back Vect, give coven a LoW, give options to our existing HQs, give us lesser HQs, rework poison.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

they already said in a stream that the army would not be split anymore in 9th so we've got that going at least.

Are you certain of that?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Getting nothing but lelith in terms of models would suck hard. We NEED new stuff. Bring back Vect, give coven a LoW, give options to our existing HQs, give us lesser HQs, rework poison.

I agree completely. But how many new DE models have you seen GW preview besides Loleth Hamthighs?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

Is that Captain even in your vehicle's very limited field of view? Are the comms clear enough that you can hear them over the constant hiss of static? Does your vehicle even have a tank phone for the sergeant to pick up and talk to the crew on?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

Is that Captain even in your vehicle's very limited field of view? Are the comms clear enough that you can hear them over the constant hiss of static? Does your vehicle even have a tank phone for the sergeant to pick up and talk to the crew on?

Yes, pretty sure the comms work.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yes, pretty sure the comms work.

Radio ranges are shorter than the range for most small arms if we look at IG vox-casters. Marines tend to get better gear but it's still easy to picture a man shouting being easier to understand than a voice over your headset, especially when you can't see the speaker through your limited vision blocks.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yes, pretty sure the comms work.

Radio ranges are shorter than the range for most small arms if we look at IG vox-casters. Marines tend to get better gear but it's still easy to picture a man shouting being easier to understand than a voice over your headset, especially when you can't see the speaker through your limited vision blocks.

Not buying it, personally. There are probably numerous examoles of the tanks of various faction getting clear, long distance communication in their vehicles.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yes, pretty sure the comms work.

Radio ranges are shorter than the range for most small arms if we look at IG vox-casters. Marines tend to get better gear but it's still easy to picture a man shouting being easier to understand than a voice over your headset, especially when you can't see the speaker through your limited vision blocks.

Vox-casters receive orders and the guy carrying them transmits them to those around them. They aren't transmitting to guardsmen.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

Stunned and shaken aren't destroyed. Your first point was "A Lascannon can one-shot a tank", which yes, it could, but that's how everything that could kill a tank killed a tank. With the exception of the less the 0.6% chance of a double-immobilized, every single AT system worked by one-shotting a tank against a relatively low probability, which, for the Lascannon, was low to the point of requiring more shots on average to destroy a vehicle than the modern lascannon. Especially compared to the actual legitimate heavy AT weapons like the Railcannon or Vanquisher, which I would say were a lot closer to one-hit-one-kill weapons. They still weren't, but 60% to pen from a Vanq is a lot higher than 16%, and should translate to a much greater effect than a Lascannon.

And weapon destroyed requires # of guns +2 to destroy the tank IIRC, so I didn't account for it because either tank has enough guns that it's probability of being destroyed by repeated weapon destroyed is pretty nil.

A Lascannon also essentially can't flank a gun tank unless it's owner let to do so or it's on a vehicle [in which case, there's almost certainly a more worthwhile weapon to use your 1 weapon firing while moving on], because it's a heavy weapon and can't fire on the move. That's also a completely different condition.


I think we're at a point where I'm unsatisfied with the fact that infantry AT teams feel unduly effective against tanks compared to a goddamn antitank gun that outweighs all three or four gunners and their guns combined, particularly the fact that a crappy man-portable recoilless rifle equivalent thing that's only slightly better than an RPG is somehow equally powerful to or more powerful than a heavy railcannon or a long-barreled smooth-bore APFSDS tank cannon, and you're unsatisfied with said shoulder-fired light at weapon not one-sh

Well it's true, they could one-shot a tank (and they can't do that now). But also they had a good chance of essentially removing it from offensive action for a turn, which was very important. (They also cannot do that now). What it meant was that a squad armed appropriately had a higher chance of effectively engaging a vehicle at range. Even isolated, a squad could effectively suppress the vehicle with a higher reliability. And the utility a single AT weapon brought against lighter vehicles was much greater.

As for flanking. . . Those were the good days when armies didn't blob up for auras. Spreading out your forces to force flank shots was plenty doable. Plus, you could mount Lascannons on other vehicles which could move and fire. Personally I teleported Terminators quite a bit, and the Assault Cannon did excellent work on vehicles with the 4th ed Rend rules.

I agree that the vehicle mounted anti-tank weapons are often dissapointing. The Tau Railgun is particularly embarassing. But I do like my Lascannons on my Marines, and they used to have more utility. I am all for the high tech infantry AT guns being very effective though. I prefer the balance shifted more towards infantry than you, I think. Either way, I very much agree that the one-shot-kill damage model was better than the current paradigm of grinding down a health bar.

That said, I also miss how scary those Battle Cannons were against Marines. It was tense times, fishing for a disabled tank with my rolls while knowing the template could land smack in the middle of my squad and annihilate them.

(And if you think the Lascannon was too effective as an infantry-carried AT gun, wait till you learn about the 2nd Ed Multimelta).

Furthermore along this line - In previous editions there was almost no split-fire (Longfangs being an exception). Your 10-man Tac Squad with a Lascannon or Missile Launcher was usually wasting the fire of the 9 other marines (that normally couldn't harm AV11+) in that unit if the Devastator targeted a tank/walker. Additionally - for most previous editions, if one member of the unit moved the Devastator couldn't fire.

Back in 2nd edition weapon damaged was not limited to d6's; 2d4 or 1d12 damage was fairly common & IIRC there was a very rare infantry-carried weapon that did 1d20 damage.

Hecaton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yes, pretty sure the comms work.

Radio ranges are shorter than the range for most small arms if we look at IG vox-casters. Marines tend to get better gear but it's still easy to picture a man shouting being easier to understand than a voice over your headset, especially when you can't see the speaker through your limited vision blocks.

Vox-casters receive orders and the guy carrying them transmits them to those around them. They aren't transmitting to guardsmen.

Sometimes? The fluff runs the gamut from 'nothing' to 'vox-casters only' to 'everyone has vox-beads.' (earpieces). The first two are closer to the 'WWI in Space!' design of the early imperial guard concept, the latter is more in line with 21st century expectations of what's baseline for an army with laser weapons and spaceships. When you've got entire worlds dedicated to manufacturing (on an exploitative scale that makes high-intensity sweatshops look reasonable), a billion wifi enabled Ipods to go with the billion soldiers is basically nothing.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Not buying it, personally. There are probably numerous examoles of the tanks of various faction getting clear, long distance communication in their vehicles.

Then let's look at modern armies with highly integrated communications. You're still going to see a major issue with communications between tanks and infantry units. It boils down to half the time the tank can't see what you're talking about and the other half of the time it can't hear what they're saying over the sounds of gunfire. That's why so much infantry to infantry communication is non-verbal.

Voss wrote:


Sometimes? The fluff runs the gamut from 'nothing' to 'vox-casters only' to 'everyone has vox-beads.' (earpieces). The first two are closer to the 'WWI in Space!' design of the early imperial guard concept, the latter is more in line with 21st century expectations of what's baseline for an army with laser weapons and spaceships. When you've got entire worlds dedicated to manufacturing (on an exploitative scale that makes high-intensity sweatshops look reasonable), a billion wifi enabled Ipods to go with the billion soldiers is basically nothing.

Specifically for IG, it's as I described.

Hecaton wrote:

Voss wrote:


Sometimes? The fluff runs the gamut from 'nothing' to 'vox-casters only' to 'everyone has vox-beads.' (earpieces). The first two are closer to the 'WWI in Space!' design of the early imperial guard concept, the latter is more in line with 21st century expectations of what's baseline for an army with laser weapons and spaceships. When you've got entire worlds dedicated to manufacturing (on an exploitative scale that makes high-intensity sweatshops look reasonable), a billion wifi enabled Ipods to go with the billion soldiers is basically nothing.

Specifically for IG, it's as I described.

Some IG companies wear fully enclosed armor, carry the finest las-weapons in the galaxy, and get the best of the best for vox-equipment. Other companies get sticks with rags on the ends of them and only every third man even gets a weapon.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Not buying it, personally. There are probably numerous examoles of the tanks of various faction getting clear, long distance communication in their vehicles.

Then let's look at modern armies with highly integrated communications. You're still going to see a major issue with communications between tanks and infantry units. It boils down to half the time the tank can't see what you're talking about and the other half of the time it can't hear what they're saying over the sounds of gunfire. That's why so much infantry to infantry communication is non-verbal.

For what it's worth the sound of gunfire is noticeably quieter inside the tank than outside. Because there's several inches or more of steel/fancy-stuff between people's ears and the noise. To to mention the intercom is in headsets covering their ears.
"They can't hear" is a very poor excuse.
Nor is visibility generally that bad, especially if the person you're looking for is just a 10ft tall blue superhuman standing just a few yards away.
Not that a captain waving around nearby improving accuracy makes much sense.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
For what it's worth the sound of gunfire is noticeably quieter inside the tank than outside. Because there's several inches or more of steel/fancy-stuff between people's ears and the noise. To to mention the intercom is in headsets covering their ears.

Yeah, but my comment wasn't about that. It was about the gunfire overwhelming the voice of the infantry man/commander standing a few yards away trying to speak to them via comms. His mic can't be protected from the sounds of battle around him.

Nor is visibility generally that bad, especially if the person you're looking for is just a 10ft tall blue superhuman standing just a few yards away.
Not that a captain waving around nearby improving accuracy makes much sense.

Have you seen how poor the vision from inside an AFV can be? Even in modern tanks with fancy things like monitors mounted at the commander's station a tank is mostly blind and deaf compared to the infantry outside of it. Thus to watch that inspiring speech they'd either need the tank pointed at him, the turret pointed at him, or the commander's sight pointed at him which means one of three very important crewmen aren't currently looking at the enemy.

While CORE is disappointingly applied and wonky in terms of relating to fluff, is it really one of the top 5 problems with 9th? Hell, cutting it down to just 5 seems like picking out your five favorite infections on a hospital floor.

Have you seen how poor the vision from inside an AFV can be? Even in modern tanks with fancy things like monitors mounted at the commander's station a tank is mostly blind and deaf compared to the infantry outside of it. Thus to watch that inspiring speech they'd either need the tank pointed at him, the turret pointed at him, or the commander's sight pointed at him which means one of three very important crewmen aren't currently looking at the enemy.

Non of which matters because CORE has literally nothing at all to do with "inspiration". Are we seriously saying that, mid battle, everyone is stopping, looking at the captain and following along with the impromptu speech he has decided to give (via what essentially amounts to pantomime according to what you're saying)?

No. I don't think we are. Plus, again, if you're going to say it's about inspiration - then no one in the Necron book should really get it. Ditto putting it on Rubrics ... That's just not what it's about. But that's the issue - GW decided they didn't want Captains in the back buffing tanks as that is decidedly "un-Marine-like". But rather than just say "Auras don't apply to vehicles unless the Aura specifically states otherwise", they ham-fisted a new concept into their keywords. One that they didn't REALLY think out.

So they made this elegant system to be able to target and fix issues like this in a pinpoint, strategic manner, and then used it to create a rule that basically sledge hammers everything.

While CORE is disappointingly applied and wonky in terms of relating to fluff, is it really one of the top 5 problems with 9th? Hell, cutting it down to just 5 seems like picking out your five favorite infections on a hospital floor.

Agreed. It's an issue, but more of an annoyance and something to shake the head at. I don't think it's a MAJOR issue. But it is just so much fun to rag on.

Tycho wrote:
Non of which matters because CORE has literally nothing at all to do with "inspiration". Are we seriously saying that, mid battle, everyone is stopping, looking at the captain and following along with the impromptu speech he has decided to give (via what essentially amounts to pantomime according to what you're saying)?

Who said anything about inspiration? A unit leader is vital on the battlefield and does give their unit a real tangible boost by communicating with their team. This could easily be modeled as an aura. This aura shouldn't apply to a plane flying overhead, a tank rumbling past, or a skimmer roaring around them.

No. I don't think we are. Plus, again, if you're going to say it's about inspiration - then no one in the Necron book should really get it. Ditto putting it on Rubrics ... That's just not what it's about. But that's the issue - GW decided they didn't want Captains in the back buffing tanks as that is decidedly "un-Marine-like". But rather than just say "Auras don't apply to vehicles unless the Aura specifically states otherwise", they ham-fisted a new concept into their keywords. One that they didn't REALLY think out.

The Necron auras make sense if you assume that their leaders can override certain parameters of the base programming for the units around them. The units that can't be buffed by those specific auras are either too corrupted (Destroyers) or require a different override (Crypteks). This fits the fluff and works within the rules we've been given, the same as the Space Marine rules do. If you want different Necron fluff that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Yeah, but my comment wasn't about that. It was about the gunfire overwhelming the voice of the infantry man/commander standing a few yards away trying to speak to them via comms. His mic can't be protected from the sounds of battle around him.

The mic is right next to the captain's face and very far away from the enemy's guns. It may even be inside his helmet or be a throat mic so even less sensitive.
Certainly modern militaries seem to be able to communicate whilst in the middle of a firefight.
I don't think you have much of a leg here, especially if you're implying that this wouldn't be a problem infantry has. If background gunfire is so loud through the captain's mic, how can they hear him? When their ears are directly exposed to the same gunfire?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Have you seen how poor the vision from inside an AFV can be? Even in modern tanks with fancy things like monitors mounted at the commander's station a tank is mostly blind and deaf compared to the infantry outside of it. Thus to watch that inspiring speech they'd either need the tank pointed at him, the turret pointed at him, or the commander's sight pointed at him which means one of three very important crewmen aren't currently looking at the enemy.

I have actually. The commander has vision blocks around his cupola offering 360 degree vision, the driver, gunner, and loader also probably have traversible periscopes. You don't necessarily need a fancy-pants high zoom night vision optic to see the giant blue super human six feet away.

Plus the whole concept is a little absurd. Why does the captain yelling and pantomiming help the tank at all? Astartes are extremely highly trained individuals that should already have a pretty solid idea of end of the bolter to point at the enemy.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The mic is right next to the captain's face and very far away from the enemy's guns. It may even be inside his helmet or be a throat mic so even less sensitive. Certainly modern militaries seem to be able to communicate whilst in the middle of a firefight.

I don't think you have much of a leg here, especially if you're implying that this wouldn't be a problem infantry has. If background gunfire is so loud through the captain's mic, how can they hear him? When their ears are directly exposed to the same gunfire?

On the ground, they use a lot of hand signals because if your own unit is returning fire nobody nearby is going to be able to hear feth all. If they want to make a radio call they have to hunker down a while and make sure they can be understood. If they want to chat with a tank the best way is to get up behind it and use the tank phone hanging off the back, this can be hard to do in combat because the tank needs to be still for this to work. This is all really basic stuff and that you're disputing it shows you really have no idea what you're talking about.

I have actually. The commander has vision blocks around his cupola offering 360 degree vision, the driver, gunner, and loader also probably have traversible periscopes.

These all offer a much narrower field of view than unobstructed views of the battlefield and it's not at all uncommon for a tank to miss another tank or anti-tank gun let alone a silly man in power armor.

Plus the whole concept is a little absurd. Why does the captain yelling and pantomiming help the tank at all? Astartes are extremely highly trained individuals that should already have a pretty solid idea of end of the bolter to point at the enemy.

If that's true why do Marines have ranks at all? Surely a Sergeant has some value in the midst of a firefight or they wouldn't bother with the role.

Who said anything about inspiration?

Go back through the thread and read the entire conversation about this. You came in right in the middle and apparently missed some things ...

A unit leader is vital on the battlefield and does give their unit a real tangible boost by communicating with their team. This could easily be modeled as an aura. This aura shouldn't apply to a plane flying overhead, a tank rumbling past, or a skimmer roaring around them.

Uh - huh. So Forward Observers don't make A10s or long range tank fire more accurate? Got it.

But that's besides the point. I game terms, if GW didn't want Captains Auras to apply to tanks (which, honestly they probably shouldn't), they picked the sloppiest way possible to get that done. It's classic GW. We have a few very limited specific examples of problem units. Let's do damage to everyone in order to fix it ... CORE is a completely needless rule.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

Is that Captain even in your vehicle's very limited field of view? Are the comms clear enough that you can hear them over the constant hiss of static? Does your vehicle even have a tank phone for the sergeant to pick up and talk to the crew on?

Can't say if it is true for all other marines, but for GK, the captin or grandmaster can take over a targeting of another brothers termintor suit and guid their shooting with both a tech and psychic component. Same way with tanks, GK leaders often us psychic link with the vehicles operators to drop in specific places, perform specific manouvers or shot specific targets in specific places.

Regular marines shouldn't be able to do a lot less then that, specially those that aren't in feral or penitent chapters.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The mic is right next to the captain's face and very far away from the enemy's guns. It may even be inside his helmet or be a throat mic so even less sensitive. Certainly modern militaries seem to be able to communicate whilst in the middle of a firefight.

I don't think you have much of a leg here, especially if you're implying that this wouldn't be a problem infantry has. If background gunfire is so loud through the captain's mic, how can they hear him? When their ears are directly exposed to the same gunfire?

On the ground, they use a lot of hand signals because if your own unit is returning fire nobody nearby is going to be able to hear feth all.

So the inspirational leaders use semaphor?

Tycho wrote:
...Uh - huh. So Forward Observers don't make A10s or long range tank fire more accurate? Got it...

Do forward observers stand next to the A10 or the tank and shout at the pilot/tank crew? That kind of thing is way better-represented by Markerlights than character reroll bubbles.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Some IG companies wear fully enclosed armor, carry the finest las-weapons in the galaxy, and get the best of the best for vox-equipment. Other companies get sticks with rags on the ends of them and only every third man even gets a weapon.

The rules only represent what I described.

Tycho wrote:
Go back through the thread and read the entire conversation about this. You came in right in the middle and apparently missed some things ...

So I'm obligated to agree with another poster just because now...?

Uh - huh. So Forward Observers don't make A10s or long range tank fire more accurate? Got it.

They don't if they stand within arms reach of them to ensure they stay within an aura.

 Insectum7 wrote:
So the inspirational leaders use semaphor?

Have you ever seen how a military squad communicates on a march? A fist raised for stop, fingers raised for eyes to tell others to watch, a finger circled over one's head for on me. There is a ton of what amounts to sign language both for the purposes of making as little noise as possible and being understood when even yelling won't make you heard. Again, this is really basic stuff and if you don't know it please educate yourself before arguing.

^But do they use it for inspirational speeches? I'm just imagining you pitching that idea for a scene in a movie, for example.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^But do they use it for inspirational speeches? I'm just imagining you pitching that idea for a scene in a movie, for example.

No, but that isn't how a leader on a battlefield actually increases combat effectiveness. Yes, some generals did seem to inspire certain qualities in their men however they didn't do it within a fixed radius around themselves and would, in 40k terms, be best treated as an army-wide buff bought with CP pre game.

Okay, you guys are getting so many miles off topic. The moist defecate that is the Core system is merely symptomatic of the Rules Bloat problem, which I would argue is one of the big 5, presented here in no particular order:


Rules Bloat

This has to be the least elegantly designed game I've ever seen; How do you make a D6-based system this clunky? Well, you start by calling every instance of a rule something different, then add supplements on Codexes on Subfactions on Stratagem Trait Relic FAQs for 28 factions and 10 supplements with Doctrines, Superdoctrines, and 67.3 variations on the word "Bolt." And yet they stop at giving out cost variations for all of these rules. This one isn't going to get any better anytime soon; each new codex feels more bloated and silly than the last.


Mission Variety

Possibly in a vain effort to balance this festering Great Unclean One of rules, Matched play has only one mission. It is a decently interesting mission with a lot of variations, but there is only one, and the most fun I had with the edition was not while playing it, I assure you; that honor goes to a 4-player Chaos-god Carnage mission. But so much is balanced around it in a system that used to have so many more interesting and varied objectives that it feels monotonous.


Release Schedule

This goes for both the models and the codexes. My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong on this - is that all the 9th codexes exist in some form that has been at least partially playtested, so why do we not have them yet? With such a massive power gap between 8th and 9th and most of the factions that have received codexes thus far not having been the ones that really need it, it really feels awful having all this diarrhea drip-fed in an arbitrarily filtered slurry. Meanwhile, some factions have entire new model ranges shoved down their throats while others languish in models that haven't been updated since 3rd edition - Check me on this, Eldar players, 2nd in some cases?


Poor Faction Equality

It's not just about who is strongest at the moment, it's about who gets the most stuff, and Marines get release after release after release, rules, models, everything. We've got entire threads about this one too.


Obsolete Business Model

Physical codex books are outdated; the need to FAQ and patch them means they quickly become useless as rules guides. I've gone on about this at length before in every third post I make.

Their ridiculous model prices, likewise cannot be sustainable long term. With the rise of 3D printing (You can get decent resin printers for about $200-$250USD now) you can make your own miniatures for so much cheaper; With a little learning, they can be heavily customized to your preferences. Citadel Quality can only hold so much water, as many of the minis you can print on budget resin printers are flat out better looking than GWs, especially in ranges GW hasn't bothered to update since 3rd edition.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

On the ground, they use a lot of hand signals because if your own unit is returning fire nobody nearby is going to be able to hear feth all. If they want to make a radio call they have to hunker down a while and make sure they can be understood. If they want to chat with a tank the best way is to get up behind it and use the tank phone hanging off the back, this can be hard to do in combat because the tank needs to be still for this to work. This is all really basic stuff and that you're disputing it shows you really have no idea what you're talking about..

Whoa there Tiger.
You never mentioned tank telephones. The infantry use tank telephones because they aren't equipped with radios linked to the tank. But especially when you're talking about the Astartes, when every single one has a box bead integrated into their helmet or earpiece I assume that's no longer an issue, they can just vox the tank directly.
As for hand signals, they're great for short ranged silent communication, which is why they're often used by infantry at squad level. There's no reason for a Space Marine Captain to be directing his tank solely via hand signals, especially given the box mentioned previously. It's not like infantry don't speak either... It even that a tank would be incapable of seeing the 8ft tall blue superhuman waving them forwards or whatever.
Missing an enemy tank hiding behind s bush 2 kilometers away is a whole other kettle of fish to that.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
...

I totally agree on rules bloat. As soon as they started giving loads of unique faction rules and strategems and such I realised they had trimmed the rulebook way down just to add all that complexity back on as a giant spaghetti mess squirted across all the factions.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay, you guys are getting so many miles off topic. The moist defecate that is the Core system is merely symptomatic of the Rules Bloat problem, which I would argue is one of the big 5, presented here in no particular order:


Rules Bloat

This has to be the least elegantly designed game I've ever seen; How do you make a D6-based system this clunky? Well, you start by calling every instance of a rule something different, then add supplements on Codexes on Subfactions on Stratagem Trait Relic FAQs for 28 factions and 10 supplements with Doctrines, Superdoctrines, and 67.3 variations on the word "Bolt." And yet they stop at giving out cost variations for all of these rules. This one isn't going to get any better anytime soon; each new codex feels more bloated and silly than the last.

The index era had issues indeed. But it was a LEAP in the right direction, meanwhile 9th started out with insta FAQ for all marines loyalists, for changes that we know were applicable to all other types of marines, which didn't get them as of yet but had the privilege to pay for their better stats already. Not to mention the first iterations of adapted 9th rules for the FAQ'ed loyalists, whilest the rest, if lucky, got updates to weaponry...
Goes to show, how little GW cares overall when it wouldn't have taken significantly longer to propperly adapt the rules.
Also PA "Written with 9th in mind" meanwhile we have rules in PA and relics that don't work anymore, thank god though for the loyalist update... right lads...

Mission Variety

Possibly in a vain effort to balance this festering Great Unclean One of rules, Matched play has only one mission. It is a decently interesting mission with a lot of variations, but there is only one, and the most fun I had with the edition was not while playing it, I assure you; that honor goes to a 4-player Chaos-god Carnage mission. But so much is balanced around it in a system that used to have so many more interesting and varied objectives that it feels monotonous.

i sit in lockdown, still, it was never difficult to tell gw missions to go bend over and have more fun regardless if competitive inclined or narrative by doing your own thing, so not surprising.

Release Schedule

This goes for both the models and the codexes. My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong on this - is that all the 9th codexes exist in some form that has been at least partially playtested, so why do we not have them yet? With such a massive power gap between 8th and 9th and most of the factions that have received codexes thus far not having been the ones that really need it, it really feels awful having all this diarrhea drip-fed in an arbitrarily filtered slurry. Meanwhile, some factions have entire new model ranges shoved down their throats while others languish in models that haven't been updated since 3rd edition - Check me on this, Eldar players, 2nd in some cases?



Poor Faction Equality

It's not just about who is strongest at the moment, it's about who gets the most stuff, and Marines get release after release after release, rules, models, everything. We've got entire threads about this one too.

Actually it's in essence the same point.
GW did good with releasing the CA pts for free, that's the only improvement i know though...
And agreed on the release schedule, it' gets a bit silly when we have the x ammount of marine resculpts in the same time it took for csm's to be updated once... Not even going to go into the Eldar range ... that is just a sad exemple by this point.

Obsolete Business Model

Physical codex books are outdated; the need to FAQ and patch them means they quickly become useless as rules guides. I've gone on about this at length before in every third post I make.

I think GW is aware of 3d printing, and therefore selling books, it's easy to monetise the older playerbase over that , and also easier to protect per IP law then customized miniatures. It's also why we see this flurry off rules releases...

Their ridiculous model prices, likewise cannot be sustainable long term. With the rise of 3D printing (You can get decent resin printers for about $200-$250USD now) you can make your own miniatures for so much cheaper; With a little learning, they can be heavily customized to your preferences. Citadel Quality can only hold so much water, as many of the minis you can print on budget resin printers are flat out better looking than GWs, especially in ranges GW hasn't bothered to update since 3rd edition.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^But do they use it for inspirational speeches? I'm just imagining you pitching that idea for a scene in a movie, for example.

No, but that isn't how a leader on a battlefield actually increases combat effectiveness. Yes, some generals did seem to inspire certain qualities in their men however they didn't do it within a fixed radius around themselves and would, in 40k terms, be best treated as an army-wide buff bought with CP pre game.

Right. They're not using hand signals for inspirational speeches.

Yes the best "Commander" rule for Space Marines ever was 4th edition Litanies of Battle, which gave every marine on the table Ld 10 when if your Captain was on the table. Later they shrunk that rule to just Sicarius. In 4th it was even better though, because squads had to take an Ld test to fire at not-the-closest target. This meant Space Marines with a Captain had better fire discipline than nearly everybody.

So picking up CEO Kasen's call to get this thread back on track, my top 5 problems of 9th so far. Note that while I'm a huge fan of 9th and think it's the best game so far, but it still isn't perfect:

1) Starting the game takes too long.
Picking secondaries/agendas, complicated mission set-ups that require lots of measuring, terrain has to be distributed after mission has been rolled and the fun, but time consuming alternate deployment minigame is back. While the games (turn 1-5) finish earlier and more consistently now, it takes a lot more time before the first models start to move.

2) Too many bad secondaries, too many automatic choices
When 9th was released I was thrilled about all the new secondary missions, performing actions, psychic rituals, keeping a tally of killed models, racing to kill the warlord - infinite possibilities!
Now, after playing the game surprisingly regularly (considering the circumstances) for half a year, it has become clear that picking objectives always boils to the same few things, making missions no more varred than when the secondaries were Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord and First Blood. Some mission secondaries change up the game a little, but most are either just variants of other secondaries or too hard too archive so one never bothers.
Especially action and psychic actions feel like so much wasted potential, all of them are too limited who can perform them where and when, so either you have the ones which allow no counter-play which are good, and al of those which do allow counter-play are worthless. The ritual is an awesome idea, but it requires so much investment and all it needs to drop to 0 VP is two denies. It has so many points of failure that it should instantly win you the game if you ever manage to pull it off. All of the actions should be reworked that they are much easier to start and gain more partial VP, but allow more counter-play from opponents.
And I agree, you should not be able to draw secondary missions from more than one book. Either do basic space marines, or supplement, not both.

3) Keyword rampage
Try figuring out what the difference between stratagems affecting BUBONIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD INFANTRY, DEATH GUARD CORE, BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE and HERETIC ASTARTES is, and you will know what I mean.
I see what they did there, but it didn't go well. I'm working with software every day, so I managed to eventually parse the differences, but the threads about this clearly show that others struggle.

4) 9th codex vs 8th codex
Playing with DG against Marines or Necrons feels like a level playing field, playing with orks against any flavor of eldar, CSM or nids does as well.
If you mix those groups you suddenly find yourself fighting an uphill battle against a 9th edition codex or a game set to "beginner" when playing the 9th edition codex yourself.
It's not as bad as pre-decurion codices vs post-decurion codices in 7th, but it sure feels similar.
The big difference is that a 9th edition codex is not dragging around any bad choices because they have to, while 8th edition codices often have to bring along things that don't work well, simply because they have no other choice.
The managed to release indexes for the space marine supplements, they surely could have done that for all the codices? Once again it feels like printing books is holding them back.

5) Fortifications
Fortifications are essentially unusable due to the 3" rule. This rule need a major overhaul to make them usable without house rules.

What is the paint rule?

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10VP for having a "battle ready" army.

Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables
They've tossed all these terrain rules at us, posted a couple of pictures of good tables, and expected us to understand. It took me dozens of games and some youtube videos on that topic to understand how to use all the terrain in a way to make an interesting game that actually supports all the things GW advertised about 9th. How to prevent the huge mosh-pit where durable melee reigns supreme, while not also turning the game into a shooting gallery.
I could write pages on my experience on how to build a good table, but that's not the topic. The short version is that, your table needs to have a good mix of dense, obscuring, difficult terrain and pure LOS blockers. Vehicles and monsters need places where they can fit through, big guns need to be able to shoot further than 12" (even if it's with a malus), infantry and smaller vehicles like dreads need to be able to hide, not every objective marker should be easy to defend, not every objective marker should be in an exposed position.
When I read battle reports and problems people describe with 9th, much of that stems from slapping ruins all over the table and calling it a day. In 9th having too much too similar terrain is just as bad for your game as playing on planet bowling ball. Judging from their examples in the BRB, GW seems to have understood that, but they offer too little guidance in that regard. 3 pictures simply isn't enough for such a complicated topic.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10VP for having a "battle ready" army.

Thank you!
On terrain, yeah I can see that. You really want some example dimensions and so on I think. The point about space for vehicles and monsters is really important.

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I agree it might derail the thread.

I had several friends growing up who prefered black bases as well. I usually use black for my RPG minis. Nothing wrong with it in my view.

Haven't decided on all five of my biggest gripes yet, but one is definitely going to be the fact that stratagems still exist.

They add a ridiculous CCG element to a game that has already suffered heavily from bloat.

Further, I still have no clue what they are even supposed to represent. Most of the time it seems like the most highly-trained soldiers in the galaxy need inspiration to remember where they keep their good ammunition or how to conduct a fighting retreat, and then on the next turn they'll have forgotten again.

And this is on top of the fact that a pile of wargear has been made into stratagems for no discernible reason.

But do you know what could have been done?

Stratagems could have been tied to HQs. As in, you need an HQ (possibly of the right type) within X" of the unit you want to use the stratagem on. Could also say that each HQs can only use a limited number of stratagems per turn or phase. HQs could also have unique stratagems, akin to Command abilities in AoS.

Now, granted, the number of Stratagems should still be substantially reduced. All the upgrade/wargear ones (including Relics) should return to being upgrades/wargear, which is paid for in points.

However, this would give HQs something to do on the battlefield, whilst also allowing for the complete removal of all auras. It's probably still not perfect, but thematically you've at least got more to play with (e.g. having an HQ authorise the use of rare ammunition against a specific target, or directing a fighting retreat).

 vipoid wrote:
However, this would give HQs something to do on the battlefield, whilst also allowing for the complete removal of all auras. It's probably still not perfect, but thematically you've at least got more to play with (e.g. having an HQ authorise the use of rare ammunition against a specific target, or directing a fighting retreat).

In my head stratagems have always been actions/orders/extra wargear authorized to be used by supreme command that is somewhere outside of the battlefield (in orbit/base camp/in the capitol/on another planet).

 Jidmah wrote:
Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables

Yes. If memory serves you get a few photos - but I don't really see why there couldn't be a diagram with a grid showing "put this here, that here, and this there".
I can sort of see why they don't want people to go "okay to play 40k you must put a ruin in cell B2, and a forest in D4" but I don't think it would hurt that much to produce some standard board templates.

In practice the major issue remains that the average punter doesn't own nearly enough terrain - and since buying it from GW etc is expensive, and making it yourself is fiddly, this is likely to remain the case.

Storage is a huge issue too. I have been working on flat pack or easy to store terrain but it isn't exactly easy to have it flat pack, look good, and be functional. And GW no longer give much guidance that making your own terrain is possible, in fact they subtly discourage it.

If you are lacking terrain at home, getting MDF or paper terrain from third party producers is the best way to improve your tables. I'm especially fond of the TTCombat stuff, you can get so many cool things for very little money.

3) Keyword rampage
Try figuring out what the difference between stratagems affecting BUBONIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD INFANTRY, DEATH GUARD CORE, BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE and HERETIC ASTARTES is, and you will know what I mean.
I see what they did there, but it didn't go well. I'm working with software every day, so I managed to eventually parse the differences, but the threads about this clearly show that others struggle.

I feel like a lot of complaints about this come from the players who feel like they can't be competitive if they can't know every single thing. IDK how big a problem it truly is as, it's one of those things I see complained about on Dakka ... and rarely anywhere else. I've never seen anyone complain about in real life. I think the bigger issue is, they aren't using it like they said they would, and that initial use-case is the only way the multitude of keywords really functions imo. The amount just doesn't bother me. I don't know most of the keywords for armies I play against, and I've never felt like that's been a issue for me. The issue is, rather than use it like a scalpel to selectively fix specific, problem units, they've simply used it as a different kind of sledgehammer most of the time. CORE being a good example. It's classic GW really. Great idea, failed execution. The one saving grace is that, at least there's not a 30 page USR section with half a dozen to a dozen USRs that exist only to denote a large collection of OTHER usrs ...

I had several friends growing up who prefered black bases as well. I usually use black for my RPG minis. Nothing wrong with it in my view.

Clean, black bases can really show off a mini very well!

Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables

Yeah, it's kind of funny - a lot of people wondered when the rules came out, if most groups would end up just sticking to maybe three basic terrain keywords and ditching the rest, leaving a swathe of rules generally unused. It seems like that's happening quite a bit in a lot of places unless you take the time with the group to go through all the terrain you have and assign permanent keywords. I agree it's a bit sloppy, but I'm not sure how to fix it. What would you do?

Since I play an army that seemed to have been relatively forgotten in the design process, most of of 9th I guess.

Tycho wrote:

3) Keyword rampage
Try figuring out what the difference between stratagems affecting BUBONIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD INFANTRY, DEATH GUARD CORE, BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE and HERETIC ASTARTES is, and you will know what I mean.
I see what they did there, but it didn't go well. I'm working with software every day, so I managed to eventually parse the differences, but the threads about this clearly show that others struggle.

I feel like a lot of complaints about this come from the players who feel like they can't be competitive if they can't know every single thing. IDK how big a problem it truly is as, it's one of those things I see complained about on Dakka ... and rarely anywhere else. I've never seen anyone complain about in real life. I think the bigger issue is, they aren't using it like they said they would, and that initial use-case is the only way the multitude of keywords really functions imo. The amount just doesn't bother me. I don't know most of the keywords for armies I play against, and I've never felt like that's been a issue for me.

I guess it's ok-ish if it's difficult to figure out an army you don't play. But for DG it's genuinely difficult to figure out how your own army works.

Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables

Yeah, it's kind of funny - a lot of people wondered when the rules came out, if most groups would end up just sticking to maybe three basic terrain keywords and ditching the rest, leaving a swathe of rules generally unused. It seems like that's happening quite a bit in a lot of places unless you take the time with the group to go through all the terrain you have and assign permanent keywords. I agree it's a bit sloppy, but I'm not sure how to fix it. What would you do?

Actually, that is perfectly fine. Your really only need four types of terrain for a good table:
1) Ruins - obscuring obviously makes a huge difference, as does light cover. The center of your table should definitely be blocked by some ruins.
2) Forests/Industrial/ruined walls - blocking some firing lanes with dense terrain instead of obscuring makes it possible to shoot at least at some of the elite melee units heading for the center, and allows shooty units to use their range without enabling alpha-strikes
3) Barricades/pipes - these are basically the opposite of obscuring terrain, as the combination of difficult ground and unstable position make them great defenses against melee units, but close to useless against shooting. One of the best tips from the Tabletop Titan guys was to protect objectives to one side with barricades and with ruins to the other, suddenly making maneuvering matter.
4) Containers/Rocks - despite not having any keywords (except maybe unstable position), symetrical LoS blockers still have great use in games. Unlike ruins, units cannot run through them to gain LoS, and they don't necessarily block LoS to large models.
All other keywords but the ones I bolded are great fun to use, but rarely make a difference. They serve to further immersion more than anything.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

So just paint your bases black with a tiny bit of grit added in.... You add the grit so that the idiots realize that you have in-fact painted your black bases black.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

So just paint your bases black with a tiny bit of grit added in.... You add the grit so that the idiots realize that you have in-fact painted your black bases black.

Back when I had most of my Marine Infantry painted, I would paint the top black and the rims different colors to help keep squads separated if they ever got jumbled up together. And yeah, I had to actually paint the tops of the base black because of my own sloppy painting of the feet.

For comparison:

The heavy bolter guy in the second was a fresh from a Devastator squad and I hadn't gotten around to painting his rim, yet.

1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

 Jidmah wrote:
...

Seconded. With the exception that some 8th edition armies hold up quite well. But yeah, some others are burning garbage.

 Charistoph wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

So just paint your bases black with a tiny bit of grit added in.... You add the grit so that the idiots realize that you have in-fact painted your black bases black.

Back when I had most of my Marine Infantry painted, I would paint the top black and the rims different colors to help keep squads separated if they ever got jumbled up together. And yeah, I had to actually paint the tops of the base black because of my own sloppy painting of the feet.

Oh absolutely. I've been color coding the edges/rims of my squads bases for decades. 40k/WHFB/AoS/other GW games, WWII squads, other games....
I do this for my own benefit as well as yours. There's no confusion over who's in what squad.

Ice_can wrote:
1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

Or Knights, don't forget Knights. No other army has done as much to push everyone away from weapons like lascannons and towards mid-strength, mid-AP, high ROF weapons than an entire army of T8 walking tanks that invalidate any AP above AP-2, and AP-1 for the low price of 1CP.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

Or Knights, don't forget Knights. No other army has done as much to push everyone away from weapons like lascannons and towards mid-strength, mid-AP, high ROF weapons than an entire army of T8 walking tanks that invalidate any AP above AP-2, and AP-1 for the low price of 1CP.

Adding Knights into the game is easily one of the biggest mistakes GW has made in a long while.

Ice_can wrote:


...SNIP...

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

It could also be that the testers called it out and GW ignored it but yeah. This. That, and the fact that I feel like it's almost the same mission every time regardless of what mission it actually is, has become a bit of a drag. We're in a fresh lockdown, so kind of hoping we get some more variety from GW by the time the new lockdown ends.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

Or Knights, don't forget Knights. No other army has done as much to push everyone away from weapons like lascannons and towards mid-strength, mid-AP, high ROF weapons than an entire army of T8 walking tanks that invalidate any AP above AP-2, and AP-1 for the low price of 1CP.

I will give you they probably contributed but that was what over a year and a bit into 8th before Knight got their codex, and people were already way down the more shots is better long before that.
I think multiple minus to hit stacking turning a lascanon from a 66% hit chance to a 16% chance on 1 dice was also a big issue.
But yes high strength low shot weapons with D6 damage augh whoever tested their points has some questions to answer.

Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

I'm going to keep an * to that until we see a couple of xenos codex. Wouldn't be the first time they get screwed on their updates compared to Imperium.

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

 Ordana wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

I'm going to keep an * to that until we see a couple of xenos codex. Wouldn't be the first time they get screwed on their updates compared to Imperium.

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

I'm going to second that I wouldn't be surprised if they screw atleast one xeno faction over.

 Ordana wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

I'm going to keep an * to that until we see a couple of xenos codex. Wouldn't be the first time they get screwed on their updates compared to Imperium.

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

I fully expect that there'll be a few "duds", and that they'll probably be either Xenos or Chaos related. At least we'll know how there going to be handling Eldar soon.

Right now my biggest gripes with 9th are: Power creep, model size creep, and the fact that the D6 system still is standard. It would have been great to introduce the D10 system into Warhammer 40k, but alas.

 Ordana wrote:

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

The anticipation is stressing me out......and I think that Drukhari is actually a particularly difficult codex to get 'right'.

tneva82 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Honestly, and I get perhaps they had to release it last year but I think dropping a new edition during what is currently going on is a crap idea. I can't speak for everyone but I won't be buying any books until I can actually hope to regularly play a game once more. This edition feels like the ramp up of codex creep and edition of the marine releases.

Had they not released it during covid then for duration of covid there would be pathetic amount of sales.

GW lives by new releases. Models sell majority of all the sprues they are going to sell in lifetime in first months. If they don't release new kits they don't have new sales in significant amount. That's what dropped FB sales. GW moved resources to do AOS and as such only trickle of new kits which meant sales dropped hard.

They did not have luxury of waiting for covid to go away especially as there was no quarantees there would be vaccine even within couple years while 9th was released.

Releasing new kits doesn't mean launching a new edition though. As others have said apparently GW is a model company, as even you say. Good kits will sell themselves yes ? They could have slowed their roll and looked for a more telling time to release a new edition, if anything they would have had much more time to actually cut back on codex creep and bloat as they tune the system.

They absolutely had the luxury to do it if they wanted to, space considering as they can't currently even keep up with current stock issues and haven't for the duration of this pandemic so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

Which I love marines but really, this is silly. I feel like it'll end up being my least played edition since I started playing warhammer and I can't imagine I'm alone in that regard.

Well, a global pandemic interfering with normal life will make playing games more difficult.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
When something drops, you have to pray to the emperor to get it. Order anything its a life time away and yeah this isn't their fault but its a sign of the time from last year to this one.

Maybe that's a regional thing. I've had zero issue on any new release. No praying, I just let one of my local shops know what I want & come release day I get a text saying "Hey, come get your stuff..." Sometimes just a pic.

Of course its just a by area thing but even trying to order a lot of stuff online its often out of stock seemingly forever. Here in the north east stuff is so sluggish to get anywhere I feel like I should just go ahead and pull a bear and just to to sleep till spring, maybe orders will be in then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

Is that Captain even in your vehicle's very limited field of view? Are the comms clear enough that you can hear them over the constant hiss of static? Does your vehicle even have a tank phone for the sergeant to pick up and talk to the crew on?

This is so funny, so a tank can't be inspired by a captain, though for years on years we were expected to believe a marine captain views the battle through the auto senses and vox beads ( better than a guard vox caster ) and controls the flow of it around him. ( Hence why he could use his LD for squads around the table ) Can inspire his normal troops but the guy in tank can't hear him because he's in an old busted woop de doo wagon ? I can't even..I laughed so hard thinking of that.


and yes, I saved all the guard tank phone boxes and buy them anywhere I can to play them on every tank so I can move my captain up to get on the tank phone and inspire them by singing to the tank crew " Never gonna give you up ! " After a good Rick Roll, they re roll all the hits, even do a little dance for my opponents. They know rules, and so do I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.

Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!

This made my day, I will try and remember it when I run tanks. They care not for anything but firing their main weapons, they are tank men. Stoic in the face of all the horrors of war.Neither inspired or despaired, simply ever ordinary.


Unless you are a tank commander !!!! Then the tank commander has all the other Tank men on the friends and family plan so he just calls them directly.

 harlokin wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

The anticipation is stressing me out......and I think that Drukhari is actually a particularly difficult codex to get 'right'.

It is going to be great. 10 point bikes hah hah, the best omen a faction has had in quite some time. Nah seriously they will probably mess this one up big time, GW don’t do glass canons too well. Probably the mutant stuff will be good with tons of defensive buffs and the rest will suck. They will play like deathwing and it will be a bad letdown

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
<snip>

Please feel free to ask this fellow about infantry to tank communications: https://www.facebook.com/TheChieftainWargaming

Or watch any of his videos about what life as a tanker is actually like.

 addnid wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

The anticipation is stressing me out......and I think that Drukhari is actually a particularly difficult codex to get 'right'.

It is going to be great. 10 point bikes hah hah, the best omen a faction has had in quite some time. Nah seriously they will probably mess this one up big time, GW don’t do glass canons too well. Probably the mutant stuff will be good with tons of defensive buffs and the rest will suck. They will play like deathwing and it will be a bad letdown

That's exactly what I'm afraid of....lots of focus on Coven as a yet another resilient option, but glass canon Kabal and Cult as an afterthought.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I fully expect that there'll be a few "duds", and that they'll probably be either Xenos or Chaos related. At least we'll know how there going to be handling Eldar soon.

GW didn't seem to have a clear idea of the direction early 8th. The stride with 9th seems pretty consistent so far, which I imagine means they have a process. If they don't give CSM better traits again, well...

Or leaving us locked to character/infantry/biker again. (Did they at least fix that for DG?)

I think we have already had the dud and each codex released will be at least as good as Death Guard

Cynista wrote:
I think we have already had the dud and each codex released will be at least as good as Death Guard

What do you think is the dud ?

 Eldarain wrote:
Or leaving us locked to character/infantry/biker again. (Did they at least fix that for DG?)

Shooting into combat without penalty for vehicles and always counts stationary unless running, which I think doesn't really apply to much. Then the -1T aura. And a bunch of stat improvements.

 addnid wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
The anticipation is stressing me out......and I think that Drukhari is actually a particularly difficult codex to get 'right'.

It is going to be great. 10 point bikes hah hah, the best omen a faction has had in quite some time. Nah seriously they will probably mess this one up big time, GW don’t do glass canons too well. Probably the mutant stuff will be good with tons of defensive buffs and the rest will suck. They will play like deathwing and it will be a bad letdown

Up to one Scourge per 5 may take a Dark Lance. Up to one Scourge per 5 may take a Splinter Cannon. Up to one...

Dark (Eldar) days ahead, I fear.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I fully expect that there'll be a few "duds", and that they'll probably be either Xenos or Chaos related. At least we'll know how there going to be handling Eldar soon.

GW didn't seem to have a clear idea of the direction early 8th. The stride with 9th seems pretty consistent so far, which I imagine means they have a process. If they don't give CSM better traits again, well...

It'll just be business as usual. After playing Night Lords for two decades I've gotten used to being the underdog. Now even my vehicles cost CP.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Or leaving us locked to character/infantry/biker again. (Did they at least fix that for DG?)

Shooting into combat without penalty for vehicles and always counts stationary unless running, which I think doesn't really apply to much. Then the -1T aura. And a bunch of stat improvements.

The Legion trait works on everything except daemon engines, cultists, and Poxwalkers right? Good for my guys, not so much for other Legions. Lame. At least it might make that 1CP surcharge for a dreadnought or tank more worth it.

games-workshop teasing us with codex releases, rather being more logical, armies need their codex

It'll just be business as usual. After playing Night Lords for two decades I've gotten used to being the underdog. Now even my vehicles cost CP.

To be fair - that just means you're playing them "in-character". GW was helping you become a better narrative player.

Also, my Night Lords kill team that was supposed to be the beginnings of an actual army feels your pain. As do all 15,000 points of my Iron Warriors ....